Conformity and Obedience

Conformity and Obedience. In order to answer the question it is first necessary to define conformity and obedience. According to Woods, (2001 p. 107): ‘ We often adjust our actions or opinions so that they fit in well with those of other people. This is known as social conformity †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ ’ And Gross, (2001 pg. 392) stated that: Obedience is affected by direction (from somebody in higher authority). This essay will explore circumstances in which we are likely to conform; or obey others. This will be done by drawing on research carried out by Milgram, Asch, Crutchfield and Zimbardo.There are many ways in which we conform; some are useful others are not. For example, if we did not conform and adhere to the Highway Code there would be absolute chaos on our roads and lives would be at risk. At the other end of the scale we have the horrific example of ‘blind’ obedience in relation to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s – 40’s. In this situation Hitler’s soldiers obeyed and carried out their orders without question because their orders came from a legitimate authority. (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999, pp. 79-80).In 1963 Stanley Milgram carried out a psychological experiment to try to discover why so many people co-operated and committed such atrocities in the concentration camps. This experiment involved groups of two people one – a confederate – played the part of a student trying to remember different words. The other person who was the subject played the role of a teacher and gave him the test. The teacher was told to ‘shock’ the ‘student’ every time he missed a word. Milgram thought that most people wouldn’t shock another human being and especially not all the way up to deadly levels of electricity.However, I transpired that 63% were obedient to their instructor (since he was the one in a position of power) and went all the way up to 450v which was lethal ( Hayes, 2000 pp. 50-51). Experiments carried out by Solomon Asch (1995) showed how easy it is to make people conform. In one of his experiments Asch used groups of 6-8 people who were told they were participating in a study on visual perception. He presented these subjects with 2 cards. On one card was a single ‘standard’ line; on the other were 3 ‘comparison’ lines. Participants were asked to judge which of the comparison lines were equal in length to the ‘standard’ line.Each of Asch’s groups only contained one real subject – the rest were confederates. Asch instructed each of the confederates to give the same wrong answer. There was a 75% conformity rate of the participants, meaning that they gave the same answer as the confederates, showing that people do not want to ‘appear different’ (Gross, 2001 pg. 382). However, researchers discovered that if the participants were alloed to give their answers away from the grou p, then conformity decreased. If people were allowed to give their answers in private, then it is found that they will be less likely to be swayed by other people’s opinions.Again, in experiments, researchers like Asch (1955) have discovered that if the task is ambiguous or the problem made harder, then conformity levels are likely to increase. Under conditions where the problem is less obvious, then people are likely to go with the majority of the group (Gross, 2001 pg. 383). An experiment carried out by Crutchfield (1954) found that pressure to conform can also occur without face to face communication. In this particular study each participant was placed in a separate booth facing a screen which displayed questions and what they believed were answers of the other participants.The questions were simple and the answers obvious. In around half the cases the answers were incorrect. Each participant was led to believe they were the last to answer having seen the other answers. C rutchfield in fact placed the answers there. This experiment suggests that in certain situations people will conform to avoid being the ‘odd one out’ and labelled as a social outcast. In addition, the fear of rejection by peers helps to assure that conformity is guaranteed. Crutchfields’ experiment found that 37% of the participants conformed all the time which shows that conformity can occur even without face to face contact.Both these experiments show that people will go with a group norm and conform to other people who they might not even know (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999 pg. 73). Clearly, there are several reasons why we conform i. e. we don’t want to be seen as troublesome or a nuisance – the psychological term being ‘compliance’. Perhaps we simply wish to be accepted into a group ‘normative influence’ (Gross 2001 p. 386). We may also feel that we are amongst people who are more knowledgeable than us and that we have no rig ht to argue, which is termed ‘information social influence’ (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999 pg. 4). It could be argued that conformity studies are often designed to illustrate the dangers of conformity, and the following study could be seen as an example of this. ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ was carried out in 1973 by Zimbardo. It involved taking at random 24 men who responded to a newspaper advertisement asking for volunteers to take part in a psychological study on prison life. A mock prison was created and the volunteers were given ‘roles’ of either guards or prisoners.This experiment found that the guards conformed to the roles expected of them in that they took charge of the prisoners and treated them cruelly and the prisoners conformed to their roles in that they allowed this to happen and did not say that they wanted to stop the experiment. Some even asked for parole instead of requesting that the experiment be terminated. The level of confo rmity in this study was exceptionally high to the extent that the ‘prisoners’ became very distressed and the experiment had to be aborted on day 6 – it was planned to last 2 weeks (Class notes, March 2005).Research also shows that levels of conformity are likely to increase if the status of the people in the rest of the group is high. Low status people are likely to conform more to high status people, especially if those people are in some form of authority (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999 pg. 77). Without doubt all societies require a certain level of conformity in order to function as a society. If social norms are not adhered there would be confusion and disorder. However, what research has shown is that anyone is capable of conforming/obeying under the right circumstances or situations.It is also evident that the circumstances in which we conform or obey can be seen as positive or negative and although it is not always the case, it is usually a positive social influen ce. In the UK today we live in a society which places great value on the individual: ‘†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. there is a great emphasis on individual responsibility to contribute to society. ’ (Alcock et al, 1999 pg. 41) we are expected to contribute, conform and obey. Following like sheep may be regarded s weak, however, the fact remains that many of us conform i. e. religion, fashion, politics.In addition to these factors it is important to mention that non-conformity also has its place in society because if there were total conformity there would be no change, no improvement, or new ideas. For many, life may well be a struggle – battling with the desire to be an ‘individual’ and also having to ‘conform’ to how society expects them to be, think and do. It could be argued that conformity and obedience are necessary elements of society as conformity and obedience helps create a stable society. From an early age we have been instructed to obey a nd conform as we grow up we continue to be exposed to these pressures i. . our parents demand obedience, friends require us to be ‘part of the crowd,’ teachers demand homework, our religion tells us what to believe and the government expects us to obey the law and pay our taxes. Culturally too we are expected to conform i. e. arranged marriages, customs, traditions and dress. In conclusion, with regard to the experiments that have been discussed in this essay it is important to remember that they are just that – experiments, and it is difficult to know for certain what would actually happen in the ‘real world. References. WOODS, B. Basics in Psychology. 2nd edn. London. Hodder & Stoughton Educational. GROSS, R. 2001. PSYCHOLOGY. The science of the mind & behaviour. 4th edn. London. Hodder & Stoughton Educational. MCILVEEN, R & GROSS, R. 1999. Social Psychology. 2nd edn. London. Hodder & Stoughton Educational. HAYES, N. 1994. Principles of Social Psychology. East Sussex. Psychology Press Ltd. ALCOCK, P. , ERKSINE, A. , MAY, M. 1998. The Students Companion to Social Policy. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Conformity and Obedience Conformity and Obedience Assignment In this assignment I intend to evaluate Stanley Milgrams studies of obedience and in particular the ethical issues broken. I hope to determine whether the knowledge gained justifies his experiments. After the destruction and atrocities committed in World War II many historians argued that there must be some sort of character defect that made the German people more obedient. Mailgram’s study was an attempt to test ‘the Germans are different’ hypothesis. The hypothesis states that Germans are more likely a person or people in authority regardless of what the act is. Social psychology handbook pg. 8) Milgram conducted an experiment into the nature of obedience in 1963 at the prestigious Yale University. The aim of the experiment was to investigate the level of obedience participant would go to in giving electric shocks to another person when ordered to by an authority figure. (Social psychology handbook pg. 8) Milgram issued an adv ertisement in a local paper requesting people aged 20-50 from all walks of life, excluding students to take part in an experiment at Yale University. The experiment would last an hour and the pay was four dollars fifty.The participants were told they were getting paid for coming to the laboratory regardless of the results of the experiment. (Gross, 2010, pg. 416) 40 male participants were selected; they arrived at Yale university psychology department and were greeted by a young man dressed in a lab coat. He introduced himself as Jack Williams, the experimenter. He was to appear stern and emotionless throughout the experiment. There was also another participant introduced as a likeable and mild-mannered man named Mr Wallace, he was a confederate and everything from here on has been pre-planned except the results of course. Gross, 2010, pg. 416) The participant were given a short introduction and told the aim of the experiment was to assess the effects of punishment on learning. The participant was then asked to pick a piece of paper out a hat to determine who would be playing the role of the teacher, and who was to play the learner. This was rigged in order for the experiment to work; Mr Wallace was always the learner and the participant the teacher. Next they were all led into an adjoining room and the learner (Mr Wallace) was strapped in full view of the participant into the electric chair and electrodes were attracted to his arms and legs.The teacher (the participant) was told that the electrodes were attracted to the shock generator next room. The generator was a convincing fake created by Milgram. The participant and the experimenter went into the next room where the generator was. The teacher gave a 45 volt shock to convince them that it was real. The volt was battery power and not attached to the mains. The generator switches were labelled with voltage levels and verbal descriptions from: 15-60 slight shock up in intervals of 15 volts to 435-450 XXX. Gr oss, 2010, pg. 416) The learner was asked to memorise a series of paired words. The teacher was to then test the learner by giving him one the words in a pair along with four different words. The learner then had to answer which of the four words had originally been paired with the first one. The learners answer was indicated by one of the four switches which lit up one of four lights on the generator machine. If the learner gave the correct answer, then they moved onto the next question.If the answer was wrong the teacher had to tell the learner the correct answer, and then say that they were going to give them a shock which went up higher 15 volts each time an incorrect answer was given. . (Gross, 2010, pg. 216). In the first experiment known as the ‘remote-victim condition’ the leaner was to give vocal response until 300 volts was used, then the learner was scripted to start pounding on the wall and after 315 volts were administrated to stop. In the second experiment the responses were voice recorded ‘voice feedback’ and the teacher was to believe these were the reactions of the learner from being shocked.For example at 75 volts he made a grunt, at 150 he cried out and refused to be part of experiment asking to be set loose, at 315 he screamed out in pain and finally after 330 volts no sound could be heard. The teacher was instructed that if an answer was not given then it was to be treated as an incorrect answer and a shock was still to be given. If the teacher was to turn to the experimenter for guidance on whether to carry on giving shocks or indicate that they didn’t want to go on the experimenter would reply with a series of ‘prods’.The ‘prods’ were responses such as ‘please continue’ ‘the experiment requires that you continue’ or ‘It’s absolutely essential that you continue’. These ‘prods’ were to be repeated in a sequence for example if ‘prod 1’ was unsuccessful then only could ‘prod 2’ be used if the learner disobeyed after the fourth ‘prod’ the experiment was to end. There was also a special prod used in case the participant was concerned on the physical state of the learner, which was ‘although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on. ((Social psychology handbook pg. 11/12). After experiment the participants were introduced to the victim again to prove that he was unharmed. They were debriefed using open ended questions and psychometric measures were used to make sure the participants left the experiment unharmed. Milgram found the results quite shocking and unpredictable. In the first ‘remote victim’ experiment all participants went up to at least 300 volts when the learner pounded on the wall, 65 per cent went all the way to 450 volts.In the second ‘voice feedback’ condition 62. 5 per cent went to the lethal 450 volts. He also found even though the participants hesitated and objected they still continued with the experiment. Although many were observed to tremble, stutter, dig their nails into their palms and even laugh, one participant had a seizure. (Gross, 2010, pg. 416/417). Milgram evaluated his own experiment and devised nine factors that could explain the reason why such high levels of conformity were visible. To test the factors he devised further versions of his experiment.I believe that this strengthens the experiment the amount of control that Milgram was able to give and the different variations helped to strengthen Milgrams conclusion as to why we obey people in authority. (Gross, 2010, pg. 417). A weakness of the experiment is the sample used is not representable to the rest of the American population and can’t be generalised. Only males who read the advert and were prepared to take part in a laboratory experiment were used Milgrams have been accused of d eliberately using an ethnocentric sample. Class notes) I also believe that the experiment was not ecologically valid as laboratory is not considered a normal situation and this could contributed to the experiment having demand characteristics as the participant might have thought that they were in an controlled safe environment and were also encouraged to do so by the experimenter. Another big weakness of the experiment and one that Milgram has been heavily criticised on is ethics. Ethical guidelines are necessary to clarify the conditions under which psychological research is acceptable. British psychological society) (Ethics PowerPoint Moodle). Baumrind (1964) argued that Milgram’s participants had been abused, their feelings not taken into consideration, and not enough was done to protect them from emotional and psychological stress. (Gross, 210, pg. 779) Part of the reason ethical guidelines were brought into force was because of Milgram’s experiment. In my opinion certain ethical guideless were broken, such as no deception should be used, and participants should be informed of all aspects of the experiment unless there is no alternative.Milgram clearly didn’t tell the participant that the learner was an actor and the ‘shock generator’ a fake. I’m sure that this breaks another ethic which is protection, meaning that the participants must not suffer any physical of psychological damage. I believe the participants did receive some emotional stress from the experiment to begin with. It’s argued that Milgram did not take suitable measures to ensure this didn’t happen, but Milgram argues that didn’t predict his results and they were unexpected.That could be believable that Milgram believed the participants would not need protection, but after seeing the distress caused in his first experiment why continue repeating it 17 more times? The participant’s right to withdraw was also breached. All pa rticipants must be informed of their right to withdraw without losing any payment and the results from these must be removed from the records. This wasn’t made clear and the ‘prods’ used strongly suggest to the participant that withdrawal isn’t possible.There is also another important issue broken; consent was not given as the participants were not fully informed of what was happening in the experiment. However milgram argues that the participants were shown that Mr Wallace was unharmed after experiment and a debriefing was issued. A year after the experiment an independent psychologist interviewed the participants used, and found that no evidence of any lasting psychological damage was apparent. He also argues that the experimenter didn’t make the participant shock anyone, they choose to do it themselves milgram wanted everyone to have free will. Social psychology handbook pg. 14/15) To answer the question is Milgrams experiment justified the answe r I believe is yes. Although certain ethical issues are apparent such a situation was unavoidable, and as Milgram says â€Å"the central moral justification for allowing my experiment is that it was judged acceptable by those who took part in it† (â€Å"The Individual in a Social World†, Milgram 1977) Its seems that it was necessary to brake certain rules in order for the experiment to be completed and more real to life.If Milgram’s participants were to be fully informed his results would not be real to life and his experiment a failure. I believe the experiment was very powerful and although unethical the results were important in the study of obedience. Bibliography Ethical Guidelines and Social Research, PowerPoint Presentation on Moodle available @ https://moodle. lincolncollege. ac. uk/AAE/course/view. php? id=361 Gross, R. (2010) Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour, sixth edition, London, Hodder Education. Social Psychology Unit Handbook handed o ut September 2011 by Lynn Train-Brown. Conformity and Obedience Conformity and Obedience. In order to answer the question it is first necessary to define conformity and obedience. According to Woods, (2001 p. 107): ‘ We often adjust our actions or opinions so that they fit in well with those of other people. This is known as social conformity †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ ’ And Gross, (2001 pg. 392) stated that: Obedience is affected by direction (from somebody in higher authority). This essay will explore circumstances in which we are likely to conform; or obey others. This will be done by drawing on research carried out by Milgram, Asch, Crutchfield and Zimbardo.There are many ways in which we conform; some are useful others are not. For example, if we did not conform and adhere to the Highway Code there would be absolute chaos on our roads and lives would be at risk. At the other end of the scale we have the horrific example of ‘blind’ obedience in relation to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s – 40’s. In this situation Hitler’s soldiers obeyed and carried out their orders without question because their orders came from a legitimate authority. (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999, pp. 79-80).In 1963 Stanley Milgram carried out a psychological experiment to try to discover why so many people co-operated and committed such atrocities in the concentration camps. This experiment involved groups of two people one – a confederate – played the part of a student trying to remember different words. The other person who was the subject played the role of a teacher and gave him the test. The teacher was told to ‘shock’ the ‘student’ every time he missed a word. Milgram thought that most people wouldn’t shock another human being and especially not all the way up to deadly levels of electricity.However, I transpired that 63% were obedient to their instructor (since he was the one in a position of power) and went all the way up to 450v which was lethal ( Hayes, 2000 pp. 50-51). Experiments carried out by Solomon Asch (1995) showed how easy it is to make people conform. In one of his experiments Asch used groups of 6-8 people who were told they were participating in a study on visual perception. He presented these subjects with 2 cards. On one card was a single ‘standard’ line; on the other were 3 ‘comparison’ lines. Participants were asked to judge which of the comparison lines were equal in length to the ‘standard’ line.Each of Asch’s groups only contained one real subject – the rest were confederates. Asch instructed each of the confederates to give the same wrong answer. There was a 75% conformity rate of the participants, meaning that they gave the same answer as the confederates, showing that people do not want to ‘appear different’ (Gross, 2001 pg. 382). However, researchers discovered that if the participants were alloed to give their answers away from the grou p, then conformity decreased. If people were allowed to give their answers in private, then it is found that they will be less likely to be swayed by other people’s opinions.Again, in experiments, researchers like Asch (1955) have discovered that if the task is ambiguous or the problem made harder, then conformity levels are likely to increase. Under conditions where the problem is less obvious, then people are likely to go with the majority of the group (Gross, 2001 pg. 383). An experiment carried out by Crutchfield (1954) found that pressure to conform can also occur without face to face communication. In this particular study each participant was placed in a separate booth facing a screen which displayed questions and what they believed were answers of the other participants.The questions were simple and the answers obvious. In around half the cases the answers were incorrect. Each participant was led to believe they were the last to answer having seen the other answers. C rutchfield in fact placed the answers there. This experiment suggests that in certain situations people will conform to avoid being the ‘odd one out’ and labelled as a social outcast. In addition, the fear of rejection by peers helps to assure that conformity is guaranteed. Crutchfields’ experiment found that 37% of the participants conformed all the time which shows that conformity can occur even without face to face contact.Both these experiments show that people will go with a group norm and conform to other people who they might not even know (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999 pg. 73). Clearly, there are several reasons why we conform i. e. we don’t want to be seen as troublesome or a nuisance – the psychological term being ‘compliance’. Perhaps we simply wish to be accepted into a group ‘normative influence’ (Gross 2001 p. 386). We may also feel that we are amongst people who are more knowledgeable than us and that we have no rig ht to argue, which is termed ‘information social influence’ (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999 pg. 4). It could be argued that conformity studies are often designed to illustrate the dangers of conformity, and the following study could be seen as an example of this. ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ was carried out in 1973 by Zimbardo. It involved taking at random 24 men who responded to a newspaper advertisement asking for volunteers to take part in a psychological study on prison life. A mock prison was created and the volunteers were given ‘roles’ of either guards or prisoners.This experiment found that the guards conformed to the roles expected of them in that they took charge of the prisoners and treated them cruelly and the prisoners conformed to their roles in that they allowed this to happen and did not say that they wanted to stop the experiment. Some even asked for parole instead of requesting that the experiment be terminated. The level of confo rmity in this study was exceptionally high to the extent that the ‘prisoners’ became very distressed and the experiment had to be aborted on day 6 – it was planned to last 2 weeks (Class notes, March 2005).Research also shows that levels of conformity are likely to increase if the status of the people in the rest of the group is high. Low status people are likely to conform more to high status people, especially if those people are in some form of authority (Mcilveen & Gross, 1999 pg. 77). Without doubt all societies require a certain level of conformity in order to function as a society. If social norms are not adhered there would be confusion and disorder. However, what research has shown is that anyone is capable of conforming/obeying under the right circumstances or situations.It is also evident that the circumstances in which we conform or obey can be seen as positive or negative and although it is not always the case, it is usually a positive social influen ce. In the UK today we live in a society which places great value on the individual: ‘†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. there is a great emphasis on individual responsibility to contribute to society. ’ (Alcock et al, 1999 pg. 41) we are expected to contribute, conform and obey. Following like sheep may be regarded s weak, however, the fact remains that many of us conform i. e. religion, fashion, politics.In addition to these factors it is important to mention that non-conformity also has its place in society because if there were total conformity there would be no change, no improvement, or new ideas. For many, life may well be a struggle – battling with the desire to be an ‘individual’ and also having to ‘conform’ to how society expects them to be, think and do. It could be argued that conformity and obedience are necessary elements of society as conformity and obedience helps create a stable society. From an early age we have been instructed to obey a nd conform as we grow up we continue to be exposed to these pressures i. . our parents demand obedience, friends require us to be ‘part of the crowd,’ teachers demand homework, our religion tells us what to believe and the government expects us to obey the law and pay our taxes. Culturally too we are expected to conform i. e. arranged marriages, customs, traditions and dress. In conclusion, with regard to the experiments that have been discussed in this essay it is important to remember that they are just that – experiments, and it is difficult to know for certain what would actually happen in the ‘real world. References. WOODS, B. Basics in Psychology. 2nd edn. London. Hodder & Stoughton Educational. GROSS, R. 2001. PSYCHOLOGY. The science of the mind & behaviour. 4th edn. London. Hodder & Stoughton Educational. MCILVEEN, R & GROSS, R. 1999. Social Psychology. 2nd edn. London. Hodder & Stoughton Educational. HAYES, N. 1994. Principles of Social Psychology. East Sussex. Psychology Press Ltd. ALCOCK, P. , ERKSINE, A. , MAY, M. 1998. The Students Companion to Social Policy. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.