Obedience in Social Psychology
Write a 525- to 700-word summary and reflection of your group discussion from Week 3.
Include the following:
Check out our Essay writing services
Obedience in Social Psychology
- Summarize the main points of your group’s discussion about a documented experiment in social psychology on the nature of persuasion, conformity, and obedience.
- What were your initial thoughts on the social psychology concepts and questions of ethics examined in the study?
- How did your views change over the course of the exchanges with your group?
- How did your group come to a consensus on the issues presented in the experiment? What are your thoughts about this process of gaining consensus?
- Do you think your group succumbed to social facilitation or influence of the collective to achieve consensus? Why or why not?
Cite any sources to support your assignment.
Week 3 Group Discussion Summary and Reflection: Obedience and Ethics in Social Psychology
During our Week 3 group discussion, we focused on Stanley Milgram’s landmark experiment on obedience, conducted in the early 1960s. The study explored the extent to which individuals would follow authority figures, even when doing so meant inflicting harm on another person. Participants were instructed to administer what they believed were electric shocks to another person when that individual gave incorrect answers to questions. Despite hearing simulated cries of pain, many participants continued to administer shocks when prompted by the authoritative figure in a lab coat.
The main points raised during our discussion revolved around the psychological power of authority, ethical concerns about the experiment, and the broader implications for understanding human behavior. Some group members were disturbed by the emotional distress caused to participants and questioned whether such a study could—or should—be replicated today. Others pointed out that the results shed crucial light on human tendencies to obey authority, especially in structured environments.
Initially, I found the study both fascinating and troubling. I admired the insight it provided into human behavior, especially in the context of historical events like the Holocaust, which Milgram cited as inspiration. However, I was also concerned about the emotional manipulation and lack of informed consent involved. Participants were deceived and made to believe they were harming someone, which likely caused psychological trauma. At first, I felt that the pursuit of knowledge did not justify these means.
Obedience in Social Psychology
As our conversation progressed, my views evolved. Hearing my peers draw comparisons between Milgram’s study and modern-day ethical standards helped me understand how much the field of psychology has grown. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), informed consent, and debriefing protocols are now in place to protect research participants. I came to appreciate Milgram’s contributions while also recognizing the importance of ethical reform that followed.
To reach a consensus, our group used collaborative discussion techniques. We each shared our reactions, supported them with research or historical context, and remained open to others’ perspectives. We gradually agreed that while the study was ethically flawed by today’s standards, it was an essential stepping stone in both psychological knowledge and ethical progress. This consensus was not reached through quick agreement but through thoughtful exchanges that clarified our values and reasoning.
Reflecting on the process of gaining consensus, I appreciated the respectful and analytical nature of our group’s interaction. It reminded me that consensus does not always mean complete agreement—it can mean mutual understanding and compromise. We did not all feel equally comfortable with the ethical aspects of the study, but we recognized its impact on the field and agreed on the importance of learning from it.
I do not believe our group succumbed to social facilitation or conformity pressures. While we were certainly influenced by one another’s points of view, the discussion felt authentic rather than coerced. We each brought unique insights and were encouraged to speak freely. There was no dominant voice pressuring others to agree, and differing opinions were treated with respect. This created a safe environment for critical thinking rather than groupthink.
