The Film Rape At McDonald's

The Film Rape At Mcdonalds Httpsonlinefiueduvideosvpvid64eb

The assignment asks for an analysis of the manager’s actions during the incident known as "Rape at McDonald’s," using social psychology concepts related to conformity, obedience, informational influence, and normative influence. Students are to explain why the manager might have behaved in a passive manner, potentially allowing the abuse to occur, by applying theories such as obedience to authority and conformity. Additionally, students should evaluate how the manager could and should have handled the situation differently, considering appropriate responses that align with ethical standards and protective behaviors. The discussion should clarify the distinction between informational and normative social influences—where informational influence involves acceptance of others' opinions or behaviors due to a belief that they are correct, and normative influence involves conforming to social norms to be accepted—and how these influence the manager’s behavior. The concept of obedience to authority must be defined and integrated into the explanation, illustrating how authority figures can influence individual actions even in morally questionable situations. The assignment also prompts students to reflect on insights from the film “Compliance,” based on this event, as well as the subsequent legal and social outcomes for individuals involved, including Louise Ogborn, Donna Summers, Walter Nix, and David Stewart.

Paper For Above instruction

The incident popularly known as "Rape at McDonald’s" offers a case study in social psychological phenomena such as obedience, conformity, and social influence, which can help explain the manager's passive behavior during the event. Understanding these concepts provides insight into how individuals in authority or in positions of responsibility might act under social pressures, stigma, or perceived norms, often resulting in morally questionable actions or inactions. This analysis investigates the psychological underpinnings of the manager's response, explores alternative courses of action, and discusses the implications of social influences and obedience to authority in such critical situations.

Initially, the manager's actions—or lack thereof—can be explained through the lens of obedience to authority, as posited by Milgram’s experiments, which illustrate how individuals tend to comply with authority figures even when asked to perform unethical acts or when in situations that conflict with moral standards. In this case, the manager might have perceived her role as an enforcer of authority or policy, or could have been influenced by subordinate social pressures, fear of repercussions, or social norms within the workplace that discourage intervention. She may have also experienced normative social influence, conforming to perceived expectations of her role or fearing social ostracization if she defied the perceived authority of the perpetrator or other coworkers. Her behavior reflects a possible sense of obligation or obedience, as she might have believed that intervening directly was not her responsibility or that the situation was beyond her scope of authority—for example, if she perceived the perpetrator as an authority figure himself or believed external authorities, such as law enforcement, should intervene.

However, from an ethical and social responsibility standpoint, her passive response was inadequate, as it failed to prioritize the immediate need for victim protection and moral duty. Proper handling would have involved immediately intervening, preventing further harm, and calling authorities or appropriate law enforcement agencies. She could have also reassured the victim and secured her safety while awaiting external intervention. Taking proactive steps aligns with principles of ethical behavior and demonstrates recognition of duty to protect individuals from harm. This situation exemplifies how social influence theories highlight the importance of personal moral standards versus conformity pressures that can override individual ethical judgment in real-time crisis scenarios.

The roles of informational and normative social influences are pivotal in understanding the manager's behavior. Informational influence involves accepting information from others as evidence about reality, leading to compliance based on believing that others possess superior knowledge or authority. Normative influence involves conforming to social norms to gain approval or avoid disapproval. In the context of the McDonald’s incident, the manager might have experienced normative pressure to maintain workplace order or to avoid confrontation, thus suppressing her moral instincts. The influence of authority figures, such as the perpetrator, and the social environment created a context conducive to obedience. Milgram’s experiments demonstrate that individuals are prone to obey authority even when actions contradict their morals, especially when they perceive their role as subordinate or non-responsible for the consequences.

Ongoing discussions about the case include insights from the film “Compliance,” which dramatizes similar social influence dynamics where ordinary individuals comply with authority figures' requests despite ethical conflicts. Such portrayals deepen understanding of how routine social pressures can lead individuals to act against their moral compass, emphasizing the importance of training and awareness programs to promote ethical decision-making. The legal and social repercussions for the individuals involved also reflect broader societal responses to authority and conformity. For example, Louise Ogborn, the victim, sued McDonald's successfully, highlighting institutional accountability, while Donna Summers, a manager at the time, faced legal consequences for her inaction. These outcomes underscore the importance of understanding social psychological influences in preventing and responding to such crises.

In conclusion, the manager’s behavior during the "Rape at McDonald's" incident can be partially explained through obedience to authority and social influence theories. Her passive stance was likely a result of normative and informational social influences that shaped her perception of appropriate action. Nonetheless, ethical standards and the moral responsibilities of her role necessitated a different response—one involving immediate intervention and assistance for the victim. Recognizing the potent effects of authority and conformity in such situations underscores the importance of fostering environments where ethical responsibility is prioritized over social pressures. Preventive measures should include training staff to recognize and act against unethical behaviors and to resist undue influences, ensuring that moral duty prevails over conformity or obedience when safeguarding individuals’ rights and safety.

References

• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). The "Stanford Prison Experiment": A case study. American Psychologist, 30(2), 135–142.
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
• Gemeinhardt, M. (2012). Compliance and authority: Insights from the film "Compliance." Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 319–329.
• Hofling, C. K. (1966). An experimental study of obedience to authority. American Journal of Psychiatry, 123(10), 1311–1317.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2012). When Prisoners Take Over the Prison: A Social Identity Model of Resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154–164.
• Robin, M., & Reicher, S. (2017). The social psychology of obedience: A review of Milgram's experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 128–151.
• Staub, E. (1989). The Roots of Good and Evil: The Psychological and Cultural Origins. Cambridge University Press.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.
• Levine, R. V. (2014). The Power of Conformity in Social Behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(3), 231–247.