1 / 4

Obedience versus Conformity

Obedience versus Conformity. Hierarchy : obedience occurs in a hierarchy of power, conformity takes place amongst peers Imitation : Conformity involves imitation, there is no imitation of authority in obedience

barny
Download Presentation

Obedience versus Conformity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Obedience versus Conformity • Hierarchy: obedience occurs in a hierarchy of power, conformity takes place amongst peers • Imitation: Conformity involves imitation, there is no imitation of authority in obedience • Explicitness: Obedience involves commands and orders, group demands are implicit in conformity • Voluntarism: group members deny conformity, but embrace obedience

  2. Milgram’s Obedience Model as an Explanation of the Holocaust • Disparity in time scale (1 hr. lab experiment vs. 12 yrs of the 3rd Reich, Milgram) • Oversimplified explanation (Mandel, 1998) • In Browning’s Ordinary men (1992), troops were given an out for extermination duties, but most still complied. Milgram’s partner study found a dramatic decrease in shock administration with a disobedient model • Germans volunteered (Goldhagen, 1996) for killing when volunteering was unnecessary. • Unlike the Nazis, there was no possibility of professional advancement in Milgram’s experiment

  3. Milgram’s Obedience Model as an Explanation of the Holocaust (continued) • When given a chance, Milgram’s subjects went no higher than the first indication of discomfort (75 volts, Mandel, 1998). In contrasts with Nazi brutality, sadism, moral endorsement, enthusiasm, etc. • Is it correct to assume that humanity’s default position is inherently good, but situational press forces evil (Miale & Selzer, 2007). • Milgram’s subjects had ambiguity regarding learner’s suffering—experimenter assured them that learner was not being harmed. Nazi perpetrators knew they were harming/murdering victims. • Milgram’s subjects did not improvise their behaviour, unlike Nazis.

  4. Milgram’s Obedience Model as an Explanation of the Holocaust (continued) • No evidence of conflicted obedience (over time—see Browning) in the events of the Holocaust. • Milgram’s subjects regarded learner as peer (random selection was believed to determine learner’s status), Nazis regarded victims as subhuman and deserving their fate. • Milgram’s subjects exhibited distress, but Nazis’ behaviour was consistent with their values (Fenigstein, 1998). Their proclamation of obedience should be viewed as the “obedience alibi (Mandel, 1998) • Milgram’s subjects exhibited ethical shame/regret, Nazis reveled in murder. Photographs were made of executions, perpetrators took pride in their crimes, boosted self-esteem, etc.

More Related