Obedience, Social Perception and Social Relations - Research Paper Example

? Concepts and Readings in Social Psychology Obedience Obedience to legitimate ity is the basis of the functioning of a number of systems that govern the smooth functioning of society (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Tailor; 1988). But history abounds in examples of how obedience has lead to large-scale destruction and mayhem. In an attempt to understand the reasons why people are wont to obey destructive commands; S. Milgram conducted a series of studies that are still considered controversial. In his 1863 study, Milgram recruited 40 male participants between the ages of 20 to 50 years who hailed from a number of different professions. These participants were paid to come to the laboratory for an experiment that tested the effect of punishment on learning. The selection condition was manipulated such that the participants were chosen each time as ‘teachers’ and confederates as learners. The participants were asked to teach the learner a list of paired associates and administer shocks of varying magnitude from a special instrument to the learners when they made mistakes. The shocks were preset in magnitude from 10 to 450 volts into 30 levels (which served as levels for the independent variable); and each subsequent mistake earned a shock of higher magnitude. The highest level of shock that the participants would be willing to administer was considered as a measure of the dependent variable. The participants were assured that they could leave the experiment when they wanted; but it was observed that 26 out of 40 participants fully obeyed the experimenter’s commands; even in the face of causing extreme pain to the ‘learner’. The lowest level of maximum shock (beyond which the participant refused to participate) was 300volts. Participants typically showed a variety of symptoms of discomfort and distress throughout the experiment; but continued nevertheless. In another study, Milgram (1965) published the conclusions collected from a series of studies. Across the various studies; Milgram manipulated two more independent variables – the proximity to the learner; and the proximity of the supervisor. It was found that as the proximity between the participant and the supposed learner increased (across 4 levels); there was a significant reduction in the mean magnitude of the shock that the participant was willing to administer to the learner. On the other hand; the proximity to the supervisor produced the opposite reaction; wherein the closer the supervisor, the more likely was the participant to administer the next higher level of shock regardless of his own opinion. It was also observed that when the proximity to either the supervisor (authority0 or learner changed in the middle of the experiment; the participant adjusted their response accordingly. The Milgram studies have been criticized to a great extent by various authorities (Myers, 2006) on the basis that they were unethical in the way the participants were exposed to potential psychological trauma. Incidentally, Milgram found support from the participants, who did mention that participation in the study helped them in the long run rather than hurt them (Myers, 2006). From these and more studies, we find that people find it difficult to disobey orders; especially direct orders. Also, a number of factors govern the extent to with obedience will be shown. The emotional proximity to the victim; the proximity of an authority figure; and the legitimacy of that authority figure are all factors that play a role in when people try to resolve dilemmas about whether to obey or disobey a command. Padgett (1989), Klineke, (1977), Karkow & Blass (1995) and Ornstien (1991) among others have shown the extent to which these effects occur in a number of different conditions, including in the military, medical practice, public occasions and in the presence of the police (Myers, 2006). References Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.  Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, Vol 18(1), 57-76. Conformity Baron & Byrne (2009) define conformity as the process by which people change their individual attitudes or behaviors in order to fall in line with other, existing ones. Conformity occurs in places where the end result is valuable to the individual; but also in the most unpredictable of conditions. The studies by Sherif (1935) and Asch (1956) underline this occurrence. Sherif (1935) wished to study if the ambiguity of the events can cause individuals to fall in with others. In his experiment, he recruited college students to participate in a study that was touted to understand perceptual ability. The study actually studied the effect of a social comparison other on response of the participant. The student participants were asked to sit in a dark room and a single point of light was shown. The participants were required to estimate the extent to which the light moved. The study used an illusion called the auto kinetic effect in which stationery stimuli seem to be in motion. Thus, the light was actually stationery; but in the dark room, the participants perceived it as moving; Initial estimates of movement given by participants varied widely from subject to subject. These were treated as baseline values. In the next leg of the experiment, another ‘subject’ was introduced into the room, who was actually a confederate who consistently made judgments that were either higher or lower than that of the participant. Over the set of trials, the participant’s response changed such that their response came closer to that of the confederate – i.e. – if the confederate gave a higher value, the participant raised their estimate; and if the confederate gave a lower value, the participant lowered their response. In another study by Asch (1956), the effect was seen even in non-ambiguous situations. In this experiment, student participants were asked to select one from a set of stimuli which was the same as an originally presented stimulus. Participants were organized in groups of 5 (although in reality, the first four were confederates and there was only one true participant. They were then presented with a stimulus like a line drawn on a paper; and then shown another set of stimuli (lines of various lengths) And asked to select the one that matched the original. Initially, everyone selected the same answer. But from the third trial, the confederates (who answered first) deliberately gave the wrong response. It was found that 35% of the responses given by the participant were wrong also; although in a separate interview they confessed to having doubts about their responses to these trials. The study did find that some people were able to hold out against the pressure to confirm and never gave the wrong answer; while some always gave the wrong answer in spite of knowing that it was wrong. The same subjects, in individual tests chose the right answer 100% of the times. More recent studies by Brown (1998), Baron et al (1996) and Buchler & Griffin (19940 among many others have shown that such conformity occurs due to the individuals need to be liked; by their need to be accepted, and their need to be right. There is an assumption that there is safety and truth in numbers; and people tend to feel the need to behave in manners similar to that of others. This tendency has its dangers; like the increased suicidal ideation observed by Jonas (1992; in Myers, 2006) after news about actual suicides and Phillips (1982; in Myers, 2006) after popular dramas on television aired episodes containing suicides of characters. Given such tendencies, there is merit in encouraging an individualistic viewpoint about such sensitive topics. References Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187) . Social Perception A number of processes are at work when attempting to make sense of the world. People try to understand the reasons for the actions of others; and ascribe motivations to their behaviors. Often in the process of doing this, actions of others are attributed to their internal motivations like thoughts, feelings and choices; while negative actions of the self are attributed to external factors like luck, chance and commands. This phenomenon is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977; in Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Tailor; 1988). This phenomenon was studied by Jones & Harris (1967). They asked randomly assigned subjects to one of 4 conditions in which they listened to essays about Fidel Castro written by students. In the first condition they were told that the students had written pro – Castro, and had chosen the topic, and in the second condition, they still wrote pro Castro, but were not given a choice. In the third condition they were supposed to have chosen to write anti Castro; while in the fourth, it was stated that they were asked to write anti Castro. Given the social environment; it was believed that the two independent variables – the direction of the writing and the possibility of choice would influence the extent to which attributions were made to the students’ own motivations. The results showed that in both the pro- Castro conditions, the percentage of subjects who attributed the essays to internal motivations were far higher than in the anti – Castro conditions. Even in the no choice condition; the attributions to internal factors was far higher. Another significant study was conducted by Ross, Michael; Sicoly, Fiore in 1979. It consisted of a set of five different sub – studies conducted with different populations like undergraduate students, married couples, and basketball players. The researchers asked groups of participants to work together on a group product that met certain criteria. Once they were done, they were asked to rate the extent to which they contributed to the success of the group activity and the extent to which each of the other participants were responsible for the same. They found that people were more likely to attribute success to their own tasks then the group’s overall rating for them. It was also found that the individual participants were better able to recall their own positive actions and feedback, than they could do for others. This study brings out the other element of the fundamental attribution error. It helps underline that while we are likely to attribute the perceivably negative actions of others to their internal factors; we are also likely to attribute positive actions of our own to internal factors. White and Younger (1988; in Myers, 2006) found a number of instances in which this occurred in daily life. Later research has found that this tendency reduces with time. Burger (1991; in Baron & Byrne, 2009)) and Burger and Pavelich (1993) found that as time passed, people were more likely to revise their ratings to form a more accurate picture. Jones (1966; in Myers 2006) has postulated that the Fundamental Attribution error can be explained by the differences in perspective and situational knowledge. References Michael, R., Fiore, S. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 37(3), pp. 322-336.  Jones, E.E., Harris, V.A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.3(1), P. 1-24. Common References Myers, D. G. (2007). Exploring social psychology (4th ed.). New York, United States of America: McGraw-Hill. Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.  Taylor, S.E., Peplau, A.L., Freedman, J.L. & Sears, D.O. (1988). Social Psychology (12th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More