Conformity and Obedience Free Essays

Conformity and Obedience. In order to answer the question it is first necessary to define conformity and obedience. According to Woods, (2001 p. We will write a custom essay sample on Conformity and Obedience or any similar topic only for you Order Now 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 group, 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. Crutchfield 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 right 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 conformity 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 influence. 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 and 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. How to cite Conformity and Obedience, Papers Conformity And Obedience Free Essays This Essay will discuss the factors influencing the behaviour of Mark, in relation to conformity and obedience. Should he comply and obey with his officer’s strict instructions to work alone, or will he stop to help a fellow trainee. Mark is a soldier on training in the Brecon Beacons, he is under order to work alone and not to stop to help anyone. We will write a custom essay sample on Conformity And Obedience or any similar topic only for you Order Now Mark is working well and is on track with about 5 other soldiers who he already knows. Whilst running through the country, Mark hears a colleague (whom he has not met before) shouting for help. Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in behaviour, attitude or belief in order to fit in, these changes are in response to either real or imagined group pressure, such as the fear of rejection from a group, lack of information, belief that others are right or not wanting to upset others within the group, this occurs in situations, whereby individuals or small groups are exposed to a majority view. Obedience is not a social influence or response to group pressure, but a following of instruction usually by someone we see as higher authoritative status than ourselves, obedience is deeply implemented from an early age, when we are taught to obey parents, teachers and elders ( Pennington and Mcloughlin, 2008) Through looking at studies and experiments of conformity and obedience it is plausible to suggest that in this case Mark will obey the orders of his officer and not stop to help the trainee. Mark will adapt to the expectations of his role, and continue without stopping this is known as identification Kelman(1958). There is no need for Mark to agree as he is simply playing to his role. Another influential factor on Marks decision will be, he is alongside a small group of friends in which he will not want to be seen to go against the group, for fear of rejection or ridicule and will also wish to gain the approval of his commanding officer, this is Normative conformity in which we are driven by the need or desire to gain approval and acceptance, Man (1969) as demonstrated in Solomon Asch’s conformity experiment, Mark may publicly accept but privately disagree with the decision to continue. (Mcleod, 2007) In Asch’s experiment, students were told that they were participating in a ‘vision test.’ Lines were presented onto a screen and the students were asked to answer which line out of three possibilities matched the target line. The students were unaware that the rest of the group in the experiment were fake (confederates) and had been asked prior to the experiment to give wrong answers and agreed on which answers to give. At first the confederates answered the questions correctly, but eventually began to give wrong answers, when the pre-planned incorrect answers were given over 70% of participants conformed to the group’s majority false views at least once (Heroic Imagination Project, 2013). During the debrief at the end of the test, students were asked why they had given a wrong answer, when the correct answer was clear, the majority of students stated that although they knew the answers were in fact wrong they did not want to risk ridicule from the rest of the group, whist others actually thought there answers were correct. This evidence supports that Mark will conform as he will want to be accepted and not upset his fellow colleagues and also avoid rejection ( Pennington and Mcloughlin, 2008). Asch’s experiment may be criticised as the individuals may have been more inclined to give wrong answers to avoid conflict rather than fit in. Another criticism of the experiment is that it was conducted in a laboratory and did not replicate a real life situation; however, some expert opinions support these results stating that although real life situations may not be as clear cut as the laboratory environment, real life social pressure is far greater, resulting in increased conformity (Cherry, 2013). This can be supported by the social impact theory which predicts that conformity will increase in the presence of three influential factors, first being strength, the strength of the person giving the order, as the order came from his officer, Marks view will be as he is more experienced he is also more knowledgeable, numbers, refers to the number of social forces present, as there are only around 5 other trainees at the same pace as Mark, conformity will be higher making him more likely to conform to the behaviour of his colleagues, immediacy refers to the closeness of the other soldiers as Mark works with them regular he will view them as close friends and therefore conform to the majority to keep harmony within the group. (University, 2012) As Mark is a trainee he will be unclear of how to react in this situation, he may question if this is actually a test and be confused on what he should do, he will look to see how his fellow trainees react and follow, by doing this Mark will show informational conformity, as studied in an autokinetic effect experiment by Muzafer Sheriff (1963). Sheriff conducted a visual illusion experiment to demonstrate the level of conformity when a person is put in an ambiguous situation, when tested on an individual basis, participants answers varied considerably. Sheriff then placed the participants in groups of three (two of the participants had previously given similar estimates, this differed significantly to the remaining participant) each person had to state there answer aloud to the group, over several trials the results showed that the person who’s estimate differed conformed to the group majority (Mcleod, 2007). Mark will also want to display obedience, as these orders came directly from an officer of higher authority than himself. He will continue and not stop; this can be supported by looking at Milgrams agent theory, Milgram believes we operate on two levels, as autonomous individuals we are conscious and aware of our behaviour and the consequences of our actions. Secondly as agentic individuals, were by we see ourselves as â€Å"puppets† of others and no longer responsible for our actions. Generally we see ourselves as autonomous individuals, however in some circumstances we shift to agentic level, we are then only responsible to the person giving orders and our responsibilities to others disappears. This theory supports the suggestion of Mark to continue, he will detach himself from the injured trainee as he believes he is not responsible for his own actions. Milgram believes this shift takes place due to us being conditioned from an early age to obey orders without question, once in an agentic state there are two binding factors which keep us there as demonstrated on Milgrams experiment; these factors are fear of being rude or disrespectful and the fear of increasing anxiety by disobeying. (waring, 2006) In the 1960’s Milgram designed an experiment to test obedience to authority, he wanted to know if the Germans had a particular personality which made them carry out the brutal acts in world war two, or could an â€Å"ordinary person† also behave the same. Participants were asked to administer shocks each time a subject gave a wrong answer, the shocks ranged from 15 volts (mild shock) to 450 volts (danger severe shock), whilst administering shocks participants were continually prompted by an authoritive figure in a white laboratory coat. The participants could not see the subjects but could hear the effects of the apparent shocks, in which the subjects acted accordingly, throughout this experiment no real shocks were ever given. During the experiment many participants showed signs of tension, three participants actually had seizures and although most felt uncomfortable a huge 65% of participants administered shocks to the full 450 voltage, and every participant admitted to administering shocks above the level that they personally felt was ethical. (Heroic Imagination Project, 2013) This experiment raised several ethical issues; no measures were taken to protect participants from physical or psychological harm, The right to withdraw was not made clear as participants were continually prompted to continue with phrases such as â€Å"you have no choice you must go on†. Deception was used as the participants believed the shocks were real, Other criticisms of Milgrams experiment are that all the participants were men and the experiment was set in an important setting (Yale university) thus not replicating real life situations also all of the participants were paid in advance of the experiment giving them an imagined obligation to carry on, all the participants were self-selected as they had replied to a newspaper ad, some may argue this is a particular type of personality. (Volunteer personality) Milgram strongly defended these criticisms, stating the results were unexpected as in a survey carried out prior to the experiment, asking the opinion of professionals, most believed the participant would stop when the learner protested, Milgrams main defence centres around the debrief, during which all participants were reassured about their behaviour and given reports of the findings on the experiment. They were assured no shocks were ever given, in a questionnaire filled in by 92% of participants only 2% regretted taking part, a massive 84% were happy to have taken part and 74% said they had learnt a lesson of self-importance. One year after the experiment all the participants were interviewed by a psychiatrist who confirmed none of them had suffered any long term harm. It is this study that largely contributed to the introduction of the ethical guidelines and codes of conduct and significantly contributed to the psychological understanding of obedience, demonstrating, how easily human beings can hurt each other even against their own morals and judgments and with no motivation of personal gain or even malice towards the other person, when in the presence of an authority figure (Bradley, 2002). Milgrams experiment has been replicated around the world with very similar findings of high obedience to authority figures, apart from Australia were the obedience levels fell to 16% however this was a woman giving a shock to other women. Zimbardos, Stanford prison experiment is a perfect example of how situational factors effect a person, Mark has been assigned the role of a soldier and will obey to the expectations of that role, as did the students given the role or prisoners in Zimbardos experiment, they immediately became submissive and obedient towards t he guards. Five prisoners actually began to experience severe negative thoughts and emotions and had to be released from the experiment and when questioned could not believe their own levels of obedience towards the guards (Cherry, K, 2013) Taking in to account these results and the effects of social influence and situational factors on a person’s behaviour, it is the conclusion that Mark will definitely continue his training and not stop. As an individual being given orders by someone he sees as a legitimate source of authority figure such as his officer, obedience to the system will be high, this is known as legitimacy of the system ( Pennington and Mcloughlin, 2008). Mark will show  obedience to his officer, and conform to what his fellow soldiers are doing; he will also adapt to his role and therefore detach himself from the responsibility of the injured soldier and carry out his training as instructed. It would not be possible for these experiments to be conducted today, due to not meeting the requirements of BPS ethical guidelines, which sets out the code of ethics researchers must follow when conducting experiments. All of the studies mentioned in this essay breach at least two of these ethical issues, The most prominent and criticized being, informed consent and deception, however had these guidelines been in place it would not have been possible to achieve such informative findings on human behavior. How to cite Conformity And Obedience, Papers