Social Identity Theory And Self Categorisation Theory Sociology Essay

Social Identity Theory And Self Categorisation Theory Sociology Essay Social Identity Theory was established by Tajfel and Turner with the aim of trying to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel and Turner (1979) tried to identify conditions which would lead members of a specific social group to behave in a biased matter towards an out-group, in favour of the in-group which they were a member of. It is seen as a discursive approach. The main principle of Social Identity Theory is that people often categorise and define themselves and others into a number of different social groups and strive to have their group valued more highly than other groups (Tajfel Turner, 1985). Consistent with Tajfel and Turners (1985) claim, it is believed, by other psychologists, that social identities are formed to boost self-esteem and encourage a sense of certainty (McGregor, Reeshama and So-Jin, 2008). To explain the phenomenon of how individuals evaluate themselves and others as part of an in-group or an out-group, Social Identity Theor y identifies three mental concepts: social categorisation, social identification and social comparison (TaÃ…Å ¸demir, 2011). Social categorisation relates to individuals assigning people to social categories in order to understand and identify them (Tajfel Turner, 1979). This results in the world being divided into them and us, or an in-group and an out-group. In the second concept, social identification, people adopt the identity of the social group they have categorised themselves into. This also involves developing an emotional attachment to ones identification with the group and self-esteem will be closely linked to group membership (Tajfel Turner, 1979). The final concept, social comparison, relates to an individual comparing the group they identify with with other groups. To retain ones self-esteem, their group must be viewed in a more positive light than other groups (Tajfel Turner, 1979). Several psychological studies have supported the fact that individuals create so cial categories in order to boost self-esteem. An example of this being when individuals learn that their social group is unacceptable to society, they tend to perceive the out-group as unacceptable as well (Ford Tonander, 1998). Haslam (2001) has identified two types of strategies individuals use to boost their groups status: social conflict and social creativity. Social conflict refers to the in-group undermining the social status of the out-group. This can be done in a violent manner or by way of protests. Social creativity relates to the in-group emphasising group features which they flourish on, by way of advertising these strengths. Haslam (2001) argues that when the in-group does not feel at risk and feel their status is largely secure they will engage in social creativity rather than social conflict. However, when members of the in-group feel threatened they will readily engage in social conflict. A core principle of Social Identity Theory is that ones social identity is no t fixed and cannot predict ones behaviour. Instead, the context and the in-groups salience in the context decides which aspect of an individuals identity is influential in a situation. According to Social Identity Theory, individuals are more inclined to identify with a certain social group if they feel uncertain. Support for this claim comes from McGregor, Reeshma and So-Jin (2008). In their study, participants were required to describe personal conflicts which were caused by unresolved personal problems (uncertainty task). In an attempt to assess out-group derogation, Canadian participants read statements which were critical of Canada, written by a foreign person. The extent to which the Canadian participants disliked and disagreed with the foreigners statement was measured, providing an index of out-group derogation. Additionally, each participant completed a measure of structure requirement. McGregor, Reeshma and So-Jin (2008) found that individuals who sought structure and clar ity were more likely to show out-group derogation after completing the uncertainty task. However, this research used participants from a Western country the same results may not have been generated if Eastern participants took part in the study. The assumptions from these results cannot be generalised to people from different cultures. It can be argued that Social Identity Theory is effective in its claim that people have a biased perception of their own social group compared to other groups, that is, explaining in-group bias. Evidence of this can be seen in the results of Mullen, Brown and Smiths (1992) study into the in-group bias hypothesis. Further support of the claim that identity processes underlie the in-group bias is a report illustrating that members of a social group have higher self-esteem after engaging in discriminatory behaviour (Rubin Hewstone, 1998). Rubin and Hewstone (1998) demonstrate that people show an intergroup distinction to feel good about themselves and the social group which they identify with (Brown, 2000). Brown, Maras, Masser, Vivian and Hewstone (2001) observed that English passengers on a ferry had been refused travel by the actions of French fishermen the out-group and so displayed generally less favourable attitudes towards French people. This supports Social Identity Theorys social comparison concept, in that the English passengers identified so strongly with their national group that they viewed the French in a negative light which in turn, resulted in them retaining their self-esteem. However, Social Identity Theory does have a number of issues which have proved problematic when trying to account for group influence. The theory assumes that a positive social identity is based on positive intergroup comparisons (Brown, 2000). It does make sense to assume that there should be a positive correlation between the strength of group identification and the level of in-group bias. This hypothesis has been tested over the years and still remains of interest to psychologists worldwide (Brown, 2000). Subsequent psychological studies investigating this correlation have shown little support for Social Identity Theory. According to Brown (2000), 14 studies were analysed and the overall correlation between group identification and in-group bias was +0.08, and while 64% of correlations were positive, the mean correlation was not very strong (+0.24). It can be argued, however, that this correlation hypothesis was not actually stated by Tajfel and Turner (1979) when they were develo ping the Social Identity Theory. It is clear from Social Identity Theory that people are motivated to have an in-group bias by the need to see themselves, and the group they identify, within a positive light. Thus, it can be assumed there is a causal link between intergroup distinction and self-esteem. Abrams and Hogg (1988) summarised this concept positive in-group differentiation leads to increased self-esteem and people with low self-esteem show more differentiation in order to boost levels of self-esteem. Social Identity Theory is essentially a theory relating to group differentiation, that is, how members of a specific in-group make this group distinctive from, and better than, an out-group. Therefore, groups which see themselves as similar should be keen to show intergroup differentiation (Brown, 1984). This hypothesis has been tested vigorously over the years with different results. Some studies have generated results which contradict Social Identity Theorys hypothesis Jett en, Spears and Manstead (1996) found that groups that viewed themselves to hold similar attitudes and equivalent status showed more intergroup attraction and less bias then dissimilar groups (Brown, 2000). However, some studies support Social Identity Theory as they have found that intergroup similarity does lead to intergroup differentiation especially if both groups are extremely similar (White Langer, 1999). The concept of social identity as described by Social Identity Theory could be altered by way of having a greater greater acknowledgement of the diversity of social groups that can represent ones social identity. Self-Categorisation Theory also focuses on the concept of intergroup differentiation as a function of identity (TaÃ…Å ¸demir, 2011). Self-Categorisation Theory is seen as a cognitive theory of behaviour within intergroup contexts and offers explanations about the cognitive processes underlying an individuals self-categorisation and intergroup differentiation processes (Turner, 1999). The theory is seen to be a more elaborate, extended version of the original Social Identity Theory (TaÃ…Å ¸demir, 2011). Turner et al. (1987) argue that Self-Categorisation Theory deals with the social-cognitive basis of intergroup behaviour. Self-Categorisation Theory explains how people form a self-identity in terms of the social categories which they belong to. This also leads to people discriminating between their own category members and people in other categories. The meta-contrast principle explains this process. The meta-contrast principle explains that any number of individuals in a cert ain situation are likely to categorise themselves as a social group when they view differences amongst each other less than the differences between themselves and others in the same situation (Turner, 1985). For that reason, when inter-group differences are more stark than intra-group differences (high meta-contrast ratio), it is believed that people define themselves based on their membership of social groups and they differentiate between the in-group and out-group (Turner, Oakes, Haslam McGarty, 1994). Self-Categorisation Theory states that when individuals identify with a social group, they experience depersonalisation. That is, they perceive every member of their group as interchangeable on a certain level (Turner et al., 1957). Self-categorisation cognitively assimilates the individual to the in-group prototype and so depersonalises self-conception (Hogg and Terry, 2001). Therefore, it is assumed that each group member, including the individual themselves, share the same valu es and morals and so they tend to adhere to group norms (Hogg and Reid, 2006). According to Hogg and Terry (2001), this transformation of self-identity is the process which underlies group phenomena as it brings self-identification in line with the relevant in-group prototype in a certain context. Many psychologists, such as Simon (2004) and Deaux (1993) have challenged this assumption of depersonalisation. A study was conducted by Swann, Gomez, Seyle, Morales and Huici (200) who found a contradiction to the assumption of depersonalisation. In their study, individuals who felt their personal and social identities were linked did not adhere to the norms of the in-group. Instead, they engaged in rebellious behaviour to protect their group even when their identity was threatened. Self-Categorisation Theory promotes the idea that when people self-categorise themselves, they tend to think of themselves more as a member of a social group, rather than as individuals. This includes them bel ieving that they share the same characteristics associated with their group and they behave in ways that they feel members of their group should act. This process is called self-stereotyping (Mackie, Smith and Ray, 2008). As result of this, self-categorisation increases similarity in the in-group. This is because every member of the social group takes on attributes which are seen as characteristic of the group and so every member develops identical qualities. One could argue, therefore, that Self-Categorisation Theory provides an insight into the fact that the group has become part of ones self. Support of this comes from a study by Smith and Henry (1996) who found that group members perceive themselves as like their social group. Although both theories, Self Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory, are different, one could ague that they are similar to an extent. This is because both theories explore how identities are internalised and are used by individuals to define themselves. However, there are several differences between Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory and the way in which they account for group influence. Self-Categorisation Theory focuses more on the cognitive processes of categorisation in a social context whereas Social Identity Theory offers a more discursive approach. Discursive psychologists have been critical of Social Identity Theory over the years. They criticise the theorys assumption that group conflict and differentiation is caused by a worldwide psychological process. Additionally, they feel that the theory is limited as it does not have ecological validity since much of the research into the theory is conducted in Western cultures. There has been an intercultu ral study conducted by Wetherell (1996) who found that children who come from other cultural backgrounds do not discriminate between groups, unlike North American children. Self-Categorisation Theory does not place as much emphasis on the role of self-esteem, unlike Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory emphasises the process of self-categorisation into a group and Self-Categorisation Theory emphasises the process of self-stereotyping and identifying oneself based on a social group. According to Taylor and Moghaddam (1994), Self-Categorisation Theory ignores socio-structural factors and is devoid of the passion involved in real-life conflicts. The theory describes humans in the image of thinking machines. Therefore, one contrast between Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorisation Theory is that the latter can be criticised for not paying enough attention to motivational and affective issues. One flaw of Self-Categorisation Theory is that it concentrates on identity forma tion in adults but no attention has been given to the development of identity in infants. There has however been research into this, using the main principles of Self-Categorisation Theory and applying it to children (Barrett, Wilson and Lyons, 1999). One could therefore argue that Self-Categorisation Theory is not efficient when it comes to explaining group influence on children. A success of Social Identity Theory is that other psychologists have used its principles in an attempt to explain extremist social movements. Reicher, Haslam and Rath (2008) explained how the ideas promoted by Social Identity Theory were able to explain Nazism. In conclusion, it is clear that both theories share similarities, but there are also a number of differences between the two. Self-Categorisation Theory has a more cognitive approach to group influence whereas Social Identity Theory has a more discursive approach. Further research into Social Identity Theory could involve people from Eastern countries to give the theory more ecological validity as currently, the majority of studies have used Western participants. Self-categorisation theory focuses too much on the formation of identity and group influence in adults and so more research could be done on children to see if the same assumptions apply.

Microeconomics Research Paper

Nicholas Benyola Professor Mansourian Econ 201- 25 17 May 2012 Microeconomics Research Paper Minimum Wage In the United States, minimum wage has remained at a low number for several years. Minimum wage is defined as the lowest possible income that an employer can legally pay an employee. This ensures that all people are fairly paid and not defrauded by companies or businesses. Minimum wage is considered a price floor and the minimum wage laws determine the lowest price possible that any employer must pay for labor.In an economic model, the quantity of supplied is greater than the quantity demanded and the minimum wage is above equilibrium price and quantity. Minimum wage prevents labor supplied and labor demanded from moving toward equilibrium price and quantity. Although the government is trying to maintain a good balance of income distribution, there are is a high amount of people that work year round and still fall under the national poverty level. The government tries to stop the rich from getting richer, and the poor from getting poorer, so they make sure that everyone is earning the same amount of money.Even if our balanced income distribution is at a good number, an increase of the minimum wage price would help our country in a lot of ways. Raising the current minimum wage is one way to reduce poverty, will help businesses grow, and could help a lot of communities as well. The first advantage of increasing the minimum wage is that it will help poor people to earn a higher income. For many workers, minimum wage is simply not enough money for them to be able to support their families. A higher minimum wage would guarantee a higher quality of life for the people who work in basic jobs such as cleaning and preparing fast food.These workers' economic situations are usually a result of their lack of education and training, and it is often difficult for them to get more education or training because of their economic situation. For many working Americans, an in crease in the minimum wage will make the difference between living in poverty and not. An increase has the potential to help the standard of living for the poorest of people. This is a true statement, but opposition says that this only drives up the standard of living and inflation rate in the world. Inflation is defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy.Although some people who earn the minimum wage are teenagers, almost two-thirds are adults. The average minimum wage worker brings home about half of his family's earnings. Increasing the minimum wage will help these workers to make up for lost ground due to inflation and it will help make work pay. Though inflation is one of the main problems in our economy and even though inflation and minimum wage are directly related, increasing minimum wage will give opportunity for a lot of lower class families to make enough to afford important things, such as insurance.If someone takes a trip to the doctor, with no insurance, they will most likely have to pay around eight- hundred dollars out of pocket. This would take anyone at least three months on minimum wage with two incomes to pay off these medical bills. Barak Obama’s plan to institute a health care plan for everyone will relieve a huge burden on people and also allow them to stay above the poverty line. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute says, â€Å"Jacking the federal minimum wage from $7. 25 to $8. 25 would give a raise to 10 million workers, including many currently earning their state minimum wage† (Shierholz).This research supports that a minimum wage increase would help millions of people who work not only at the minimum wage but below it and just above it as well. While an increase of a few thousand dollars per year would rarely lift a person or a family out of poverty, it could ease the struggle to pay for groceries, child care or rent, and it adds meaning and digni ty to labor. A higher minimum wage is not enough, but it is very essential for the working poor. Minimum wage was created to keep businesses from taking advantage of their employees.Most of the workforce making minimum wage is young adults because companies feel that they can take advantage of them. Of the total affected workers, women suffer the most which is evidence that companies still have gender discrimination in the workplace. Companies are not only paying people small amounts of money but are also treating the women of America unfairly. If discrimination ended in the workplace then businesses would grow because they would have a more diverse workplace. Employees who are earned a higher wage would take their job more seriously.They would call in sick less often and would be more productive on the days they are at work. An employee working for a lower wage may spend a great deal of time job hunting, looking for a position that pays more but if employees are already earning a h igher wage, they would not have to be searching for a higher paying job. This would reduce employee turnover for companies. John Montgomery, economic analyst for ABC states that, â€Å"From the business perspective, wages come in as one of the most expensive running costs, and have to be paid whether you are taking money that day or not.However, if there were no minimum wage, there is no doubt that many unscrupulous businesses would exploit staff wherever they could† (Montgomery). Of these adult workers, over half work full time and another third work between twenty and thirty hours per week. This statistic shows that a big majority of adults on minimum wage are working at least twenty hours a week. So, if minimum wage increases, it could be a huge benefit because it could add a ten increase to a final salary and this would affect millions of people in our workforce in a positive way.For most small companies there is a major upside to a minimum wage increase because it can st imulate the economy. Usually when people make more money, sometimes they make lifestyle changes and they buy more which generates more revenue in the economy. Raising the minimum wage would be beneficial not only to business but to communities as well. Many poor families rely upon economic aid from social services to survive and these organizations not only cost the community tax payer but they also take away from services provided by local businesses.With an increased minimum wage, low wage workers would be less reliant on social services and more willing to spend their money in the local economy. Over time people would be making more money and then would be able to afford more things in their community. The lower class is dependent upon dollar stores because their low income does not support flexible spending. This creates unequal revenue to producers, so an increase of minimum wage would help communities as a whole because more business would have the chance to grow.Kai Filion, P olicy Analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, notes that â€Å"A recent study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago examined 23 years of household spending data and found that an increase in the minimum wage lead households with a minimum wage to significantly increase their spending. † This research supports that even a slight increase of minimum wage would increase spending throughout communities which would be beneficial for the entire country because it would increase the local tax base.Many government programs that try to help people with low income place a tax burden directly on others. Raising taxes is not a necessary step in establishing a higher minimum wage because government should not be taxing companies, but asking them to pay more to their employees. An increase in payment to employees would increase business expenses which would help companies pay less in taxes. Therefore, an increased minimum wage has potential to aid in the growth of communit ies around the world.For Americans, we must support an increase of minimum wage to further promote a healthy economy and a decrease in poverty. Minimum wage is one program that promotes active participation in the labor market and if the amount of citizens on welfare is going to decline, they should be offered more jobs that can pay a livable wage. If minimum wage workers were paid a living wage, they would spend it in the local economy which would turn in to a powerful economic stimulus and the government would save money on a lot of expenses.Raising the current minimum wage is one way to reduce poverty, will help businesses grow, and could help many suffering communities throughout the nation. This step toward economic equality may be essential for workers of all classes to have opportunity for a better standard of living. Works Cited * â€Å"Minimum Wage Increase Would Help Sluggish Economy, Say Experts. † The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost. com, 07 June 2011. Web. 16 May 2012. . * â€Å"Http://www. abc. net. au/news/2012-05-16/unions-push-to-increase-state-min

The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram Experiment Outline Topic: The Milgram experiment I) The experiment A) Who was involved with the experiment? B) How they got participants C) What the subjects thought was happening i)Learning Task ii) Memory Study iii) Electric shock for wrong answer iv) â€Å"Prods† to continue the shocks D) What actually happened i) It was a test for obedience not memory ii) Vocal response from the victims (staged and set beforehand) II) The results A) How many experiments were performed B) How many people were tested C) How many continued the experiment D) The video of obedienceE) What types of people were tested, and what difference that made F) Differences between each test and results G) High levels of stress for subjects III) Why did he do the experiment A) To get an understanding of Nazis B) To prove the â€Å"answer to destructive obedience lay less in the power of personality and more in the power of situation† C) Social projection D) Test the idea that some people consider themselves better than others IV) The reaction A) Self realization B) Unethical i) Manipulation ii) Disregard for rights iii) Negligent of emotional well beingC) Argument in ethics caused new rules in APA guidelines V) Applications A) Nazi Germany B) U. S. wars C) Watergate Many experiments have been performed throughout the years. One of the most shocking would have to be the Milgram experiment performed by Stanley Milgram. The experiment was to test a person’s â€Å"Obedience to Authority† by seeing if he or she would cause harm to another just because they were told. The idea of obedience has been instilled in people since the time of Cain and Able, with regard to doing as God says. There are multiple reasons for Dr.Milgram to perform this experiment, however, some did not accept this and still believed it to be a violation of the subjects human rights. The results showed that even though people believed they would not cause extreme harm to another, they wo uld if put in the position where they were pressured to by an authoritative person. This resulted in chaos in the psychological community, and concluded in major changes to what is moral, and ethical, under the guidelines provided by APA. However, his results may be used to consider what happened during World War II, along with other U. S. ars, as well as what happened during the Watergate scandal. This experiment was performed many times. It began with Dr. Milgram placing an ad in a New Haven newspaper. The advertisement asked for people between the ages of 20 and 50, those who were not currently attending school, and from all types of professions. It also claimed the experiment would last one hour, and that it was to study memory. Those who participated in the experiment would receive four dollars for participating, and fifty cents for carfare, for the one hour of participation. From this ad, he did not get enough of a response so Dr.Milgram took names from a phone directory, and send fliers in the mail. The experiment itself was performed in the Interaction Laboratory of Yale University. It consisted of two people who were aware of what was happening, one called the â€Å"experimenter,† the person in charge of managing the experiment, and another called, â€Å"the victim. † A third, was one other person involved with the experiment called the â€Å"naive subject† who was the one being tested in this experiment. The experiment called for two different perspectives, which were what the â€Å"naive subject† believed to be happening, and what was really happening.The experiment was set up so that according to the â€Å"naive subject,† â€Å"the victim† was told to memorize a list of word pairs such as: blue box nice day wild duck etc. then in the testing sequence he [the naive subject] would read: blue: sky ink box lamp (Obedience 18). If â€Å"the victim† was able to select the correct corresponding word, the â €Å"naive subject† continued by saying the next word. However, if â€Å"the victim† did not answer correctly, or took too long in answering, the â€Å"naive subject† would have to administer a shock.After each wrong answer, the next wrong answer would result in a stronger shock. The generator, which was to administer the shocks to â€Å"the victim†: Ranged from 15 to 450 volts. The labels showed a 15-volt increment from one switch to the next, going from left to right. In addition, the following verbal designations were clearly indicated for groups of four switches, going from left to right: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. Two switches after this last designation were simply marked XXX. (Obedience 20)The authenticity of the generator was validated by giving the â€Å"naive subject† a 45 volt shock to the wrist. The test which the â€Å"naive subject† thought was a test for memory, was actually to test a person’s willingness to follow authority. Therefore, as the voltage was to increase, there were acted protests by â€Å"the victim† which made the â€Å"naive subject† less willing to continue. However, if the â€Å"naive subject† was having second thoughts about continuing, the â€Å"experimenter† was to give â€Å"prods† each more aggressive as the â€Å"naive subject† continued to protest, Prod 1: Please continue, or, Please go on.Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4: You have no other choice you must go on (Obedience 21). Feeling obligated even though â€Å"the victim† responded with cries of pain and eventually no answer, the majority of those did continue. The results of this experiment were interesting. In the primary experiment 26 out of 40 people continued to shock a person with what he or s he believed to be 450 volts for an incorrect answer, or if they did not respond within a time limit set by the â€Å"experimenter. Another variation of this experiment he performed in which he: placed the learner closer to the teacher, including one in which the teacher actually had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate in order to punish him; about 30 percent of subjects continued the variation until the end (Fermaglich 86). There was another variation which used only women. The results were the same as those for men. Over three years, Dr. Milgram performed 24 different variations of his original experiment, and tested over 1,000 people. There was also one case in which Dr.Milgram videotaped a subject’s obedience, â€Å"In the full version of Milgram’s film Prozi [the subject] is shown ending up being completely obedient- that is, administering a 450-volt shock to the unseen learner† (Blass). Another result of this experiment was the experiment had a huge impact on those who were the subjects. It resulted in high levels of stress in those who were subjects, whether they obeyed or disobeyed, which Dr. Milgram himself admitted to happening, and so he had to provide a meeting for the subject and the learner, in order to try to alleviate that stress (Fermaglich 87).Although the experiment was performed many times, and on many different people, this proved that the majority will follow orders when they are given, even if it goes against their conscience. These were not the only results from this experiment; people had other thoughts about Dr. Milgram’s experiment. There have been many who have wondered why a man would perform a test that many people consider to be a violation of a person’s basic rights. Dr. Milgram had many reasons behind performed these experiments. Dr. Milgram believed â€Å"When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will ind more hideous crimes have been committed in the name o f obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion† (Obedience 2). He wanted to be able to prove his belief that the â€Å"answer to destructive obedience lay less in the power of personality and more in the power of situation† (Slater 31). He also performed it with relation to the Holocaust, and since Milgram, â€Å"a Jewish man whose relatives had hidden from the Nazis and been interned in concentration camps, [he] constructed his experiments in order to understand Nazi evil† (Fermaglich 84).Another idea posed as a reason for Dr. Milgram’s performance was the thought of â€Å"self-other bias (Brown, 1986) [which] is the general tendency for people to rate themselves as better than ‘typical others’† (Geher, Bauman, Hubbard, and Legare 3). There were those who believed the experiment to be unethical, and others who seem to be enlightened with a sense of self realization. One person found Dr. Milgram’s experiment t o give him a better sense of who he was: I felt a shock of recognition, and the immediate knowledge that I could do such a thing, unsteady as I am.And I knew I could do such a thing, not because some strange set of circumstances propelled me to, no†¦It was not external. It was internal (Slater 62) However most other people who did not participate in the experiment did not feel this way, they felt this experiment was â€Å"the subject of enormous controversy, centered on the contention that his research subjects had been unethically manipulated, without due regard for their rights or emotional well-being† (Schwartz). In the field of psychology there was an uproar, with those who found the experiment to be reprehensible.One of those people was Diana Baumrind who questioned the obedience experiment, with concern for the welfare of the subjects, and curiosity over measures taken to protect those involved and voiced her concerns in American Psychologist (Individual 140). Dr. Baumrind’s article concerning the experiment resulted in the revision of APA ethical guidelines, which went with those laid down by the federal government, which limited the use of humans as subjects in the medical and psychological field (Fermaglich 103). Many found what Dr.Milgram did to be unethical, however because of it people now have a better understanding of what they are able to do, and they are able to apply his findings to other situations that have occurred, and may happen in the future. This experiment may be applied to a multitude of different subjects that are in a person’s every day life. The major subject would be the Nazis during World War II, which was a motive for Dr. Milgram to do the experiment in the beginning. It explores why a citizen who â€Å"ran the death camps seemed to be ordinary â€Å"decent† citizens, with consciences no different from those of any of us† (Velasquez et al). Dr.Milgram also compares the killing of Jews in t he gas chambers to the manufacturing of appliances, and he says all of those deaths could not have occurred if a large number of people did not obey orders (Obedience 1). The ideas that Dr. Milgram came up with were applied as an explanation for â€Å"the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai and the criminal activities in Nixon’s White House: ‘Stanley Milgram†¦ demonstrated in the laboratory what Lt. William Calley and his unit would dramatize later in Mylai- that man’s behavior is almost invariably dominated by authority rather than by his own morality’† (Fermaglich 111).This idea is also exemplified on television, as on a recent episode of â€Å"Law and Order: S. V. U. † viewers encounter a manager of a fast food restaurant who blatantly obeys the orders of a voice over the phone saying that he is â€Å"Detective Milgram. † The manager is told that an employee stole the wallet of a customer, and â€Å"Detectiv e Milgram† tells the manager to strip the girl of all of her clothing except for her apron, and to perform a cavity search, to look for the wallet.Later in the episode we encounter the man who posed as â€Å"Detective Milgram† who performed his own variation of the experiment, because he had been like the manager, when he allowed the doctor to go against his advice, which resulted in the death of his wife. During school, a person may be faced with a similar situation. One being seeing a person cheat on a test. The person is put in a situation with two choices, neither desirable. The person may tell the teacher, which results in anger from the person who was told on, as well as a loss of time for that person to take their own test.The other option is to do nothing, which in the long run will hurt the student as he or she never learned the material, as he or she was suppose to. Typically a student will choose the latter, and ignore the situation, which ends up hurting the other student. This examination can be viewed on a vast number of levels, but that does not change the facts and ideas behind what happened. Dr. Milgram performed a venture which is thought to have been unethical, as he tested a person’s willingness to follow orders and do as he or she was told.He discovered the majority would actually do so, even if they believed they were hurting an innocent person. The controversial research has had a variety of impacts on every different person. For some they have a self realization, thinking of why type of person he or she is and if they are sheep, blindly following authority. Works Cited for Research Paper: Blass, Thomasm. â€Å"The Milgram Obedience Experiment: Support for a Cognitive View of Defensive Attribution. † The Journal of Social Psychology (1996). library. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. . Fermaglich, Kirsten. American Dreams and Nazi Nightmares : Early Holocaust Consciousness and Liberal America, 1957-1965. Waltham, Mass. : Brand eis University Press, 2006. Geher, Glenn, Kathleen P. Bauman, Sara Elizabeth Kay Hubbard, and Jared Richard Legare. â€Å"Self and Other Obedience Estimates: Biases and Moderators. † The Journal of Social Psychology 142. 6 (2002): 677. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper Perennial, 1974.Milgram, Stanley. The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1977. Schwartz, Earl. â€Å"Why Some Ask Why. † Judaism 53. 3/4 (2004): 230. elibrary. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. Slater, Lauren. Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S. J. , and Michael J. Meyer. â€Å"Conscience and Authority. † Santa Clara University. 12/03/2009 . The Milgram Experiment Stanley Milgram: ‘electric shock' experiments (1963) – also showed the power of the situation in influencing behaviour. 65% of people could be easily induced into giving a stranger an electric shock of 450V (enough to kill someone). 100% of people could be influenced into giving a 275V shock. The Milgram Experiment Stanley Milgram (1963) Experiment: Focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Investigate: Whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.Milgram selected participants for his experiment by advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University. The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the l earner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant). The learner (a confederate called Mr.Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX). Milgram's Experiment Aim: Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities for example, Germans in WWII. Procedure:Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating â€Å"learning† (ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, (bias: All male) whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. At the beginning of the experiment they were introduce d to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram). They drew straws to determine their roles – leaner or teacher – although this was fixed and the confederate always ended to the learner. There was also an â€Å"experimenter† dressed in a white lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram). The â€Å"learner† (Mr.Wallace) was strapped to a chair in another room with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the â€Å"teacher† tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices. The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock). The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock.When the teacher refused to administer a shock and turned to the experimenter for guidance, he was given the standard instruction /order (consisting of 4 prods): Prod 1: please continue. Prod 2:  the experiment requires you to continue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue. Results: 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i. e. teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study.All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV). Conclusion: Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. Obey parents, teachers, anyone in authority etc. Milgram summed up in the article â€Å"The Perils of Obedience† (Milgram 1974), writing: â€Å"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Factors Affecting Obedience The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram varied the basic procedure (changed the IV). By doing this Milgram c ould identify which factors affected obedience (the DV). Status of Location| Personal Responsibility| * The orders were given in an important location (Yale University) – when Milgram’s study was conducted in a run-down office in the city, obedience levels dropped. * This suggests that prestige increases obedience. | *   When there is less personal responsibility obedience increases. When participants could instruct an assistant to press the switches, 95% (compared to 65% in the original study) shocked to the maximum 450 volts. * This relates to Milgram's Agency Theory. | Legitimacy of Authority Figure| Status of Authority Figure| * People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and / or legally based. * This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school and workplace. | *   Milgram’s experimenter wore a laboratory coat (a symbol of scientific experti se) which gave him a high status. But when the experimenter dressed in everyday clothes obedience was very low. * The  uniform  of the authority figure can give them status. | Peer Support| Proximity of Authority Figure| * Peer support – if a person has the social support of their friend(s) then obedience is less likely. * Also the presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of obedience. This happened in Milgram’s experiment when there was a â€Å"disobedient model†. | *   Authority figure distant: It is easier to resist the orders from an authority figure if they are not close by.When the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20. 5%. * When the authority figure is close by then obedience is more likely. | Methodological Issues The  Milgram studies  were conducted in laboratory type conditions and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situati ons. We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more subtle than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience.The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more suited to a military context. Milgram's sample was biased: The participants in Milgram's study were all male. Do the findings transfer to females? In Milgram's study the participants were a self-selecting sample. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves). They may also have a typical â€Å"volunteer personality† – not all the newspaper readers responded so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so.Finally, they probably all had a similar income since they were willing to spend some hours working for a given amount of money. Ethical Issues *   Deception  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the participants actually believed they were shocking a real pers on, and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgram's *   Protection of participants  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. * However, Milgram did  debrief  the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.

The Effects Of War On Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Veterans make up 7.3 percent of living Americans or about 22 million individuals and .4 percent are currently active duty according to Veteran Affairs data(2014). 3.9 million are current day veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom/ Enduring Freedom. Veterans are a minority within our country but have a much higher prevalence for substance abuse disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. The direct psychological impact of war can be seen especially in veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Around 20 percent of veterans come home with Post traumatic stress disorder, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance abuse disorder which is usually co morbid with the illness. Many veterans, while they are in the†¦show more content†¦The data from this report is telling us that alcohol will increase in quantity and use after exposure to combat or extreme stress and the abuse of alcohol will more then likely continue in veterans as they try to re integrate into civilian world. One third of veterans with PTSD will not receive the proper care or treatment and and a disturbing amount of 84 percent of veterans will not have their needs met in the treatment of AUD. This makes you wonder what the VA is really taking care of as this is the biggest health issue concern among veterans. Why does Veterans Affairs ignore the fact that AUD is one of the leading causes of suicide? There are 22 veteran suicides completed on a daily basis and this number is smaller than the true number as this is from veterans who are actually registered in the Veteran Affairs health system (Subhajit Chakravorty et al. 2014). The following are the leading factors leading to veteran suicide: The use of drugs and alcohol, male, white, married or separated, and having an mental health disorder. With the high risk factor for alcohol abuse you can correlate that it is related to suicide through a study that involved approximately 300 veterans who were being seen for depre ssion and who eventually completed suicide. These cases all involved alcohol dependencies as a severe risk factor (Subhajit Chakravorty et al. 2014). A huge risk factor caused by alcohol is the development of insomnia. According toShow MoreRelatedThe Consequences of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder1621 Words   |  6 Pages Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a medical condition that many people suffer from at different ages. Most of the people that have suffered from PTSD have done so due to a major trauma that occurred at some point in their life. Even though the trauma could have happened months or even years earlier, the symptoms can come back when an event or the anniversary of the trauma triggers the memory of the traumatic event. Some of the traumas that cause post-traumatic stress disorder are rapeRead MoreZiek Sanchez. Massie And Perry . Pd. 3. April 12, 2017.1113 Words   |  5 PagesZiek Sanchez Massie and Perry Pd. 3 April 12, 2017 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder From The Vietnam War The Vietnam war was one of the most alarming and dangerous wars to fight. Every step in the Vietnam jungle was taken cautiously. The guerrilla warfare used by the Vietcong was frightening to anticipate. The majority of the United States army was only that of young men who had been chosen through the draft. Young men going to school and living a life at home in safety all the sudden having to makeRead MorePost Traumatic Stress Disorder ( Ptsd )1519 Words   |  7 PagesPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder It is common for individuals who have gone through a traumatic experience to feel many types of emotions, to include distress, fear, helplessness, guilt, shame or anger. The individual may begin to feel better after just a few days or weeks, but sometimes these feelings don’t go away. If the symptoms last for more than a month, they may be experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD and should seek professional help. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, once knownRead MorePTSD Research Paper1674 Words   |  7 PagesSykes English III Honors 7 April 2014 Living with Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder Today, hundreds of thousands of service men and women and recent military veterans have seen combat. Many have been shot at, seen their buddies killed, or witnessed death up close. These are types of events that can lead to Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder PTSD: A Growing Epidemic. â€Å") Anyone that has gone through a traumatic event can be diagnosed with PTSD but research shows, militaryRead MorePost Traumatic Stress Disorder ( Ptsd ) Essay1401 Words   |  6 PagesAccording to the Mayo-Clinic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, commonly known as PTSD is defined as â€Å"Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that s triggered by a terrifying event — either experiencing it or witnessing it. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event† (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2014). Post Traumatic Stress disorder can prevent one from living a normal, healthy lif e. In 2014, Chris Kyle playedRead MorePost Traumatic Stress Disorder ( Ptsd )961 Words   |  4 Pages Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder dates back to the war days. Although having this disorder was never documented it was seen in many soldiers during and after the war. The disorder didn’t have an official title. It was known as â€Å"shell shock†, â€Å"exhaustion† and â€Å"battle fatigue.† The disorder affected many soldiers during wars, not only physically but also their reputation. Many soldiers would have emotional breakdowns due to the disorder and some would flee the frontRead MoreHell And Back Again : Movie Analysis1208 Words   |  5 Pagesprovides a documentary that assesses the impacts of war on a wounded veteran as he struggles with the challenges of shifting to civilian life. In examining these effects, the movie includes an exceptionally depiction of the unusual drama of war and the less outrageous experience of adjusting to civilian life as the character returns home. The movie is considered as one of the best movies that shows the plight of veterans during and after engagement in war. Even though there have been various combat documentariesRead MorePost Traumatic Stress Disorder ( Ptsd )990 Words   |  4 PagesPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common anxiety disorder characterized by chronic physical arousal, recurrent unwanted thoughts and images of the traumatic event, and avoidance of things that can call the traumatic event into mind (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner, Nock, 2014). About 7 percent of Americans suffer from PTSD. Family members of victims can also develop PTSD and it can occur in people of any age. The diagnosis for PTSD requires one or more symptoms to beRead MorePtsd Is A Whole Body Tragedy, An Integral Human Event Of Enormous Proportions With Massive Repercussions Essay1553 Words   |  7 PagesVeterans returning from war should be able to overcome post-traumatic stress disorder by going to health professionals or getting help with counseling. What is PTSD? Post-traumatic stress disorder is a life-threatening exposure in which an individual experiences a flashback to a traumatic event, such as war. Combat often substantially affects the soldier’s minds, but post-tr aumatic stress disorder can follow after a personal assault too (Wiley, 875). Post-traumatic stress disorder develops in responseRead MoreA Brief Note On The Traumatic Stress Disorder1568 Words   |  7 PagesPost- traumatic stress disorder often get looked over by doctors and people go untreated. With passing time the fear might go away, but what happen when the constant fear take over. That was the case for a student in a psychology class I was taking. The instructor was going over anxiety and a young man told the class about how when he was in the army. The car he and some of the other soldiers was driving, they were doing the daily drive they accidentally drove over a bomb that explode the front of