Destructive Obedience Case Study

How does your text explain the dilemma of destructive obedience? What factors play a role in destructive obedience? Destructive obedience has been very detrimental to mankind. With such instances as Holocaust or the genocide headed by the Hutu government against the Tutsis, but the question that comes up is “why does people conform to destructive obedience. Baron & Branscombe explains the dilemma of destructive obedience in four sections as to why a person may partake in destructive obedience in the first place. The first case is easily explained by stating a person in an authority position is carrying the destructive behavior because they are just obeying orders. Utilizing Milgrams experiment, they were able to prove that as long as the

First, people given commands to carry out any destructive obedience can be reminded that their actions can will ultimately result in that individual taking responsibility, not the one that gave the order. By doing so, this may trigger an acknowledgement of responsibility for his or her own action. Second, when you remind individuals that at some point, total obedience is wrong, some might detour from such behavior. By providing there is an example of people who disobeyed order, you can prime their thoughts into thinking of less destructive obedience. Third, individuals may find it easy to resist or go against those in positions of authority if they can find a way to question the intelligence, expertise and motives or the people in power. Question that can arise with these kind of thoughts can be “are those in these powerful positions suitable to make judgement for or against others?” When people question or tend to doubt the motive of a dictator, they find it easy to combat. Finally, “simply knowing about the power of authority figures to command blind obedience may be helpful in itself” (Baron & Branscombe, 2012). Once individuals witness the causes and effects of their action, they tend to change their behavior and often oppose those place in authoritative positions. There is hope that by some people noticing the harm that is done by engaging in such destructive obedience, there is a chance they an

In our strongly interconnected society, social influence plays a prominent role in many self-organized phenomena such as herding in cultural markets, the spread of ideas and innovations, and the amplification of fears during epidemics” (Moussaïd, Kämmer, Analytis, Neth, 2013). In many social and biological systems, individuals rely on the observation of others to adapt their behaviors, revise their judgements, or make decisions (Moussaïd, Kämmer, Analytis, Neth, 2013). Utilizing a principle founded by Robert Cialdini called the commitment or consistency, we daily fall victim to such conformity. The tactic of luring a customers is referred by Cialdini as the foot in the door technique. Basically, this involves inducing target people to agree to a small initial request, then making a larger which was desired all along (Baron & Branscombe, 2012) When using this technique, success of the foot in the door depends on the ability of the requester to initially “open the door”, which will allow a stronger possibility for the customer to say “yes” to other yet bigger demands. Another technique that is utilized within the Cialdini principle of commitment or consistency is the low-ball procedure. Baron & Branscombe defines this technique as “ a technique for gaining compliance in which an offer or deal is changed