Social Influence: a Possible Lethal Weapon

Social Influence: A Possible Lethal Weapon

Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo states, "Unless we learn the dynamics of "why" we will never be able to counteract the powerful forces that can transform ordinary people into evil predators." Unfortunately, throughout history and even today the power of majority opinion has led to immoral acts of violence at a universal level. In this "advanced" society, the world is experiencing Darfur, Armenian, Bosnian, Karen, Cambodian and Rwandan genocides. There is also the massive killing of innocent civilians in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. U.S soldiers over seas are accused of committing immoral war crimes when images of soldiers humiliating and morbidly abusing Iraqi prisoners appeared in the social media. Their excuse for their behavior is that "they were just following orders." What is most astonishing is that such atrocities are being committed by groups of "normal" people. The question that arises is the reason "why" ordinary people commit evil acts. Atrocities committed by groups of "normal" people continue to be studied. Even though some social experiments are labeled unethical, studies have investigated the effects of social influence on behavior as well as the importance of social need for obedience and conformity. The Milgram and Stanford Prison social experiments have discovered the possible connection between the need for obedience and conformity to the committing of "immoral and cruel acts." The Milgram experiment successfully depicts how a regular person can be influenced to commit immoral acts by an authoritative figure and the Stanford Prison experiment shows how "conformity to implied social rules and norms" can be just as powerful an influence as obedience to authority. Both experiments give possible reasons to why normal people are capable of "lethal" violence.

The Milgram Experiment is known as one of the most questionable scientific experiments designed by social psychologist Stanley Milgram and its purpose is to research the degrees of obedience to authority. In the experiment, it is observed how an ordinary individual will deliver lethal electric shocks to a complete stranger. Twelve volunteers are chosen from the public and introduced to an actor that plays as the professor conducting the experiment and another actor plays as a volunteer. The actual volunteer is given the role of the "teacher" and the actor is always the "learner." A list of words is given to the teacher so he or she can repeat to the learner. If the learner does not successfully memorize the list and correctly answer a series of multiple choice questions, then he will be electrically shocked by the teacher. Through an electric generator, shocks are delivered from a range of 15 to a deadly 450 volts and the voltage increases as the "learner" answer the questions wrong. It seems as the voltage keeps increasing so does the teacher 's reluctance. Their facial expressions and reactions are being analyzed by a social psychologist through a camera. The "professor" pushes the volunteers to finish the experiment with phrases like, "it is essential for you to continue"," you must continue", and "you need to keep going." The data of the experiment results in 9 out of 12 participants delivering the fatal shock of 450 volts. With this small sample study it is concluded it is possible for normal people to inflict excruciating pain on a stranger because they are told to do so by an authoritative figure. Social historian Michael Walzer states, "Disobedience....is always a collective act and it is justified by the values of the collectivity and the mutual engagements of its members." As result, Milgrim uses his original experiment as a "control group" and changes certain variables in the experiment to prove the theory stated above. For example, Milgram runs his experiment with just Yale college students and another with just women and finds the level of obedience just as "destructive" as his first experiment. Milgram then performs the experiment in a "run-down" location in Bridgeport, Conneticut and concludes that the level of obedience did not decrease enough to disprove the idea of collective obedience. Furthermore, Milgram then changes another variable in the experiment: the "experimenter." He changes the "scientist" to an "ordinary" person and concludes the level of disobedience decreased 20 percent. Not only is obedience a "collective act" but also motivated by people with "sufficient authority." Another variable Milgram changes is the increase of "physical, visual and auditory" contact between the teacher and the learner. As contact increases between both, the use of the lethal shock decreases. Interestingly, the more physical contact is enforced between the learner and teacher the less shocks are actually delivered. In addition, Milgram creates a scenario in which the participant watches two previous "teachers" disobey the scientist and in such case the participant disobeys as well. It is then concluded it is easier to disobey when it is "modeled" by others as well as contributing to the "collectivity" factor. Lastly, Milgram changes yet another variable. The position of the "experimenter" is changed, and the orders are performed through a phone. There is another decrease in the level of obedience since "only 22 percent of subjects obeyed to the end when the experimenter was absent." Most variables of the experiment are changed except the variable of a "direct order" being given, but what happens when a "direct order" is not given and the people still commit the same act? In the case of the U.S. soldiers torture of Iraqi prisoners, the courts concluded that the soldiers did not receive "direct order" form higher rank officials to commit the acts. Therefore, there must be more factors contributing to the acts of violence. In 1971, in an effort to contribute more information to Milgram 's obedience experiment, Philip Zimbardo designs an experiment in which subjects take the role of prisoners or guards(Cherry). The experiment consists of twenty-one male college students and is performed in the base of a Stanford University building. Zimbardo wants to see if "good" people placed in a "prison-like environment" will manage to keep their "goodness" after some of their civil rights are taken away for fourteen days(Cherry). The setting of the experiment included 3 by 9 foot cells containing three prisoners placed across rooms the guards and the warden use. Both the guards and the prisoners are given an accurate experience of being a guard and a prisoner. The guards are given their uniform and weapons while the prisoners are blindfolded, stripped naked, showered, given a uniform and an identification number. The experiments goes as far as giving the prisoners a nylon cap and chaining their ankles(McLeod). Through those actions, the guards are given a sense of power and the prisoners are basically dehumanized. The prisoners are to stay in their cells the 24 hours while the guards work in group of three for eight-hour shifts(Cherry). It is key to understand that the subjects were not told how to interact with each other. In his book Zimbardo states" when people are not certain what to do, they tend to rely on cues from others...conform their behavior to those in their immediate group. " In a short amount of time both the prisoners and guards adopt the social "norms" on how a guard and a prisoners "should" act(McLeod). Some guards starts to behave in a demeaning manner by insulting and giving useless things for the prisoners to do and eventually other guards start to join in as well. What is most astonishing is that the prisoners start to develop "prison-like" behavior like submissiveness, feelings of despair, depression, helplessness, fear and even start to tell on one another to gain some sort of appreciation from the guard(Cherry). Some prisoners are released early because they start to cry and show signs of possibly damaging anxieties. The more submissive the prisoners act the more violent the guards react(McLeod). The experiment is shortened to 6 days instead of 14 due to how easy the subjects conform to their subjective roles and also the seriousness the roles are taken in. The guards are mentally and physically abusing the prisoners while the prisoners submit to the abuse and orders. Furthermore, Zimbardo as the warden did not notice how he actually overlooked all the abuse and violence without even noticing. If it were not for his girlfriend pointing out what he is committing it may be possible Zimbardo would continued the experiment for a longer period(Cherry). In the case of the U.S. soldiers, it is stated, "the accused soldiers received no special training and were ignorant to Army regulations regarding...enemy prisoners of war" (Zimbardo). The behavior of the Stanford guards and accused soldiers show great similarities (Woods,483). The experiment concluded the great influence authority can have on behavior and how easily people conformed to norms set by society even if it means internalizing oppression.

Both social experiments depict humanity 's dark side and the realization can cause great discomfort to some people. It is discomforting to think that people have no defense against authority figures and the constant need to fit in. It gives people even less hope that great logical minds like Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo can also fall into the influences of conformity and obedience and be subjects in their own experiments. In his book, Zimbardo states ways to resist authority 's unacceptable orders: verifying discomfort, expressing discomfort, resisting even slightly objectionable commands, not continuing unacceptable behavior after realizing it is unacceptable, questioning authority legitimacy, and in case it is a group situation find an ally with a similar discomfort. In the Milgram experiment, a subject realizes he has gone too far with the experiment and refuses to continue even after the experimenter pushes him to do so (Woods, 484). The subject acknowledges his rights as a human being and is not influenced by the social environment he is in. Creating awareness against violence is crucial. The social psychologist in the Milgram experiment expresses people have the ability to convince themselves violence can be justified and therefore relieve the responsibility. The public needs to be aware that anyone can be capable of inflicting pain and authority figures are just like anybody. It is not wrong to question authority, it is not wrong to doubt, and it is not wrong to express our opinion in any circumstances.

References

"Milgram 's Follow-Up Studies to the Obedience Experiment." Explorable.com. 27 Feb. 2013.

Cherry, Kendra."The Stanford Prison Experiment: An Experiment in the Psychology of Imprisonment." Psychology.About. 01 Mar. 2013.< http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm>

McLeod, Saul. " Zimbardo- Stanford Experiment." Simply Psychology. June 2008. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

“Milgram 's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 1/3.” YouTube, 15 May 2009 . Web. 23 Feb 2013.

References: "Milgram 's Follow-Up Studies to the Obedience Experiment." Explorable.com. 27 Feb. 2013. Cherry, Kendra."The Stanford Prison Experiment: An Experiment in the Psychology of Imprisonment." Psychology.About. 01 Mar. 2013.< http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm> McLeod, Saul. " Zimbardo- Stanford Experiment." Simply Psychology. June 2008. Web. 01 Mar. 2013. “Milgram 's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 1/3.” YouTube, 15 May 2009 . Web. 23 Feb 2013.