If you have enjoyed these pages or found them useful, you may like to donate. Even the smallest donation helps with the site’s running costs.
Charles Hofling, Eveline Brotzman, Sarah Dalrymple, Nancy Graves & Chester M Pierce, 1966
AIMS: to investigate aspects of the nurse-
A secondary aim was to see whether nurses were aware of how obedient they tended to be.
PROCEDURE (METHOD): 3 psychiatric hospitals in the American Midwest took part in this study, with one of them acting as a control.
22 uncomprehending nurses from the other two hospitals were used for the experiment
While alone on the ward on night duty -
The researcher playing Doctor Smith used a written script to standardise the conversation
and all conversations were recorded. The conversation was planned to end when either:-
A researcher (a real doctor) stopped nurses that were moving towards the patient’s bed with the ‘medication’ and all nurses were debriefed within 30 minutes of the telephone conversation. The researcher offered ‘psychiatric first aid’ and played back the audiotape of the call during an unstructured interview.
12 graduate nurses and 21 student nurses from the control hospital completed questionnaire about what they would do if they were asked to administer a medicine unauthorised for use on their ward by a doctor they didn’t know.
FINDINGS (RESULTS): The telephone conversations were generally brief without much resistance from the nurses. 16 nurses in debrief said they felt they should have been more resistant to the caller. None became hostile to the caller.
21 of the 22 nurses started to administer the Astroten.
During the debrief only 11 nurses admitted to being aware of the dosage limits for
Astroten. The other 10 did not notice it but judged that it must be safe anyway if
a doctor had ordered them to administer it. Nearly all admitted they should not have
followed the orders as they were in contravention of hospital policy – viz:-
However, many of the nurses stated obeying a doctor’s orders without question was a fairly common occurrence. 15 nurses said they could recall similar incidents and that doctors were displeased if nurses resisted their orders.
Amongst the control group, 10 of the 12 graduate nurses and all 21 students said they would not have administered the medication. Most believed other nurses would behave in the same way.
One nurse questioned the identity of the observer/researcher and why he was on the ward.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses will knowingly break hospital rules in a way that endangers a patient’s life, if given orders by a doctor.
CRITICISMS (EVALUATION): The study has high ecological validity. The nurses were
unaware of the set-
Population validity was high as the nurses were simply those on duty at the time. However, from a 40+ years retrospective viewpoint, it could be argued that the study suffers from historical bias and cultural bias as people in the USA at the time were more likely to obey authority than people from other cultures.
Charles Hofling’s study had high experimental validity – in other words, it did test what it set out to test: the nurse/doctor relationship.
The experiment had high reliability. It was run 22 times, with the procedure and conditions the same each time. The results were very similar each time. However, as with any field study, it is hard to control all of the variables and some of the nurses may have been distracted or busy such that they reacted to Doctor Smith’s call without thinking. Against this possibility must be weighed the fact that Hoffling had an observer (the real doctor) on each ward to signal when the time was most appropriate to commence the study.
The results support Stanley Milgram’s Agency Theory. The nurses’ actions indicated they were in an agentic state, recognising and responding to the doctor’s authority.
The principal criticisms of Hofling’s study lie in the ethical issues:-
Steven Rank & Cardell Jacobson (1977) queried the facts that the nurses had no knowledge of the drug involved and that they had no opportunity to seek advice from anyone of equal or higher status. (Both of which would apply in most hospital situations.)
They replicated Hofling’s experiment but the instruction was to administer Valium at 3 times the recommended level, the telephoned instruction came from a real, known doctor on the hospital staff and the nurses were able to consult with other nurses before proceeding. Under these conditions, only 2 out of 18 nurses prepared the medication as requested.
Rank & Jacobsen concluded: “nurses aware of the toxic effects of a drug and allowed to interact naturally – will not administer a medication overdose merely because a physician orders it.”
However, Eliot Smith & Diane MacKie (1995) reported that there is a daily 12% error rate in US hospitals and that “many researchers attribute such problems largely to the unquestioning deference to authority that doctors demand and nurses accept.”
The same year Annamarie Krackow & Thomas Blass gave a questionnaire to 68 nurses which asked about the last time they had disagreed with a doctor’s order. 2 factors emerged as key to whether the nurses would or wouldn’t obey. Most importantly was whether the nurses recognised the doctor as a legitimate authority with the right to make the decision in question. However, the nurses were also influenced by the consequences for the patient; if these would be serious, the nurses were more likely to take responsibility and challenge the order.
|The Thriving Organisation|
|Value Systems as Foresight Frameworks|
|The 7th Code|
|What makes People vote Republican?|
|Process of Change|
|Psychosexual Fixations & Personality|
|Biological Impetus to Attachment|
|Stages of Infant Attachment|
|Theories of Attachment|
|Attachment in Infant Monkeys|
|Strange Situation Study|
|Attachment Cross-Cultural Variations|
|Sensitivity vs Temperament|
|44 Juvenile Thieves|
|Romanian Orphans Investigation|
|What is Love?|
|4 Other Factors|
|Formation of Relationships|
|Human Reproductive Behaviour|
|Cross-Cultural Mate Preferences|
|Maintenance of Relationships|
|Dissolution of Relationships|
|The Love Quiz|
|So What is a MeshWORK?|
|When BLUE fails, call for Clint!|
|Underclass: the Excreta of Capitalism|
|Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour|
|Learning & Education|
|Build a MeshWORK|
|Conformity - Majority Influence|
|Asch's Lines Experiment|
|Minority Influence & Conformity Factors|
|Stanford Prison Experiment|
|The Milgram Experiment|
|Milgram & Validity|
|The Milgram Variations|
|Hofling & His Nurses|
|Prejudice & Discrimination|
|Biological Factors in Crime|
|Psychological Factors in Crime|
|Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development|
|Sociological Factors in Crime|
|Gang Membership and Teenage Offending|
|How the Brain develops the Mind|
|A Downward Spiral...|
|Potential Spiral Strategies|
|Good Boys gone Bad...?|
|Different Values: Different Democracy|
|The Misunderstood Dynamics of Global Change|
|Innovation & Values|
|Values & Development|
|Developing Countries, Democracy & Values|
|Killing the Terrorists|
|EU: an Organisation divided by Values|
|Stratified Democracy vs Modernisation Theory|
|Is Collectivism being overtaken by Individualism?|
|On Being Sane in Insane Places|
|Diagnosis of Depression|
|Depression - Biological|
|Depression - Psychological|
|Social Support, Self-Esteem & Depression|
|Depression - Evolutionary|
|What is Stress?|
|Stress & Illness|
|Stress and the Immune System|
|Stress and the Western Collaborative Group Study|
|Stress & Individual Differences|
|Sources of Stress|
|Life Changes & Stress|
|Johansson's Swedish Saw Mill Workers|
|Marmot's Stressed Civil Servants|
|Knowing Me, Knowing You|
|The SME Spiral|
|Shades of Leadership|
|From Rule Britiannia...to Integral Britannia|
|The West and Russia|
|What they've said...|
|Case Studies - Business|
|Case Studies - Education|
|Case Studies - Local Government|
|Case Studies - Individuals|
|Consultancy: Advice & Support|
|A Company by Neurological Levels|
|North Lincolnshire CIT|
|'James' & 'Alan'|
|21st Century Group|