Reflection on Conformity and Obedience in Social Psychology Introduction In our group discussion, we discussed a class

Reflection on Conformity and Obedience in Social Psychology

Introduction

In our group discussion, we discussed a classic experiment of obedience to authority done by Stanley Milgram that was carried out in 1963. In this experiment, the participants were asked that they were helping in an experiment of learning and memory. They were advised to impose more and more severe electric shocks to a learner whenever the learner erred. The shocks were unreal but respondents felt that they were real. The results were shocking since a significant number of subjects still remained to follow directions when they thought they were causing harm to another individual. This experiment showed how regular individuals are obedient to the authority, even in cases where they do not agree with it on the personal level (Milgram, 1963).

In our group, we talked about how the experiment of Milgram exemplified obedience as well as conformity. Conformity can be defined as an adaptive process in which one modifies his behavior or beliefs in accordance with another outcome as expected by a group, and having an obedience as obeying the direct instructions of someone in superior position. We further contrasted the work of Milgram with that of Solomon Asch concerning conformity experiments in which members of the group in which participants agreed to erroneous group decisions regarding the length of lines (Asch, 1951).

My initial impressions were that conformity and obedience are fairly good social processes that cause the promotion of order and cooperation. However, I had time to make some reflections about the experiment that Milgram made and I saw how reluctant people can become towards disobeying their standards when they face authority. To me the ethical issues were of particular concern. There was a case of deception, emotional distress, and questionable informed consent in the experiment, since the subjects were not aware of the actual objective of the experiment. Such approaches are probably not acceptable in modern day ethical standards including those outlined by the American Psychological Association (Blass, 2012).

My opinions changed greatly in the process of our group exchanges. The legitimacy of the authority figure and the environment at Yale University is one of the situational factors that have been highlighted by one of the members in relation to the obedience. A second point was how participants perceived their actions to be a scientific purpose which lowered their responsibility of taking the actions. These science lessons made me realize that obedience does not simply mean getting weak as a character but rather a foreseeable reaction to situational forces (Burger, 2009). This knowledge helped me to increase my empathy with participants and change the individual morality to social mechanisms of influence.

Our team came to an agreement regarding our diversity of views as a result of exchanging and arguing about personal points of view. We all decided that the work conducted by Milgram was invaluable as far as it was able to give a clear picture of the significance of ethical considerations in research. Consensus building was done in a healthy manner as each of the members was accorded with an opportunity to make contributions. However, the discussion provoked our critical thinking and made some clear indication on the point of our common ground between scientific value and participant welfare.

Reflecting on the group dynamics I think that there was a certain degree of social facilitation and group influence when we were discussing. Since there were those members whose views were vehemently expressed particularly on unethical ones, others were observed to be imitating the same. Although this can be regarded as conformity, I believe that it also was an indication of how group discussions drive people towards a common knowledge. However, the group context admitted the dissent issue and members were easy to speak out in the group in case of a different opinion before a consensus was given.

To conclude, the study of Milgram’s obedience experiment in the framework of our discussion as a group enhanced my knowledge of how authority and social pressure can influence a human behavior to a considerable level. It also emphasized the long-term ethics in lieu of psychological research. This experience reinforced my perception that there is such a subtlety between the quest of knowledge and safeguarding of human subjects in social psychology.

References

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.

Blass, T. (2012). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525