Obedience and Conformity to Authority - Essay Example

Obedience and Conformity to ity Introduction To obey means to follow directly the orders from an individual.In most cases, the obeyed person is in authority or a powerful position. Following instructions even without agreeing with them or the ideologies of the authority is compliance. Conformity is a form of obedience that refers to adopting particular attitudes, thinking and behaviors of a group or a person, even if they are against the persons’ ideologies and inclinations. Sometimes conforming is driven by a desire to belong to a certain movement or group. The interactions in the society sometimes demands obedience and conformity from an individual, not necessarily because the person is in support of what they are obeying and conforming to but because the authority is involved. Social Psychology Social psychology is a discipline in the broad field of psychology that tries to explore how people think about, feel, power and relate to one another in a social setting. It helps explain the various impressions that people have of one another and why prejudices and stereotypes develop and flourish in a society. The disciplines recognize the fact that nobody can live entirely for themselves alone, people periodically move out of their own lives into those of other people usually unconsciously and this has an effect of both parties directly or indirectly. Obedience to authorities and to social groupings is also recognized as part of the social psychology (McLeod, 2008). In a society, people often influence one another in many different ways. The three main strategies of social influence are manipulation of the norm of reciprocity also known as the standard or returning gifts, the lowball technique and the feigned scarcity. Persuasion is the main strategy that is used by authority to change people’s attitude. The success of persuasion depends on the credibility and likeability of the source and the channel, the clarity and transparency of the information and the impression that the information creates in the receiver. However, there are instances where persuasion is not based on freedom of choice. This is known as the persuasion by coercion. It limits people freedom and tries to convince the people that it is in their interest not to reason. In some cases people are subjected to emotionally or physically stressing situations to comply (McLeod, 2008). The Social Psychological Theories There are more than ten social psychology theories recognized today. This wide variety of theories describes various forms of social cognition. They are, therefore, developed to describe a particular social situation. The attribution theory is involved in the explanation of how people describe or attribute other people’s behavior, the cognitive dissonance theory is based on the consistency of the cognition and related directly to self-concept theory, the self-verification theory explores the ideal desire that people have to be known or recognized by others, the social exchange theory is mainly socioeconomic and postulates that human social relationships are based on the analysis and recognition of cost-benefit. The social identity theory examines how groupings affect perception and view of others. Social penetration theory explains how interpersonal relationships in social settings develop and grow to become intimate and deep. All these theories can be used to explain the concepts of obedience and conformity to the authority (McLeod, 2008). This is because they all look into the interpersonal relationships and interactions between individuals and the perceptions that arise from these interactions. It is in these interactions that the authority is seen as a player and hence the theories in each aspect of interaction can be used to describe the conformity and obedience to authority. Obedience and Conformity Obedience refers to the aspect of compliance with commands given by the authority. Obedience is increased when the authority is in close relationship with the participants and when the commands are given by the figure himself rather than a volunteer. Men are more likely to obey orders when the obedience is connected to rewards. This is because they want to avoid the negative impacts of disobeying, and because they recognize the authority as legitimate. In extreme circumstances, individuals obey even when they are required to forego own principles or commit crimes. Many factors are thought to cause people to take obedience to such extremes. First, some individuals tend to justify their own behaviors by making it look like the authority is responsible and not themselves. Secondly, people want to label their expected behavior as routine. Thirdly, disobedience is regarded as rudeness and an offence to the authority and the state. Fourthly, obedience occurs as a process whereby a person tends to go deeper into obedience, a process called entrapment (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Whereas obedience occurs as a form of social power, conformity happens as a result of social pressure and as a norm of the majority. The impact to conform is a result of one’s acceptance and willingness to be affected by other people’s opinions about something that is real. Similar to obedience, conformity is strengthened by many factors that are usually of interest to the authority. An individual is first made insecure and a feeling of incompetence created in him her, then the idea to which the individual is expected to conform is presented by a group that the individual perceives as important and influential. When a person conforms, he or she gives in to real or perceived pressure. The need to conform is the willingness to be accepted as a member in a group, it is in the group that information is provided and they can receive social rewards of protection (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Social Identity Theory Social identity theory was coined by Henri Tajfel in 1979. It describes individual’s sense of identity as basing on their groupings. These groupings such according to the theory are family, social groups, professional groups and teams in which people belong and feel important. They are a crucial source of pride and self-esteem. To increase the social image, a person is forced to enhance the status of the group or holding prejudice and stereotypes against a rival group. The process of creating a social identity has several steps, the categorization stage in which case an individual categorize themselves and others and stereotype the groups. The second stage is social identification. The individual adopts an identity for the developed groups. On the creation of the identity, the individual is expected to behave in a certain way and assume certain behaviors. The third stage is social comparison. Individuals tend to achieve self-esteem through comparison with other groups. This creates rivalry and is the cause of positive competition (McLeod, 2008). According to this theory, obedience and conformity to the authority is a direct result of groupings. A person who identifies with a particular group will be inclined to obey and follow the ideologies of that group even when he or she would have opposed them. The authority has, therefore, to ensure that the people are rendered helpless and lacking in options in order for them to obey and be compliant (McLeod, 2008). Tajfel and Turner explain that the motivating principle of the competitive behavior between groups is the need for positive and secure self-concept. This will, therefore, mean that a person will be obedient to the group ideas only because when the group to which he or she belong wins, the individual gains a secure self-concept. People, therefore, appear always to consider their groups as the good groups and the others the opposite their groups as the good groups and the others the opposite. Because groups are competitively comparing with one another, the individual member must comply with the group’s ideologies and perform as would be expected in order to achieve and maintain the social distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Obedience and conformity to the authority are basic components of all human social interactions and organization. Every aspect of any society must develop hierarchies in which some members have a degree of authority over the rest. For example, a teacher in the classroom has legitimate authority over the students as doing police officers over the public. Without this social arrangement, it is difficult for any society to function. However, at times, private beliefs, perception and compliance with those in authority create a situation of conflict. This has been the case in every society for many years and has posed a real problem to the philosophical and religious attempts to provide a resolution. The issue of obedience to authority can in fact be traced back to the biblical story of Abraham. When directed by God to kill Isaac his son, this faithful servant was torn between love and obedience (McLeod, 2008). Obedience and conformity to the authority have been taken to an extent where it has been studied through experimentation. Milgram is one social psychologist who did an experiment for this. He provided his listeners with a case scenario which involved allowing them to consider the case of a dilemma between obedience for a reward and acting to what they perceived as right and safe for another person. Milgram provided a scenario where a subject depicted to be a learner would be electrocuted in increasing voltage for a wrong answer from the teacher. From a verbal scenario, the listeners indicated that they would not electrocute the subject beyond a harmful level. However, when the experiment was done, more that 60% of the ‘teachers” were willing to give the lethal electrocution even though they perceived it to be very painful. Although the shocks were not real, the obedience observed was amazing. This has been translated by scholars to show how willing a normal person would be to kill a stranger just because the authority has directed so. When this experiment was repeated in other places, a shocking up to 85% compliance of the teacher was observed (Milgram, 1974). Zimbardos prison experiment examined the ideas further through studying the destructive behavior of groups of men over a long period. The participants were students randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners in a mock prison. Different from Milgrams studies, Zimbardo wanted to observe the interaction inside and between the two groups with no authority present authority. The results were again shocking, the groups mistreated and abused one another to the extent that the experiment could not continue beyond the sixth day. His conclusion from the experiment was that people live in tyranny, these tyrannies make them conform even without thinking to the destructive ideas and responsibilities that authorities put in place even without the need for specific orders (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). These two studies describe further the part played by the social identity theory in explaining how the obedience and conformity to authority come about. Groupings in the society are the sources of identity and motivation. People are willing to do even the unthinkable to be and remain part of a tyranny. Obedience to authority is sometimes unavoidable. A man will easily kill a stranger or inflict any other form of harm on a person just because it is an order from the authority. Reicher and Haslan describe Milgram’s experiment as both dramatic and deeply scientific. This is so because Milgram first engages the participants in the verbal explanation and study of the case. It is observed from this initial study that none of the participants would be ready to unthinkingly follow the word of the experimenter to the extent of harming the learner (Haslam, & Reicher, 2007). However, this does not reflect when the study is conducted, the grinning observed in the verbal experiment is not present. This can be interpreted to mean that obedience is enhanced by practicability and the closeness of the authority. When thinking about a fictional authority, the participants would not conform but when the actual authority is there, obedience is enhanced. As they analyze the experiment, Reicher, Haslan and Sutton want us to see beyond the experiment into the background on which it was done. In so doing, we are able to appreciate the application of the findings in history and the society then and also today. The broader culture in which people have been brought up and socialized have created the essentiality of obedience to the authority and being torn between competing demands. The Milgram’s experiment is replicable in almost all settings and among all genders and ages. It is as applicable today as it was in history (Haslam, Reicher & Sutton, 2011). Conclusion Obedience and conformity to the authority can be explained using the social psychological theories. The aspects of belonging to a group and having the authority to obey are aspects of socialization and are within the description of these theories especially the social identity theory. This specific theory identifies that every individual wants to create an identity for themselves, they join groups that they feel they should belong and act according to the group rules. The results of their actions may be that the individual does something against their principles but only on groups’ directive. The person in this case obeys not out of thinking but rather from a compelling desire to belong. Society hierarchies and leadership also provide the same scenario, a person will be willing to commit a crime just to follow the orders from that which he recognizes as an authority References Haslam SA, Reicher SD (2012) Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardos Studies Really Show. PLoS Biol 10(11): e1001426. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426 Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Sutton, J. (2011). The shock of the old: Reconnecting with Milgram’s obedience studies, 50 years on. Special Issue of The Psychologist, 24(9). Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615-622. McLeod, S. A. (2008). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York. NY: Harper & Row. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations?, 33, 47. Read More