Obedience in Psychology - Coursework Example

Obedience in psychology al Affiliation) Contents 3 Introduction 3 Literature review 3 Method 6 Results 7 Discussion 7 References 9 Appendix 11 Obedience in Psychology Abstract The research aims at identifying the relation between obedience to authority and personal moral principles. Many people compromise their personal values while carrying out orders issued by the authority figure. The research examines the justification provided by the perpetrators of the Chinese genocide in Singapore. Their defense was that they were following orders from ‘above’. Selection of participants was through newspaper advertisement for male volunteers. The procedure involved the pairing of participants with another person. A normal person is likely to follow orders given by the authority figure regardless of the instruction given. Introduction The research informs us that individuals have a proclivity to obey authority; it focuses on the astounding strength of that tendency. Many people are used to obeying cruel orders that clash with their moral values and commit act they would not do on their personal initiative. Once an individual accepts the authority right to direct his/her actions, scholars argue that individuals resign responsibility to the authority figure and allow them to define the wrongs and rights. Literature review There are number of experiment focusing on the relation between obedience and personal conscience conducted in the past. This section will review the previous studies for the purpose of evaluation and distinction. Obedience refers to a form of social impact where a person’s actions are driven by the orders of another person (Milgram, 1978). The basic presumption is that the person may not have acted in that particular way in the absence of external influence. Obedience arises when one does something to please the authority while conformity occurs due to social influence as per the customs of the majority (Myer, 2010). Obedience entails a chain of command. As a result, the individual giving orders has a higher position than the recipient does (Perlman, 2007). According to Stanley Migram (1967), ordinary people tend to follow orders from authority regardless of the intent. He further argues that state officials are the major perpetrators of crimes against humanity as they incite the masses to kill each other. Heath (1999), a major critic of the Milgram experiment argued that it lacked experimental pragmatism since the participants did not necessarily comprehend the experimental setup. The tendency of individuals to follow orders given by the authority is applicable in the modern world in a number of ways. First, it offers a reference point for events that strain individual’s understanding therefore making them more credible (Lind & Tyler, 1998). This study finds explicit affirmation in the behavior of the war soldiers during the Second World War. The obedience experiment helps to create a wider organizational change in large societal segments. Milgram study on obedience features in a number of academic books on business ethics to caution students on certain unethical demands made by employers (Newman & Erber 2002). Scholars suggest that certain individuals project an authoritative presence, either by way of dressing or by their behavior (Fiske, 2009). For instance, a certain study showed, an individual wearing a firefighter uniform experienced a significant increase in their persuasive power. A study focusing on the Milgram experiment showed obedience rates were almost similar in different countries. In the US, 60% of the subjects were entirely obedient while the obedience rate in other countries was at 65% (Kenrick, &Neuberg & Cradlini, 2005). For many years, obedience studies entangle in controversy regarding ethical issues. The studies have received a fair share criticism and praise (Miller 2010). On the other hand, Milgram experiment received numerous accolades from fellow social psychologists and the American Association of Psychologist (Milgram, 1974). The legal systems in most countries apply the doctrines under a number of obedience studies. For instance, the American high court briefs over 300 law reviews and uses them as points of reference (Newman & Erber, 2002). The Military in a number of countries also takes lessons from obedience studies more specifically the Milgram study. Numerous Social psychologists recognize obedience as a vital element of any civilized society. A society cannot exist without certain authority structure that indoctrinates the practice of obedience (Harman, 1999). Several obedience studies draw conclusions from the prosecution of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann played a huge role in the massacre of millions of Jews, communists, and labor activist. He oversaw the planning, transportation and their execution in Nazi death camps. In his defense, Eichmann argued that he only followed orders from his superiors (Triandis, 1994). After a declaration of his sanity by a panel of psychiatrists, the prosecution argued that he was a victim of the social influence. As per the prosecution, faced with the same circumstances, most people would probably react the same way regardless of its monstrous aspect (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). After the Second World War and specifically the Holocaust, social psychologists embarked on a mission to examine the human obedience phenomenon (Brown, 2011). Prior attempts to examine the Holocaust, focused on the notion that there exist a unique aspect of the German culture. Researchers embarked to test the notion of unique German’s culture, but hastily established that everyone is astoundingly obedient to an authority figure. Among the most renowned chain of experiments in psychology, Milgram (1963-74) established, a majority of the participants would follow orders given without questioning them. The experiment demonstrates the dangers of unquestioned obedience. The experiment further implies that circumstances have a stronger influence than the character factor in shaping obedience (Vaugh & Hogg, 2010). Other social psychologists argue that obedience is majorly influenced by both exterior and interior factors, such as personal values and overall disposition (Bilig, 1996). Method Participants comprised of forty males between the age of the 20 and 40 years, and whose profession ranged from skilled to unskilled. Each of them received remuneration for their participation. Before the commencement of the experiment, the participants underwent brief introductions to know exactly the purpose of the experiment. Each participant was apportioned a role, either as a learner or a teacher. One of the two rooms used was for the learners and had an electric chair; the other room was meant for teachers and had an electric shock generator. The learner sat on the electric chair that had electrodes. A list of names was issued to the learners. The teachers read the names on the list aloud and asked the learner to recall the pairs of each name from a list of four multiple choices. Every mistake made by the learner resulted to a slight electric shock, which increased progressively. The level of shock administered measures the corresponding level of obedience. There were 40 switches on the shock generator marked from as low as 5 volts to 100 volts. The learner purposely gave incorrect answers that were followed by an electric shock. In case the teacher failed to administer an electric shock, the experimenter who was dressed in a white coat gave instruction to ensure the shock continued. There were four set of orders, in case one of the orders was disobeyed the experimenter read the next and process continued. The first order read, please continue, while the second order read the study needs you to continue. The third order read; it is important to continue, and lastly the fourth order read; there is no other option but to continue. Results At the end of the experiment two-thirds of the participants progressed to the maximum shock of 100 volts. All participants reached the 50 volts shock mark. The experimenter varied certain aspect of the study to give different results. Despite the cries of the learners, teachers did not hesitant to administer electric shock for every wrong answer. Due to the worry about the level of fretfulness experienced by a majority of the participants, a briefing was done at the end of the experiment to clarify the procedures. Discussion At the end of the experiment, an inference of the relation between obedience and authority was made. Most individuals follow orders given by the authority even to an extent of harming others. The element of obedience to an authority figure is embedded in every person from the moment that he/she is born. Most people tend to follow orders given by other people if they identify that their authority is legitimate. Learning of Such response to Legal authority is done through a number of ways, for instance, in school, home, and workplace. A legitimate and philosophical attribute of obedience is of great importance though little is said about people’s behavior while faced with a concrete situation. The experiment shows the extents to which an individual would go to harm another as per the orders given by an authority. The experimenter in this study acts as the authority figure. Even with screams of pain from the learners, the teacher followed the orders to the letter. Normal people simply do their jobs without any resentment on their part. As a result, individuals become facilitators of various dreadful processes. In addition, even when the vicious effects of their effort become blatantly clear and are requested to fulfill actions contrary to their primary principles of morality, few people have the tendency of resisting authority. A number of factors contribute to the high level of obedience among individuals. For instance, the presence of an authority figure increases the likelihood of conformity due to the fear factor. Most people fear the repercussions of disobeying an authority figure. For instance, in a workplace, employees are less defiant in the presence of the employer due to the fear of losing their jobs. References Benjamin Jr, L. T., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgrams obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64(1), 12. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. (2011). Prejudice: Its social psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Harman, G. (1999, January). Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (pp. 315-331). Aristotelian Society. Heath, C. (1999). On the social psychology of agency relationships: Lay theories of motivation overemphasize extrinsic incentives. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 78(1), 25-62. Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Social psychology: Unraveling the mystery . Pearson Education New Zealand. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media. Milgram, S. (1978). Obedience to authority. Miller, A. G. (Ed.). (2004). The social psychology of good and evil. Guilford Press. Myer, D.G. (2010) social psychology (10th edition). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Newman, L. S., & Erber, R. E. (2002). Understanding genocide: The social psychology of the Holocaust. Oxford University Press. Perlman, A. M. (2007). Unethical Obedience by Subordinate Attorneys: Lessons from Social Psychology. Hofstra L. Rev., 36, 451. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. Vaugh, G.M., &Hogg. M.A (2010). Introduction to social psychology (6th edition ). NSW, Australia:Pearson Appendix The experiment took place in the school’s research lab. However, the electric shock was not administered in the actual sense; it symbolized pain inflicted on the participants. The learners were to react as though they experienced an actual pain. The experimenter issued orders to the teacher in case he failed to administer shock. Audio tape recorders were to record the findings. Learner intentionally gave wrong answers and, as a result, the level of shock increased progressively. Sound equipment placed strategically in all rooms enhanced the experimenter’s audibility. Read More