Many people believe they are their own person and are free to make their own choices; however, few explore just how much a group can influence their behavior. This realm of influential group power has been analyzed by several psychologist to see how far people will bend to stay within a group mentality. Psychologists Asch, Zimbardo, McEwan, and Lessing defined a group mind as a mass of people who ignore their own morals and conscious to act as one whole entity because of obedience and pressure. As a result, this creates the potential for the group to become a destructively dangerous force. Each of the psychologists conducted an experiment where test subjects were examined to see how far they would go to stay within a group mind. Their individuality …show more content…
When the prisoners were oppressed, the guards expected them to revolt and fight for their last bit of freedom. As a result, the guards became more aggressive in response and ultimately caused the prisoners to become passive and obedient (Zimbardo 736). People will surrender their individuality to fit in, whether it be from a group or an individual. Similarly as it is examined in Asch, the strong inclination people have to conform will cause some to say white is black (730). Perhaps it is wired in the human species to group together no matter the cost to help them survive. However, there must be another component to help keep people under obedience because otherwise, people could simply break away from the group …show more content…
Many of the guards in the Zimbardo experiment entered into a false identity to escape the torment they created when releasing their sadistic nature (Zimbardo 738). They found it easier to blame and take out their frustration on the prisoners than to go against the role they were acting. This is similar to McEwan’s experiment because both of them exhibit that most individuals harbor a deep urge to unleash their anger. When this anger is concentrated together, then it can be used as an instrument of destruction. This is especially the case when there is an authoritative figure leading the group (Zimbardo ). The influential control of a group mind could be used in a positive manner; however, if the inner aggression of a group mind is not handled with caution, then it could wreak
This gives proof to the belief that many people obey authority to show they are doing a good job, and perceived as loyal by the experimenter or society, which ever the case may be. One theory used to explain this experiment, is one of hidden aggression. According to this concept, people suppress aggressive behavior, and the experiment allows them to express this anger. Therefore when an individual is placed in a situation where he has control over another individual, whom he is able to punish repeatedly, all demented and hidden anger will be revealed.
Ira Sher is able to capture the true philosophy and psychology of group thinking and conformism in the short story “The Man in the Well” by vividly reminiscing a specific encounter he had during his childhood. The short story depicts the savage and immoral actions of unsupervised children proving that as a collective unit individuals will tend to act in a wilder and uncivilized manner. The notion of group mentality as opposed to personal thought is saturated throughout the story and one of the main themes Sher is striving to express to the reader. Irvin Janis, the author of the book Victims of Groupthink, developed the word groupthink and defined it as a group making faulty decisions due to group pressures that lead to deterioration of their
We live in a society where each individual has their own set of thoughts and beliefs. Occasionally one will modify their beliefs and behavior to coincide with a group. This is an example of social influence. Social influence has three main components; conformity, compliance and obedience. The concept of compliance is similar to conformity, however there is a slight difference. Compliance only requires a person to perform a task. The person does not have to agree or disagree with the assignment, just simply complete it. Conformity requires the person being influenced to change their attitudes and or beliefs. An example of this aspect of social psychology is the holocaust in World War II. Adolph Eichmann was a Nazi officer responsible for filling up death camps in Germany. After the war he went on trial in Jerusalem for crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. On May 31, 1962, he was sentenced to death for the horrible crimes he committed. His defense was "Why me? Why not the local policemen, thousands of them? They would have been shot if they had refused to round up the Jews for the death camps. Why not hang them for not wanting to be shot? Why me? Everybody killed the Jews". A few months after the start of Eichmann’s trial, Stanley Milgram instituted an experiment testing ones obedience to authority. He wanted to find out if good people could do atrocious things if they were just obeying authority. Was Eichmann and millions of others in Nazi Germany decent people who were just following orders? Some other famous experiments that have taken place to test the waters of social psychology are Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments, all ...
Every participant went through three hundred volts before they stopped and refused to go any further (McLeod, 2007). This study demonstrates that obedience is a part of who we are. Milgram concludes that there are two states of behavior. The first is autonomous behavior where the individual takes responsibility and the other is agentic state responsibility is on the person giving the orders (McLeod, 2007). People who are ordinary are capable of harming other individuals if a person of authority tells them to. For a person to be obedient they must believe the person giving the orders is qualified and will take responsibility. A person is less likely to harm another person if the authoritative person is not going to take responsibility. This was proven in Milgram’s study because when he told individuals they had to take responsibility they did not want to continue. The Milgram study has influenced other psychologist to explore what makes a person follow orders (Cherry, 2012). The other experiments that Milgram conducted showed that rebellious people are not as obedient. There were different environments demonstrated among the different studies that Milgram used and even though the environment changed the situation stayed the
(Hart) Stanley Milgram’s experiment in the way people respond to obedience is one of the most important experiments ever administered. The goal of Milgram’s experiment was to find the desire of the participants to shock a learner in a controlled situation. When the volunteer would be ordered to shock the wrong answers of the victims, Milgram was truly judging and studying how people respond to authority. Milgram discovered something both troubling and awe inspiring about the human race. “Since they were first published in 1963, MIlgram’s sensational findings have been offered as an explanation for mass genocide during the Holocaust and events such as the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison”(Perry 223-224). The way Milgram was able to control the experiment shows how the human race can crack under pressure and obey orders, no matter the consequence. Although, not everything was as it seems when it came to the results of the findings. As Milgram used actors to portray the “victims” in the experiment, so no one was truly being tortured. Milgram wanted to show that pressure can get to anyone, in any situation.
In 1971 a group of researchers came together headed by a Stanford University psychologist named Philip Zimbardo performed an experiment called The Stanford Prison Experiment. Using a mock prison setting in the basement of one of the campus buildings at Stanford University, with young college students roleplaying as either a prisoner or guard to determine the psychological effects in a particular social situation. His hypothesis being that social roles can influence and change the behavior of those given that particular role.
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
Social Workers must be knowledgeable on how to facilitate and lead group sessions with clients. They must be cognizant on their responsibilities as a facilitator, and diligently work to meet the needs of all group members collectively and individually. According to Toseland, Ronald, & Rivas, Robert (2009) group work practice focuses on Social Work practice with a broad range of treatment and task groups and the group’s environment (pg. 2.). It is significant for Social Workers to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to be able to properly assess and assist in group atmospheres. At my field placement which is at the Covenant House, a homeless shelter in Detroit that services youth from ages 18-24. I am responsible for co-facilitating along with the agency’s Social Worker, a
Introduction 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 real life experiences. 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-group relationships were built through activities that will promote group identification. Stereotypes were assumed, such as believing that in-group members are brave and friendly (described in favourable terms) and members of the other group – sneaky (unfavourable terms). Hostility developed rapidly, followed by bitter conflict. The experiment focused heavily on the concept of a 'group ' and what a perception of belonging to a group can actually do to the relationships of members within it and their relationships with people outside their group. Sherif remarked that anyone who came in at this point would have concluded that these youngsters were wicked and vicious. However, it was group processes rather than the personality that had produced the conflict. However, in one of Sherif’s studies, which, unfortunately, was never published, they refused to be divided and, together, they resisted attempts by the experimenters to set them against each other.
Obedience is also seen by many as the path of least resistance; it isn’t as mentally demanding to follow someone’s orders. Assuming authority figures know what is best for everyone, it is simpler to do what we are told than to have to think for ourselves. But once we stop thinking for ourselves and begin following orders bli...
The Milgram experiment is probably one of the most well known experiments in Psychology. The reason being is because its participants were not told what was really occurring in the experiment. After the experiment was over, the participants were mentally and emotionally affected. Later, a cognitive psychologist, George Miller described Milgram’s experiments, together with Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment, as “being ideal for public consumption of psychological research” (Blass, 2002). And indeed, Milgram’s studies, as Zimbardo’s, are clearly meant to be spread to a broad audience, the moral and preventative objectives permeating the experiments from their very outset (Stavrakis, 2007).. In this paper, I will explore how experiments such as Milgram and Zimbardo’s, as well as the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment, changed the way experiments are conducted today because of the formation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
What is groupthink? There is a simple definition for it, but is it truly that simple? The term groupthink refers to the inclination of group members to have the same opinions and beliefs; it frequently leads to mistakes. It often occurs without an individual being aware of it. Conflict is considered to be a harmful element when related to groups, but conflict is good when considering groupthink because it helps to eliminate the existence of a groupthink. The explanation sounds simple enough, but it is more complex than the description given.
Working together with other people for an assignment can be a challenging task in some cases but luckily, I worked well with my group members. The decisions we made were anonymous although we paced ourselves individually when it came to completing our separate parts of the essay. As a group I believe that we connected well on an interpersonal level as all four of us were able to make alterations to any problem together . Furthermore, we did not give each other a chance to get angry at one another as we knew that this would only cause conflict that would disrupt our flow as a group. There was an equal divide in the amount of work that we all did; our contributions were fair and no one was lacking behind. In addition, my group members were great at keeping each other informed if one of us were not able to attend a group meeting; emails were sent out informing us what we missed and ideas that were formulated. Everyone in my group worked according to deadlines and in synchronization with each other; we did not have to nag anyone to complete work or wait on a member to complete their task.
Realizing that a group can become a high performance team is important. Accomplishing this goal is invaluable, advantageous and profitable. Once able to operate from a group to the high performing team is a great step into preparation into the big business world. Leaders and members must also realize not only how to accomplish this but that some problems will and can arise from different demographic characteristics and cultural diversity. That is if one is in such a group, which the probability would be quite high.