More handpicked essays just for you.
Research on conformity suggests that
The three factors that contribute to conformity behavior
Research on conformity suggests that
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Research on conformity suggests that
First of all, Milgram’s research on conformity was an experiment to test and observe the behavior of individuals, to see if there is a controversy between obedience to authority and personal conscience. The results were that about 60% of the participants continued on with the experiment to the highest level of electric shock. This explains that the normal people would more likely to put away their personal conscience to obey an authority figure whom they view as a more powerful one. If I were a participant in Milgram’s research on conformity, I believe I would carry out the order until the end of the experiment. Just like the majority of the participants back then, I would also carry on the order because as the experimenter give out the series
Milgram’s experiment basically states, “Be that as it may, you’d still probably commit heinous acts under the pressure of authority.” He also, found that obedience was the highest when the person giving the orders was nearby and was perceived as an authority figure, especially if they were from a prestigious institution. This was also true if the victim was depersonalized or placed at a distance such as in another room. Subjects were more likely to comply with orders if they didn’t see anyone else disobeying if there were no role models of defiance.
One - The power relations between Covey and Douglass are inherently dissimilar to those between the typical black and typical white of the time period. As Douglass writes, “Mr. Covey was a poor man, a farm-renter. He rented the place upon which he lived, as also the hands with which he tilled it” (Norton Anthology of African American Literature, 420). Because “the enslavement of the Negro determined the position of the poor whites in the old South,” a white without any slaves or land to his name was more akin to an enslaved black than to a wealthy plantation owner in terms of social standing. This status, added to the fact that “the poor whites understood that slavery was responsible for their hopeless economic condition,” contributed to a
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
... More people followed their direct orders and continued shocking the learners to the very highest voltage. Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own natural instincts. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world examples, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures.
The principle of conformity is examined by a group of subjects, each subject has to tell the instructor which line do they think is the same as the standard line. Four subjects would say the same wrong answer, since they are apart of the experiment. Then, the subject that was not apart of the experiment would either go along with the group or say the correct answer.
Milgram and Zimbardo are classified in the same category as behaviorists. Although they are locked in the same category, they are famously known for very different experiments that have somewhat of the same idea. Zimbardo is widely known for his Stanford prison experiment, while Milgram is known for obedience to authority. The goal of both experiments was to prove like Haney has said that evil is most generally generated through evil situations. Zimbardo and Milgram’s experiments are examples of Psychological situationism, which is pretty important in the work of social psychology. Salamucha finds that Milgram and Zimbardo’s work demonstrates that, sometimes, the power of situations can be overpowering.
The two Marines did not understand why they were charged with his murder, claiming, “We didn’t do anything wrong.” They claimed that they were only following orders from a superior. To explain the Marines’ behaviors, Milgram would argue that the Marines fell to the pressures of authority. In the article “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram tests the psychological affects on the “teacher” rather than on the “learner” (Milgram 78) About two-thirds of the test subjects were completely obedient and used the 450-volt shocks, and all of the participants used the painful 300-volt shock (Milgram 80). With these surprising results, Milgram deducts that many of these test subjects carried out these actions because of the authority figure in the room. Coming to a final conclusion, Milgram states that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (Milgram 86). Obedience to authority is ingrained in children from the day they are born, and they are raised to be obedient and this is why many people are obedient. With Milgram’s conclusion, it would be logical to assume that he would argue that the influence of authority is why Dawson and
It is very common to see conformity among young people, especially when large groups of young people are constantly around each other. School is one example where conformity is rampant. For some reason people tend to gravitate towards what others are doing. In Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel, Never Let Me Go, the characters are no different from any other young person in that they tend to conform. Ishiguro shows this conformity to prove that conformity stems from the want to fit in and pure ignorance. At Hailsham, the students conform just to fit in with the rest of the students, but they also conform because they do not know any better.
So far, conformity has been discussed in terms of group identification and social roles. However, individuals also tend to change prior beliefs to seek group acceptance. Asch (1951) investigated the effect of group pressure on conformity by asking participants to make a line judgment with seven confederates that gave the same obviously incorrect answer. Yet, 37% of participants conformed by giving the incorrect majority answer, whereas in the absence of group pressure, less than 1% of participants conformed (Asch, 1951). There are implications on normative influence as individuals, despite knowing the majority opinion was incorrect, may conform to avoid social punishment (Breckler et al., 2005). However, Turner and colleagues (1987) argued
In finding that people are not naturally aggressive. Milgram now alters the experiment to find out why do people act the way they do. He compiled the experiment to answer, why do people obey authority, even when the actions are against their own morals.
Stanley Milgram is well known for his work with obedience to authority. His work, “The Perils of Obedience,” studied whether average individuals would obey an authority figure, telling them to do something that harms another individual.
Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority for example; the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience reflecting how this can be destructive in experiences of real life. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid hence useless.
In order to understand why people conform so easily, one must analyze the effects of belongingness on our thought and behavior. This inescapable fear of rejection leads people to make cognitive and behavioral alterations in order to fit in and feel good about themselves. In the Milgram study, this fear of rejection (i.e. not being accepted by the man wearing a lab coat) caused participants to go against their own values and inflict pain on someone else. The confederate in the lab coat was able to capitalize on the participant’s fear through a few brief statements like, “The experiment will be ruined if you stop” or, “I need you to keep going.” After hearing these words, participants would often jump right back into shocking the man in order to please, and to be accepted by, the doctor running the experiment. In general, the psychological importance of self-esteem can help explain why people conform so easily: people want to feel good about themselves, which is achieved through acceptance and belongingness (Sociometer Theory), so people will usually go out of their way to feel accepted and thus feel good about
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.