Added: Nichola Jaimes - Date: 07.08.2021 13:59 - Views: 23295 - Clicks: 5724
One of the fundamental aspects of social interaction is that some individuals have more influence than others. Bosses have power over their workers, parents have power over their children, and, more generally, we can say that those Total obedient male wanted authority have power over their subordinates. In short, power refers to the process of social influence itself—those who have power are those who are most able to influence others.
The powerful ability of those in authority to control others was demonstrated in a remarkable set of studies performed by Stanley Milgram Milgram was interested in understanding the factors that lead people to obey the orders given by people in authority. He deed a study in which he could observe the extent to which a person who presented himself as an authority would be able to produce obedience, even to the extent of leading people to cause harm to others. Milgram used newspaper to recruit men and in one study, women from a wide variety of backgrounds to participate in his research.
When the research participant arrived at the lab, he or she was introduced to a man who the participant believed was another research participant but who was actually an experimental confederate. The experimenter explained that the goal of the research Total obedient male wanted to study the effects of punishment on learning.
After the participant and the confederate both consented to participate in the study, the researcher explained that one of them would be randomly ased to be the teacher and the other the learner. They were each given a slip of paper and asked to open it and to indicate what it said. In fact both papers read teacherwhich allowed the confederate to pretend that he had been ased to be the learner and thus to assure that the actual participant was always the teacher. While the research participant now the teacher looked on, the learner was taken into the ading shock room and strapped to an electrode that was to deliver the punishment.
For instance, if the word pair was blue-sofathe teacher would say the word blue on the testing trials and the learner would have to indicate which of four possible words housesofacator carpet was the correct answer by Total obedient male wanted one of four buttons in front of him. The research participant first read the list of words to the learner and then began testing him on his learning.
The shock panel, as shown in Figure 6. The experimenter sat behind the teacher and explained to him that each Total obedient male wanted the learner made a mistake the teacher was to press one of the shock switches to administer the shock. They were to begin with the smallest possible shock 15 volts but with each mistake the shock was to increased by one level an additional 15 volts.
Once the learner who was, of course, actually an experimental confederate was alone in the shock room, he unstrapped himself from the shock machine and brought out a tape recorder that he used to play a prerecorded series of responses that the teacher could hear through the wall of the room.
As you can see in Table 6. I refuse to go on.
Let me out! From volts and up the learner was silent. Table 6. Before Milgram conducted his study, he described the procedure to three groups—college students, middle-class adults, and psychiatrists—asking each of them if they thought they would shock a participant who made sufficient errors at the highest end of the scale volts.
One hundred percent of all three groups thought they would not do so. The of the actual experiments were Total obedient male wanted quite shocking. Although all of the participants gave the initial mild levels of shock, responses varied after that. Some refused to continue after about volts, despite the insistence of the experimenter to continue to increase the shock level.
Still others, however, continued to present the questions, and to administer the shocks, under the Total obedient male wanted of the experimenter, who demanded that they continue. In sum, almost two-thirds of the men who participated had, as far as they knew, shocked another person to death, all as part of a supposed experiment on learning.
In the replication, however, the participants were not allowed to go beyond the volt shock switch. Rather, he felt that it was the social situation, and not the people themselves, that was responsible for the behavior. To demonstrate this, Milgram conducted research that explored a of variations on his original procedure, each of which demonstrated that changes in the situation could dramatically influence the amount of obedience.
These variations are summarized in Figure 6. In one replication the status of the experimenter was reduced by having the experiment take place in a building located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, rather than at the labs on the Yale University campus, and the research was ostensibly sponsored by a private commercial research firm instead of by the university.
And if two experimenters were present but only one proposed shocking while the other argued for stopping the shocks, all the research participants took the more benevolent advice and did not shock. But perhaps most telling were the studies in which Milgram allowed the participants to choose their own shock levels or in which one of the experimenters suggested that they should not actually use the shock machine.
In these situations, there was virtually no shocking. These conditions show that people do not like to harm others, and when given a choice they will Total obedient male wanted. On the other hand, the social situation can create powerful, and potentially deadly, social influence. Before moving on to the next section, it is worth noting that although we have discussed both conformity and obedience in this chapter, they are not the same thing.
While both are forms of social influence, we most Total obedient male wanted tend to conform to our peers, whereas we obey those in positions of authority. Furthermore, the pressure to conform tends to be implicit, whereas the order to obey is typically rather explicit. Can our understanding of the social psychological factors that produce obedience help us explain the events that occurred in at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which U. The social psychologist Philip Zimbardo thinks so. In that study, Zimbardo and his colleagues set up a mock prison.
They selected 23 student volunteers and divided them into two groups. The study was expected to run for two weeks. However, on the second day, the prisoners tried to rebel against the guards. The guards quickly moved to stop the rebellion by using both psychological punishment and physical abuse. In the ensuing days, the guards denied the prisoners food, water, and sleep; shot them with fire-extinguisher spray; threw their blankets into the dirt; forced them to clean toilet bowls with their bare hands; and stripped them naked.
At this point, a former student who was not involved with the study spoke up, declaring the treatment of the prisoners to be immoral. As a result, the researchers stopped the experiment early. Arguably, this conclusion may be applied to the research team itself, which seemingly neglected ethical principles in the pursuit of their research goals. Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of Sergeant Chip Frederick, who was sentenced to eight years in prison for his role in the abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Frederick was the army reservist who was put in charge of the night shift at Tier 1A, where the detainees were abused.
We need inoculations against our own potential for evil. We have to acknowledge it. Recent research by Stephen Reicher and Alex Haslam suggests that this is Total obedient male wanted the case. The of this study were entirely different than those found by Zimbardo. This study was also stopped early, but more because the guards felt uncomfortable in their superior position than because the prisoners were being abused. Again, Total obedient male wanted conclusions are clear—the specifics of the social situation, more than the people themselves, are often the most important determinants of behavior.
Raven identified five different types of power— reward powercoercive powerlegitimate powerreferent powerand expert power shown in Table 6. Reward power occurs when one person is able to influence others by providing them with positive outcomes. The variety of rewards that can be used by the powerful is almost endless and includes verbal praise or approval, the awarding of status or prestige, and even direct financial payment.
The ability to wield reward power over those we want to influence is contingent on the needs of the person being influenced. Power is greater when the person being influenced has a strong desire to obtain the reward, and power is weaker when the individual does not need the reward. A boss will have more influence on an employee who has no other job prospects than on one who is being sought after by other corporations, and expensive presents will be more effective in persuading those who cannot buy the items with their own money.
Because the change in behavior that from reward power is driven by the reward itself, its use is usually more likely to produce public compliance than private acceptance.
Coercive power is power that is based on the ability to create negative outcomes for others, for instance by bullying, intimidating, or otherwise punishing. Bosses have coercive power over employees if they are able and willing to punish employees by reducing their salary, demoting them to a lower position, embarrassing them, or firing them. And friends can coerce each other through teasing, humiliation, and ostracism. In many cases, power-holders use reward and coercive power at the same time—for instance, by both increasing salaries as a result of positive performance but also threatening to reduce them if the performance drops.
Because the use of coercion has such negative consequences, authorities are generally more likely to use reward than coercive power Molm, Coercion is usually more difficult to use, since it often requires energy to keep the person from avoiding the punishment by leaving the situation altogether. And coercive power is less desirable for both the power-holder and the person being influenced because it creates an environment of negative feelings and distrust that is likely to make interactions difficult, undermine satisfaction, and lead to retaliation against the power-holder Tepper Total obedient male wanted al.
As with reward power, coercive power is more likely to Total obedient male wanted public compliance than private acceptance. Furthermore, in both cases the effective use of the power requires that the power-holder continually monitor the behavior of the target to be sure that he or she is complying.
This monitoring may itself lead to a sense of mistrust between the two individuals in the relationship.Total obedient male wanted
email: [email protected] - phone:(341) 987-3785 x 7773
4 Examples Of Obedience In The Bible