PSY-530 9-2 Final Project Submission

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

530

Subject

Psychology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by bulldogpitbullmom77

PSY-530 9-2 Final Project Submission Vicki Pratt PSY-530 Social Psychology Dr. Leilani Ahina-Dawson Southern New Hampshire University February 11, 2024

Introduction: Summary The classic study I have chosen for this project is Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority (1965). The research question/hypothesis for this article is “If an experimenter tells a subject to hurt another person, under what conditions will the subject go along with this instruction, and under what conditions will he refuse to obey?” (Milgram, 1965). Milgram conducted a series of experiments with varied physical closeness and degree of surveillance (Milgram, 1965). The closeness ranged from a few feet away from the victim, by telephone, and the experimenter never being seen by the victim. As the experimenter was removed from having contact with the victim obedience dropped sharply. When the experimenter was absent, the participants administered lower shocks than required and never informed the experimenter of their deviation from the required protocol. Some participants even told the experimenter over the phone that they were giving the shocks with the correct voltage and raising the voltage when required but were actually continuing to use the lowest shock possible all the time. The experiment concluded that the physical presence of an authoritative figure is an important contributing force to the participants obedience or defiance. There were very powerful reactions of tension and emotional strain on the participants administering the electrical shocks. Some signs of tension displayed were nervous laughing, smiling, and uncontrollable seizures. The study shows that most of the participants were not wanting to give the “learners” any inhumane treatments, and most showed signs of tension. Three participants suffered from uncontrollable seizures, 40 participants administered electrical shocks up to 300 volts, and 25 out of the forty continued to administer shocks up to 450 volts. One participant complained of having heart issues. Even though most of the participants felt the electrical shocks were inhumane to administer, 65% of the participants continued to administer the shocks up to 450

volts. “One general finding merits attention is the high level of obedience manifested in the experimental situation. Subjects often expressed deep disapproval of shocking a man in the face of his objections, and others denounce it as senseless and stupid. Yet many subjects complied even while they protested. The proportion of obedient subjects greatly exceeded the expectations of the experimenter and his colleagues” (Milgram, 1965). The current article I found for this project is Cognitive Structuring and Obedience Toward Authority (2018). The research question/hypothesis for this article is “Does it takes the interaction of several different factors to determine obedience”?. Grzyb, Dolinski, Trojanowski, and Bar-Tal hypothesize that the effect of need for cognitive closure on obedience will be stronger in a normal situation. Out of the 351 participants, 221 obeyed all experimenter instructions and pressed the button 10 times. It was found that if the participants gender and the learners gender were the same, a high need for cognitive closure led to the higher likelihood of obedience. The objective of this study was to determine the need for cognitive closure interaction between the teacher and the learner. The study showed that the effect of the need for cognitive closure on participant obedience is more apparent when there is a correspondence between the questioned behaviors and cultural norms when the teacher and learner are the same sex. Introduction: Approaches The approach to Milgram’s experiment was compliance when in the presence of an authoritative figure. He wanted to research if individuals comply with instruction out of fear or the eagerness to cooperate when an authoritative figure is present even when complying goes against their own personal values and beliefs. Grzyb, Dolinski, Trojanowski, and Bar-Tal’s approach to their experiment was to see if different factors played a part in obedience. They questioned whether there was a stronger need

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

of participant obedience when the learner and teacher were the same sex. Introduction: Theories and Past Research Milgram conducted his research study after World War II which was driven by bias against Jewish people and there was significant loss of lives. World War II ended in the division and mistreatment of many different social groups which led to extreme suffering. Interest in studying loyalty to authoritative figures came after World War II when Milgram investigated the justifications of the accused for committing genocide during the war. He wanted to find the answer to his question about the genocide during the war. His question was “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?" (Wigmore, 2019). Milgram wanted to test the willingness to obey an authoritative figure even when it caused harm to others. Milgram’s 1961 study and his 1963 study were used as a “pilot” for the 1965 study. The previous two studies provided “several significant features of the experimental situation” (Milgram, 1965). Grzyb, Dolinski, Trojanowski, and Bar-Tal wanted to retest Milgram’s study. They felt the study by Milgram was unethical. This new study was to see what role cognitive and motivational factors played in Milgram’s study. They conducted their experiment using an internet simulator to give them the benefits of seeing cognitive and motivational factors when compared to Milgram’s study. Milgram’s study of 1965 greatly contributed to this study conducted by Grzyb et al. Grzyb wanted to further explore Milgram’s idea of obedience to authority. A study conducted by Feld and Felson in 2008 also contributed to Grzyb’s study because Feld and Felson found in their study that retaliation by women against women was accepted more than retaliation of men against women of the same degrees. Introduction: Changed Over Time

Research on obedience and behavior has changed significantly over time. Milgram’s study was completed in 1965 and Grzyb’s study was conducted in 2018. Milgram’s participants in his study were all males whereas the participants in Grzyb’s study were male and female. The start of the draft and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may have contributed to the all-male participants in Milgram’s study. Studies that have been conducted over time have shown that obedience was different between men and women. Seeing the results of these studies has contributed to Grzyb’s study. He wanted to see the relationship between gender and obedience. Human Behavior: Different Time Periods Milgram’s study exposed the psychological instruments between the teachers commands and the participants obedience and compliance. Milgram’s study showed that males were superior to women. Women were seen as homebodies whose responsibilities were to take care of the house. They were seen as not being suitable for jury duty. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII forbid discrimination based on sex for employment. In 2018, at the time of Grzyb’s study women have assumed many leadership roles and participate in studies that were deemed unsuitable in the past. Grzyb’s study wanted to see the relationship of obedience and compliance between same sex teacher and learner roles and male/female teacher and learner roles. Human Behavior: Results and Conclusions Milgram’s study revealed that the participants were more likely to obey the demands of shocking the learner when the authoritative figure was close by. The farther away the examiner was, like speaking to the teacher over the phone, the more comfortable the teacher felt to refuse to shock the learner. Even if shocking the learner went against the teachers beliefs, they still obeyed the commands of the experimenter when they were in close proximity. 65% of participants fully obeyed the experimenters commands. The experiment concluded that the

physical presence of an authoritative figure is an important contributing force to the participants obedience or defiance. There were very powerful reactions of tension and emotional strain on the participants administering the electrical shocks. Some signs of tension displayed were nervous laughing, smiling, and uncontrollable seizures. The study shows that most of the participants were not wanting to give the “learners” any inhumane treatments, and most showed signs of tension. Three participants suffered from uncontrollable seizures, 40 participants administered electrical shocks up to 300 volts, and 25 out of the forty continued to administer shocks up to 450 volts. One participant complained of having heart issues. Grzyb’s study found that when the teacher and learner were of the same sex they have a strong desire for the need of cognitive closure on participant obedience and that it is more apparent when there is a correspondence between the questioned behaviors and cultural norms when the teacher and learner are the same sex. Out of the 351 participants, 221 (63%) obeyed all experimenter instructions and pressed the button 10 times. In relation to male/female gender, 62.1% of males and 63.6% of females obeyed all experimenter instructions and pressed the button 10 times. It was found that if the participants gender and the learners gender were the same, a high need for cognitive closure led to the higher likelihood of obedience. Human Behavior: Research Trends Milgram’s study was aligned with the research trends of that time period. He helped society understand human behavior and authority after World War II. His study helped us to be able to refuse to act on the commands of authority when it is an inhumane or immoral act that goes against our values and beliefs. Grzyb’s study is also aligned with the research times of that time period. Grzyb helped us to understand behaviors when it comes to the authoritative figure and the other person being of

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

the same sex. He also showed that gender roles still come into play when it is between individuals of the opposite sex. Males in the study were reluctant to press the button to shock the other participant when they thought it was a female. The females were not as reluctant when faced with shocking a male because they still see males as being tougher and better able to handle the shock. Same sex participants felt the need to complete the study to the highest shock level because they felt equal to the other participant. Neither participant felt superior to the other. Influence on Society: Benefit Society Milgram’s and Grzyb’s studies both benefit society by showing the proneness of people to comply with authority and authoritative figures. Both studies have been used as a tool to help encourage the awareness of the tendency of individuals to comply with authority. This has caused an examination of the phenomenon of individuals evading respect, that is resisting inconsistent and/or undue authority. Milgram’s study has since been used to foster notable societal change. Influence on Society: Negative Impact Milgram’s study had a negative impact on those who have read his published results. It made many people aware of the psychological processes behind the commands of the experimenter and the compliance and obedience to the commands by the participants. Some people are now choosing to drift away from authoritative norms. They are choosing to resist adhering to those expectations. Milgram’s study had many ethical issues and caused psychological harm to some of its participants. These ethical issues led to changes in the regulations for experiments that are conducted today. Influence on Society: Everyday Life

Milgram’s study provides ways for people to be more aware of their behaviors, it helps them to understand the reasoning as to why certain things are happening, and it allows people to be able to stand up against unjust behaviors and it also provides “preventative actions to resist unwanted pressures from authority figures” (APA, 2004). Grzyb’s study has influenced the everyday lives of people in society by showing us that individuals continue to obey authoritative figures in society. It also shows us that gender roles are still in play for the most part. Women see men as the stronger type, more apt to handling shocks in the study whereas women are viewed as weaker and shocks against the women caused more anxiety for the men. Influence on Society: Social Change “Milgram’s research on obedience was widely used in various domains to create changes in large segments of society” (APA, 2004). This study has led to new laws being introduced to protect the rights of individuals when they are in positions to obey authoritative figures. Grzyb’s study can help improve social well-being by showing us the roles gender plays in obedience. It is still unclear if the level of obedience is a direct link of the gender of the leaner. Influence on Society: Personal or Professional Experience Before I became familiar with Milgram’s study I felt that people made up their own minds and made their own choices without influence from outside sources. Now I see that our behaviors can be greatly influenced by outside sources. I now wonder how many of our choices in life were influenced by others with authority. Before becoming familiar with Grzyb’s study I felt like gender roles were equal. That men and women seen each other the same. After researching this study, I see that gender

inequality still does exist, even if it isn’t as apparent as it was in the past. This study has also shown me that the cultural “norms” still play a part in our obedience of authoritative figures. Influence on Society: Influential Both of these research studies have influenced behaviors in society. It is now socially acceptable to seek help for mental health issues without embarrassment or fear of judgement. Mental illness is now an acceptable diagnosis. Psychologists are now able to address behavioral issues through counseling, teaching, and research. Ethical Considerations: Ethical Issues Milgram’s study in 1965 had several ethical issues. Some ethical problems in this study are deception, the right to withdraw from the study, and participant protection. The participants in this study consisted of only males. Participants were unaware that “leaners” were associates of Milgram’s and were also led to think they were administering shocks of increasing intensity to the participants (Milgram, 1965). Participants could have suffered from extreme anxiety about causing harm to others. At the conclusion of the study none of the participants were made aware of the wellbeing of the other participants receiving the electrical shocks. The lack of debriefing of the participants in the study is an ethical issue because it can lead to a negative impact on their mental health and cause physical distress. Grzyb’s study of 2018 had several ethical issues also. Some ethical problems in this study are deception, participant protection and the right to withdraw from the study. The participants were led to believe they were administering actual shocks, and they were also unaware that the participants were colleagues of Grzyb et al. Participants could also suffer from extreme anxiety about causing harm to others. Ethical Considerations: Ethical Guidelines

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The American Psychological Association (APA) is ethical guidelines set forth for the field of psychology. One of the guidelines that was missed in these studies was section 3 of the APA ethical guidelines. Section 3 in on human relations. Standard 3.04 states “(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. (b) Psychologists do not participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in torture, defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, or in any other cruel, inhuman, or degrading behavior that violates 3.04(a)” (APA, 2016). Ethical Considerations: Ethically Appropriate Strategies One way to avoid any ethical issues is to obtain informed consent from all participants in a study. Getting informed consent will help to reduce any potential psychological issues that could arise from being a participant in the study. It is important to respect the rights of all participants involved in a research study. These participants are entitled to their privacy, their personal information being kept confidential, and the right to make independent informed decisions. When interacting with participants in a study, the researchers need to be unbiased against the participants culture, race, age, gender/gender identity, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation (APA, 2017). Participants in a study should do so at their own will without any type of coercion. This is discussed in the APA Ethical guidelines section 8.02 about informed consent to research. It states “(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or

withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers. (b) Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to participants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental nature of the treatment; (2) the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate; (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and (5) compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought” (APA, 2017).

References American Psychological Association (APA). (2004). Obeying and Resisting Malevolent Orders. https://www.apa.org/topics/forensics-law-public-safety/order#:~:text=Practical %20Application,thereby%2C%20making%20them%20more%20plausible APA. (2016). American Psychological Association. Revision of Ethics Code Standard 3.04. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/standard- 304#:~:text=(a) %20Psychologists%20take%20reasonable%20steps,it%20is%20foreseea ble %20and%20unavoidable . American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of Conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html Grzyb, T. et-all. (2018). Cognitive structuring and obedience toward authority , Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 133, 2018. Pages 115-120, ISSN 0191- 8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.032 . Milgram, S. (1965). Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority. Human Relations , 18 (1), 57-76. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/001872676501800105 Wigmore, I. (2019). Milgram experiment (Behavioral study on obedience). https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/Milgram-experiment- Behavioral- Study-

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

onobedience#:~:text=The%20study,who%20failed%20to %20respond%20correctly .

PSY-530 9-2 Final Project Submission

Related Documents