The Field of Social Psychology - Essay Example

?Social Psychology “Human beings are intrinsically motivated to conform and to obey ity” Introduction: The field of social psychology entails the study of individuals and the manner in which they are influenced, by others in the social groups. It is often observed that individuals are usually influenced by others and the same has been the focus of study of psychologists in the past couple of decades, especially with regard to the issues related to ‘conformity’ and ‘obedience’. The trend was mostly observed during the post war era, where researchers mostly were interested in understanding the psychology of people who showed increased levels of conformity and obedience to their authorities. This observation was primarily based on the Nazi concentration camps and the likes, where despite the immorality of the acts, people were seen to be submissive and obeying the orders given to them (Kassin, Fein, Markus, 2010; Smith, Mackie, 2000; Fiske, 2009). Although we as humans, are taught to learn and think for ourselves various factors exist, which tend to influence our independent thinking and coerce us to follow the more socially acceptable norms. This paper discusses the various popular experiments conducted during that era, and deduces, based on the observations, whether human beings are naturally built to submit to authority and comply with the rules laid down for them, or is it a case of exception rather than the norm. Finally, it concludes that human beings do have a tendency to be intrinsically motivated to conform to authority and to obey authority. Conformity refers to the transformation in behaviour or attitudes of people triggered by the need / desire to pursue the beliefs or standards set by others. It entails following the group ideologies, by totally ignoring or disregarding personal opinions. Obedience on the other hand, merely implies obeying the instructions / orders. These two concepts can be studied or explained in a better manner by way of various experiments carried out by researchers such as Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo and the likes (Andersen, Taylor, 2007). According to a study conducted by Asch, (1951): a group of individuals were involved in an experiment to study the issues related to ‘conformity’ and the manner in which individuals behave / react in a given situation. The basic objective of the experiment was to observe the reactions of the participants and substantiate the hypotheses developed by the researchers with regard to ‘conformity’. However, for the purpose of this experiment the participants were mislead into believing that they were being involved in a study on ‘visual perception’ and kept the true purpose of the experiment, a secret. They were seated in a room along with a few stooges (i.e. individuals who were part of the team of the researchers conducting the experiment) who were made to pose as participants. The participants were shown lines on a screen and were asked to point out which one out of the three was of the same length as the target line. However, their responses were manipulated by the three stooges, who deliberately made mistakes by providing wrong answers. The purpose behind such an experiment was to measure the number of times the participants were influenced in their decisions / answers, by the responses of the stooges (Andersen, Taylor, 2007; Weiten, 2008). The method used by Asch seems quite artificial in its approach as it lacks validity. This is because the participants are required to conform when a correct answer actually exists. Disagreements do occur in everyday lives when there are hardly any right or wrong answers hence this approach seems highly illogical and invalid. Furthermore the results derived from the same may not be consistent in the long run, which is evident from the subsequent experiments conducted by British researchers Perrin and Spencer (Cox, 2002). It is also argued that Asch’s experiments were conducted at a time when the nation was exposed to an external environment which generated high levels of conformity for instance the experiment was conducted in a post war era, where the majority of the population was highly vary of the communist aggression which affected their levels of conformity. The subsequent experiments however, were conducted at a time when the levels of conformity among the citizens had fallen substantially, especially in the wake of the strong public protests against the Vietnam war, which generated enough confidence among the people to oppose the majority decisions and express their own independent opinions, in a fearless manner (Fermaglich, 2007; ). Furthermore, with respect to the ethics, the participants in Asch’s experiments were hardly given any opportunity to give their consent and there was a clear case of deception, implied by the use of stooges whose main purpose was to mislead the participants. Although the participants were later on informed regarding the experiment and the use of stooges, it is highly likely that such revelations, post the experiment, could have harmed the participants psychologically and suffered a setback with regard to their self-esteem and self-confidence and a certain degree of embarrassment. Milgram’s experiment: According to another experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram to study the issues related to ‘conformity and obedience’ shocks were used on participants, ranging from 15 to 450 volts. This is regarded as one of the most notorious experiments by far, within the psychology field, where the psychologist attempted to prove his hypothesis that individuals would obey the authority figures even when the instructions given to them were morally and ethically wrong. The experiment was conducted at a time when ethics had hardly any place within the field of psychology, however when compared to the modern standards, the experiment seems outrageous (Weiten, 2008). Various questions were raised regarding the ethics and morality of the methods applied by Milgram, such as deception; physical and psychological harm to the participants; fairness etc. The participants involved in the experiment could suffer irreparable psychological harm, especially since they were made to torture other individuals despite knowing that such an act is unethical and immoral in nature, and may result in long lasting emotional scarring and guilt. Although follow up experiments confirmed that there were no such consequences / negative psychological repercussions post the experiment, the fact that it could have had a serious emotional impact on the participants cannot be denied. Furthermore it is also highly likely that post this experience; participants would be reluctant to participate in such experiments in the future or would be highly sceptical of being part of such experiments (Weiten, 2008; Baumeister, Bushman, 2007). Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment: This experiment was conducted to study the psychological impact of prison life on the prisoners. As a part of this experiment, regular students were chosen to enact the roles of prison guards and prisoners and were made to undergo the exact same routines, as is normally observed in prisons. Newspaper advertisements were officially given out to invite ‘participants’ to participate in the experiment, and those who responded were ‘arrested’ without a prior warning and checked thoroughly. Such sudden arrests of the regular college going students, took them by surprise and the students were reported to experience mild shock, and humiliation due to the whole exercise (prisonexp.org, 2011). The experiment was deliberately designed to emulate the scenes from actual prisons and steps were taken to humiliate the prisoners, resulting in a series of psychological consequences. Although the study did not involve deception of any kind, unlike as observed in the above two experiments, the study was considered highly unethical in nature. The participants were physically and emotionally harmed and put into situations which involved considerable stress. Furthermore, although the participants were previously informed about the experiment, and their consents duly taken, they were not exposed to the exact procedures which were likely to be included as a part of this experiment. The arrests were sudden and uninformed which was not expected by the participants (Shaugnessy et al., 2006). Furthermore, there were strong criticisms regarding the validity of the study, as in view of certain critics, replicating such an experiment is highly impossible and unlikely, thus restricting the testing of the hypothesis or claims made by the researcher. Furthermore, it was also criticised on the grounds of the study being highly generalized, a fact which can be observed from studying the prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. Also, it was argued that the study replicated the behaviour of popular prison scenes, and what is usually observed in prisons, hence stereotyping the entire situation, resulting in non-substantial and invalid results (Citro et al., 2003). Moscovici experiment on minority influence This experiment was conducted as a response to the severe criticisms faced by the conformity researchers regarding the validity of the social contexts within which their studies were carried out. According to Moscovici and Faucheux (1972) the studies conducted by Asch highlighted the role played by the minorities in influencing the decision of the majority. In order to test the impact of minority influence, Moscovici conducted an experiment which involved the use of small groups whereby the results demonstrated that minority influence can play a key role in converting the private (inner) beliefs of individuals if they attributed competence to the minority (Altman, 2006; Hayes, 2000). Unlike in the previous experiments conducted to establish the impact of ‘conformity and obedience’ Mosovici’s experiments were centered on establishing the influence of minorities in expressing their inner beliefs, against the beliefs of the majority. Mascovici's experiments argued that majority influence is primarily based on public compliance / conformity. This is mainly on account of the normative social influence and hence numbers / quantity plays a key role in influencing the opinions / actions of individuals. Furthermore, it is also a well known fact that the majority hardly care about how they are perceived by the minorities and hence it is highly unlikely that the minority influence is based on normative social influence, on the contrary, it is based on informational social influence. He pointed out that one of the key factors that can help the minorities in changing the opinions and beliefs of the majority is 'consistency'. If the minorities are consistent in their beliefs and stick to it, it may help in attracting attention of the majority and ultimately influencing them. Opposition from the minority often helps, as it asserts the self-confidence of the minorities, who dare to take a stand against the majority. This helps them get noticed and force the majority to reconsider their opinions (de Dreu, 2001; Fiske, Gilbert, Lindzey, 2010). Types of Conformity: According to Kelman (1958) there are three basic types of conformity: Compliance, Internalization and Identification. They are listed and discussed below (Russell, 2008): Compliance refers to the manner in which individuals follow the majority opinion and go along with their opinions publicly, although internally, they may have their own views which are different than those of the majority. This is commonly observed where individuals tend to agree on certain issues such as a famous celebrity, a favourite movie or a singer, just to be accepted among their peers at the same time withholding information regarding their actual favourites, which are different than those who are commonly liked by others. Internalisation refers to the fact the manner in which individuals assume, accept and embrace the views of others both publicly as well as privately, unlike as is observed in the above situation. For instance, a person who is confused about his/her views on certain critical issues may tend to adapt to the views of others simply because they are themselves confused about the issue, and hence readily agree and accept the views of others who seem to know / have knowledge about that particular issue. Identification: This refers to the process whereby the individual conforms to the role that they are expected to play in a society and act accordingly. The individual in this case adapts his/her behaviour in accordance with the standards which are generally acceptable in society in order to be accepted as a part of the larger social group, and establish their own identity. Furthermore, there are other two types of conformity which are derived based on Sheriff’s experiment and Asch’s study, namely: private and public conformity. The former refers to the acceptance of beliefs privately or internally although the individual generally pretends to accept the beliefs of others publicly. The latter, on the other hand, entails a situation whereby the individuals tend to bring about a superficial change in them to be accepted as a part of the larger social circle, and a corresponding change in their own beliefs, due to imagined / perceived group or peer-pressure (Kassin, Fein, Markus, 2010). Difference between conformity and obedience: Conformity refers to willingly adapting to the views and opinions of others while Obedience entails some degree of authority, where the individuals are made to follow the instructions of the authorities. Conformity is an act of pleasing others and is highly voluntary in nature, while Obedience is an act of compliance with rules / laws such as obeying the traffic laws, or the rules laid down by the government etc. Also, conformity entails the desire of individuals to be accepted by their peers, the basic motive here, is to be liked or fit in with the larger group while with regard to Obedience on the other hand, it is done mostly to avoid negative consequences such as fines, or punishment. Ethical Considerations: Various ethical principles are developed by the British Psychological Society which must be adhered to, by researchers while conducting experiments. These include (bris.ac.uk, 2011): - Consent: The researcher is required to seek express consent of the participants and they must be informed about all the procedures and objectives of the investigation / the study they are likely to participate in. Furthermore, they must also be informed regarding the various methods to be used, their consequences, and explain the research in detail. Proper safeguarding techniques and measures must be implemented to ensure the safety of the participants. In case of Zimbardo’s experiment, the participants did give their informed consent, however their knowledge regarding the actual procedure with which such an experiment would be conducted was fairly limited. The participants had partial information regarding their likely treatment as prisoners, however, they were unaware regarding the surprise arrests and the thorough checking, which subjected them to shock and humiliation. Thus the consent in this case, was partially informed (Clemson, 2001). - Deception: The researcher must not withhold any crucial information from the participants since it would be considered as misleading them. Also, the participants must be provided adequate and appropriate consultation if they are in doubt regarding any aspect of the experiment. Intentional deception of participants must be avoided at all costs and the methods applied must be medically justified. The series of obedience experiments conducted by researchers such as Asch, Milgram as well as Zimbardo involved deception as the participants weren’t informed regarding the actual purpose of the study and were clueless regarding its consequences (Cardwell, Flanagan, 2005). - Debriefing: The participants must be informed regarding the results and consequences of the study, or the outcomes that are likely to be expected, the benefits likely to be accrued from such an experiment. Furthermore, the researcher must attempt to understand the experience of the participants during the course of the study. The experiments conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo lacked proper debriefing as the participants were uninformed regarding the actual repercussions of their ‘consent’. - Confidentiality: The participants' identity must be protected, and all or any information accessed from them, must be kept discreet, unless otherwise agreed mutually. The participants must not under any circumstances, be forced or coerced to reveal, share or disclose personal information and if published, it must be done so anonymously to protect their identities. - Protection of participants: The researchers must ensure that adequate steps are taken to safeguard the participants from physical, emotional or psychological harm as a result of participating in the study. Both Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments entailed physical, emotional and psychological distress. Although the follow up studies confirmed that the participants did not suffer any trauma, post the experiments, due care should be taken in such studies. Analyse whether the understanding gained by the research outweighs the psychological harm caused to the participants (this heading is intended solely for your convenience): Participants in most social psychology experiments are mostly deceived at some level, by withholding of critical information about the conditions involved or by not revealing the psychological and physical stress involved and the likes. Deception, with regard to such matters is of crucial significance to the researchers as they help them in observing the participants in a neutral manner and help them in their research. However, concerns regarding the emotional, physical and psychological safety and well-being of the participants are often raised due to the nature of the experiments. Although research ethics do prohibit and hence succeed in safeguarding the well-being of the participants, the resultant damage to them cannot be prevented or completely eliminated. In the experiments discussed in the previous sections of this paper the participants were reported to have suffered no damage whatsoever and the researchers were successfully able to derive the desired results to prove their hypothesis. Hence it can be safely presumed / concluded that if proper safety measures are implemented by the researchers, and the appropriate disclosures in accordance with research ethics are made, to the participants the knowledge and understanding gained by the researchers through such experiments are undeniably valuable. However, under no circumstances, can such knowledge outweigh the harm caused to human lives. Conclusion: On the basis of the various studies discussed above, it can be stated that the concept of obedience to authority is largely dependent on various factors such as validity and resistance. The concept of obedience is heavily dependent on the social influence, as is evident from Milgram's experiments where the obedience level changed (dropped drastically) with a little change in the situational factors. Resistance is another key factor which defines the manner in which individuals comply with rules and / or authority. The minority influence study conducted by Moscovici, highlights the significance of this factor and suggests that minority opinions if consistent, can help in influencing the majority opinions. In conclusion, although experiments such as the minority influence study conducted by Moscovici, suggest that resistance and consistency in portrayal of one’s beliefs, by minorities do have the power to influence the opinions of the majority, a majority of the human beings will succumb or submit to the authority merely because they desire to be accepted or fit-in with the larger social group (i.e. the majority) and hence the statement, “Human beings are intrinsically motivated to conform and to obey authority” holds true. References: Altman, M., (2006). Handbook of contemporary behavioral economics: Foundations and developments, M. E. Sharpe Publications, Pp. 335 Andersen, M. L., Taylor, H. F., (2007). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society, CENGAGE Learning Publication, Pp. 146 - 147 Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., (2007). Social Psychology and Human Nature, Cengage Learning Publication, Pp. 266-67 Cardwell, M., Flanagan, C., (2005). Psychology AS: The complete comparison, Nelson Thornes Publication, Pp. 195-199 Citro, C. F., Ilgen, D. R., Marrett, C. B., (2003). National Research Council (U.S.) Panel on Institutional Review Boards, Surveys, and Social Science Research, Committee on National Statistics, National Academies Press, Pp. 65-70 Clemson, W., (2001). Science: Key stage 1, Nelson Thornes Publication, Pp. 113-114 Cox, E., (2002). AS Psychology for AQA Specification B., Oxford University Press, PP. 153-154 de Dreu, C. K. W., (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications and innovation, Wiley-Blackwell Publication, Pp. 21-24 Fermaglich, K., (2007). American dreams and Nazi nightmares: Early Holocaust Consciousness and liberal America, UPNE Publication, Pp. 93-95 Fiske, S. T., (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology, John Wiley and Sons Publication, PP. 4-5 Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., Lindzey, G., (2010). Handbook of social psychology, John Wiley and Sons Publication, Pp. 1186-87 Hayes, N., (2000). Foundations of psychology, CENGAGE Learning publication, Pp. 529-560 Kassin, S., Fein, S., Markus, H. R., (2010). Social Psychology, CENGAGE Learning Publications, Pp. 6-7, 258 - 260 Russell, J., (2008). Exploring Psychology, Folens Publications, Pp. 157-158 Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2006). Research Methods in Psychology Seventh Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill. Smith, E. R., Mackie, D. M., (2000). Social Psychology, Psychology Press Publication, Pp. 8-9 Weiten, W., (2008). Psychology: Themes and Variations, CENGAGE Learning Publication, Pp. 690-692 Prisonexp.org (2011). Stanford Prison Experiment [Online] Available at: http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology [Accessed: June 1, 2011] bris.ac.uk, (2011). Ethical principles for conducting research with human participants, [Online] Available at: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/DeafStudiesTeaching/dissert/BPS%20Ethical%20Guidelines.htm [Accessed: June 1, 2011] Read More