Crimes of Obedience and Conformity in the Workplace: Surveys of Americans, Russians, and Japanese

Abstract

One outgrowth of Milgram's (1974) research is the study of public opinion about obedience norms. Extending Kelman and Hamilton's ( I 989) research on crimes of obedience in the military, this article explores crimes of obedience and crimes of conformity in the workplace. Random samples of the residents of Washington, DC, Moscow, Russia, and Tokyo, Japan were presented four vignettes about organizational wrongdoing. Manipulations included the influence situation (autonomy, conformity, or obedience) and the actor's position in the hierarchy (subordinate vs. midlevel authority). As expected, the actor's responsibility was greatest when he acted autonomously or was an authority. In addition, authorities were excused less than subordinates for having conformed or obeyed. Impacts of both influence situation and hierarchy were larger in Japan and Russia than in the United States. 67 0022-4537/Y5/(w00-07$03.00/1 0 IYYS The Society lor the Rychological Study 01 Social Issues Vaughan, D. ( 1983). Controlling unlawful organizational behavior: Social structure and corporate Cambridge University Press. Row. and Society Review. 24, 65 1-691. 96, 506-520. Press. misconduct. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. V. LEE HAMILTON is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park. She received her Ph.D. in social psychology in 1975 from Harvard University where she worked with Herbert Kelman. Their 1989 book, Crimes of Obedience, focused on how citizens judge the responsibility of others who carry out acts of destructive obedience (such as the My Lai massacre in Vietnam).Hamilton also has co-authored a second book, Everyday Justice, which deals with responsibility judgments. Her current research interests include authority and obedience, responsibility attribution, and the relationship between selfblame and mental health. She is presently drafting a book on the mental health impact of recent auto plant closings on workers.JOSEPH SANDERS received a Ph.D. in sociology and J.D. from Northwestern University. Presently, he is a professor of law at the University of

Normative Controls and Self‐Reported Counterproductive Behaviors in the Workplace in China

“…Most research on counterproductive behaviors at the workplace is conducted in Western countries. Despite the comprehensive coverage of studies carried out in Argentina, Canada, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, and the USA as reported in the special issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment (Ones, 2002), research on CPB in the Asian context is sparse (Hamilton & Sanders, 1995; Zhang, Messner, Lisak, Zhou, Krohn, Liu, & Lu, 2000). This study presents a modest contribution beyond these multi‐national studies.…”

“…Third, in contrast to people who act autonomously or those who are in authority, people who conform to norms or obey formal rules will be the least responsible for their improper behaviors because responsibility for each individual is diffused in a large group (Hamilton & Sanders, 1995). Thereby, employees will be more likely to commit CPB when they perceive their deviant behaviors as conforming to social pressure, or obeying organisational deviant norms.…”

Handbook of Justice Research in Law

“…In particular, people with different power distance orientations were found to differ in beliefs about the rights of authorities and in responses to injustices committed by them (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). However, a different view of the matter is presented in the Hamilton and Sanders (1995) studies. However, a different view of the matter is presented in the Hamilton and Sanders (1995) studies.…”

Children’s Reactions to Physical Disability: A Cross-national and Developmental Study

“…Japan was selected as the comparison country because of the discrepant beliefs Japanese and Americans are thought to hold regarding key impairmentrelated issues, such as autonomy (Hamilton & Sanders, 1995), dependency (Doi, 1973), and differentness (Crystal, Watanabe, & Chin, 1997). Also, hypothesised differences in relations between self and other which the two cultures are assumed to foster (e.g.…”