Skills for Success in Psychology From Research by Milgram - Literature review Example

s of Concepts like administrative obedience, workplace obedience and obedience in other similar perspectives is still being tracked back to the findings of Milgram`s experiment. Though the theoretical paradigms which are extracted from his model may very well be rejected as well, yet the findings are still applied vastly by those researching on various aspects of authority and obedience. The social psychology experiment conducted by Milgram which was followed by many other experimental psychologists following similar school of thoughts was interested in measuring the extent and willingness of subjects (participants) in obeying their authority figures. More precisely, these proponents are interested in studying how an authority figure may impact the subject in such a way that he performs acts conflicting to his personal conscious as well. Though the aspect seems simple at first, but the application of the findings of the studies are far-fetched where they may be utilized to artificially simulate situations where people may be manipulated to conform and obey authority. In other words, managers and other administrative instructors often come across situations where obedience to authority becomes central to achieving performance indicators. Therefore, unless the causes and factors impacting obedience are unveiled, their application also becomes complex. In this context, the work of Milgram must be commended as he proved via experimentation that how presence of strong authority may impact the behavior of subsidiaries and inflict obedience in their conscience in such a way that they may as well experience conflicting patterns with their own conscience. Milgram published his groundbreaking research back in 1963 in the form of an article in the much acclaimed journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Also, later he elaborated on his findings with greater precision in his book titled Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974). His work carries immense significance with respect to studies on obedience and conformity for answering the most intriguing behavioral complexities experienced during the days. For instance, his entire set of studies focused on unraveling how Eichmann and all his accomplices were convinced enough to follow orders for executing holocaust without even questioning the premise of the concept. Therefore, Milgram invested in designing a study where he could simulate a similar scenario in his laboratory to observe how subjects would react to an authority figure as strong as Adolf Hitler. Milgram simulated the situation by assigning his forty volunteer subjects (all male) the role of a teacher and further instructing them that he was interested in studying the impact of punishment on learning outcomes. Therefore, he further assigned each of his subjects with another subject and made them learn a words list. However, whenever these subjects were to make a mistake, the volunteer was asked to give an electric shock to the students and enhancing the intensity of shock with the number of times the student makes a mistake. Another variable that he added to the experiment was that the teacher volunteers were firmly steered and commanded throughout the course of the experiment i.e. the variable of inflicting authority. The striking result of the experiment was that the volunteers increased the shock level to an unimaginable intensity, even though in normal circumstances, they would have found this treatment conflicting to their personal beliefs (Mixon 1989). This finding is central to Milgram`s study and also to all those who base their research and arguments over his school of thought. Therefore, this experiment reveals significant findings with respect to obedience and conformity. In other words, the factors behind obedience in people can easily be identified and pointed out. Milgram managed to conclude via his experiment that people respond with conformity to the obedience figure for a number of reasons. Since the authority figure isn`t any ordinary person in command, rather a strong and aggressive individual, thus the subordinates tend to obey the authority figure. In addition, the environment where the experiment was conducted or the institution affiliated with the experiment was also a contributing factor, thus individuals tend to obey authority figures more if the concerned institutions are prestigious. Therefore, government institutions inflict a stronger pattern of conformity with norms and hierarchy as compared to a middle level corporation, since government departments represent seriousness in their order of business. Also, if the authority figure has a strong physical presence in the room or in the direct environment where the subject is operating, the influence is higher. This is the reason why the influence of a direct superior officer is greater than that of the influence of the CEO of the company, since physical proximity to the direct officer is greater. Also, the volunteers didn’t come across issues with the subjects obeying their authority as well, thus in cases where there is little resistance with the orders from the authority figure, chances of conformity are also higher (Anderson, Berger & Benjamin 2009). Considering these factors and re-creating them at a workplace or even at educational institutions can product positive results when it comes to inflicting a sense of obedience in the subjects. Also, since most of the volunteers even ended up applying the most intense level of electric shocks over the subjects, another aspect is apparent. That is, individuals even tend to cross the limitations set for themselves and go to certain extremes as well in pressure of an authority figure. This implies that people tend to obey orders from the higher-ups in expectations of certain rewards. Also, since the authority figure in the experiment is an aggressive individual, this directly implies that negative consequences may also be involved in case of refusing to obey orders, which the subjects tend to avoid (Howard 2009). Most importantly, they need an assurance that the authority is legitimate and not self-implied by the authority figure. In presence of the aforementioned factors, the subjects can be convinced to take extreme actions and challenge their own conscience and inner values. In this context, the contemporary researchers have added value to the study by further identifying variables and factors which contribute towards enhancing conformity. Modern research and contemporary experimentation techniques have led the social psychologists to conclude that various other variables are responsible in adding to the behavioral patterns of individuals who tend to obey orders from authority figures (Lunt 2009). These variables identified by contemporary social psychology researchers which add to conformity patterns to those dictated by authority figure are directly related to command patterns. Firstly, people tend to obey the orders instructed by the authority figures even when they conflict with the moral or other inner values since they are convinced that the responsibility doesn’t lie directly on them. That is, they can safely transfer responsibility to their authority figures and they assume that the conflict between their act and inner conscious is justified since the order is coming from someone else (Werhane 2013). Also, since the authority figure is often in direct contact with the subordinates, and the orders initiated by these authorities are of similar nature in routine affairs, these are rather internalized by the subordinates. Therefore, they start taking these extreme measures as routine affair at a workplace. For instance, an operative engaged in torture and other similar activities otherwise heinous to human nature would have internalized the procedure and thus, would consider it a matter of routine affair. Furthermore, these subjects tend to avoid any episode where the authority figure is offended or challenged. Also, these contemporary social psychologists took Milgram`s study to the next level, and concluded that as the nature and intensity of commands enhance, so does the sense of authority and commitment to the act instructed by the authority figure (Blass 2000). Therefore, the concept of entrapment which is also applied while explaining the foot-in-the-door technique can be related to this aspect of study which signifies how obedience to simpler commands further leads towards acceptance of extreme commands. In other words, the cumulative nature of commands is followed by the cumulative nature of the subject to obey them, an aspect often applied by administrators and managers. Conclusively, having applied Milgram`s study in various societies and in differing time frames over the course of evolutionary pretext of social psychology, the resolve in his findings has only been confirmed. Though there are minor refractions from the findings in a few settings, yet on the larger pretext, the reasons behind conformity and obedience have been agreed upon by the proponents of this branch of psychology. However, the experiments have been critiques by modern psychological community as being unethical and controversial, given how they tend to psychologically manipulate the volunteers and the subjects. Yet, the application and advantages reaped via the study propagated have been immense and are still being utilized by psychological making breakthroughs in the field. The relationship of a strong authority figure to the obedience of commands has been explained impressively by these proponents and an effort has been made to minimize gaps in the study. Therefore, researchers even from other disciplines may use the findings to impact success and obedience factors in their target population which is commendable. Works Cited: Anderson, N. B., Burger, J. M., Benjamin, L. T., Simpson, J. A., Miller, A. G., Twenge, J. M., Elms, A. C., ... Blass, T. (2009). Obedience - then and now. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lunt, P. K. (2009). Stanley Milgram: Understanding obedience and its implications. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row. Howard, J. (2009). Psychological analysis of destructive obedience. Pacifica Tape Library. Mixon, D. (1989). Obedience and civilization: Authorized crime and the normality of evil. London [England: Pluto Press. Werhane, P. H. (2013). Obstacles to ethical decision-making: Mental models, Milgram and the problem of obedience. Read More