Module Chapter 14 Discussion Assignment: One Form Of Social

Module Chapter 14 Discussion Assignmentone Form Of Social Influence Is

Obedience, a form of social influence, involves complying with direct commands, often from authority figures (Huffman & Sanderson, 2014). While obedience can ensure social order, its dangers are evident in experiments such as Milgram's on obedience and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Study. These studies reveal how authority's perceived legitimacy, proximity to victims, responsibility attribution, and modeling influence obedience levels. Milgram's experiment demonstrated that individuals might administer harmful shocks when prompted by authority, despite personal moral reservations. Conversely, Zimbardo's prison experiment showed how situational power dynamics can lead to abusive behaviors, especially when roles and responsibilities are blurred. Both studies highlight that obedience can override moral judgment, leading to unethical outcomes. The ethical issues, especially in Zimbardo's dual role as researcher and prison superintendent, raise concerns about the exploitation of participants. Milgram's design, where participants believed they were causing pain, was ethically questionable but avoided the complicating factor of dual roles. The danger of obedience lies in its potential to encourage harmful actions under authoritative pressure, as vividly shown in these experiments, emphasizing the need for strict ethical standards and awareness of situational influences in authority contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

Obedience is a fundamental aspect of social behavior that facilitates order and compliance within societies; however, it also bears significant risks when misused or when authority becomes abusive. The classic experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo vividly illustrate how obedience can lead individuals to commit acts contrary to their moral values under the influence of authority figures (Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo, 1975). This paper explores the factors influencing obedience, examines the ethical implications of these experiments, and discusses the potential dangers inherent in obedience to authority, emphasizing the importance of ethical research practices and heightened awareness of situational influences.

Milgram’s obedience study, conducted in the early 1960s, sought to understand the extent to which individuals would follow authority commands that conflicted with their personal conscience. Participants, believing they were delivering electric shocks to a learner, often continued despite evident discomfort and apparent pain (Milgram, 1974). The study identified key factors influencing obedience: the legitimacy and proximity of the authority figure, the remoteness of the victim, the responsibility assigned to the participant, and the modeling of obedient behavior. When authority figures appeared legitimate or authoritative, obedience increased. Similarly, when victims were distant, obedience was more likely. The assignment of responsibility to the authority rather than the participant also enhanced obedience (Huffman & Sanderson, 2014).

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment aimed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment (Zimbardo, 1975). The study revealed how situational power dynamics could lead to oppressive and abusive behaviors among participants. Participants assigned as guards quickly adopted authoritarian roles, subjecting prisoners to degrading treatment, often beyond what they initially anticipated. The dual role of Zimbardo as both researcher and prison superintendent created conflicts of interest, delaying intervention when abuse occurred. This ethical lapse underscores the importance of role separation and safeguards in research. Both studies demonstrate that situational factors and authority can overpower individual morals, leading to harmful outcomes (Baumrind, 1964).

The ethical concerns raised by these experiments are profound. Milgram’s study intentionally inflicted psychological stress, yet it argued that deception was necessary to ensure authentic behavior, stressing the importance of debriefing and informed consent (Milgram, 1974). Conversely, Zimbardo’s study faced criticism for lack of intervention and potential harm caused by role-induced behaviors. The ethical problem of dual roles in Zimbardo’s study exemplifies how researcher involvement can impair objectivity and participant well-being. The threat posed by obedience lies in its capacity to justify harmful actions, especially when authority is perceived as legitimate and unchallengeable. Recognizing these risks entails strict adherence to ethical standards, including informed consent, risk minimization, and debriefing (American Psychological Association, 2017).

Understanding the factors that influence obedience is crucial for preventing abuse of power in real-world settings. Authority figures must be aware of their influence and the potential for destructive obedience. Educational programs and organizational policies should foster critical thinking, ethical awareness, and the recognition of undue influence. The experiments by Milgram and Zimbardo serve as essential cautionary tales, reminding us that situational and environmental factors can override moral judgment, leading to disastrous consequences. In contemporary society, awareness of these dynamics is vital, especially in contexts such as military obedience, police authority, and institutional hierarchies (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). Ultimately, promoting ethical standards and fostering individual moral responsibility are key to mitigating the dangers associated with obedience.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” American Psychologist, 19(6), 421–423.
• Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1–17.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1975). On transforming experimental research into advocacy for social change. In M. Deutsch & H. Hornstein (Eds.), Applying Social Psychology (pp. 33–66). Lawrence Erlbaum.