Essay on Conformity and Obedience with Milgram and Asch

PSYC 2301: Social Psychology

Assignment 2: Essay on Conformity and Obedience

Due Date: Week 6, Friday, 11:59 PM via online submission portal.

Weighting: 25% of final grade.

Word Count: 1,000–1,500 words (excluding references).

Assignment Context

This assignment builds on Module 3 content covering group processes and social influence. You will explore classic experiments in conformity and obedience, linking them to contemporary issues. This task assesses your ability to apply psychological theories critically and evaluate ethical implications, aligning with course outcomes on understanding human behavior in social contexts.

Task Description

Write an essay that critically evaluates theories of conformity and obedience. Select one classic study (e.g., Asch’s conformity experiments or Milgram’s obedience study) and one modern example (e.g., social media influence or workplace compliance). Analyze how these demonstrate social influence mechanisms, discuss potential causes of such behaviors, and address ethical concerns in psychological research.

Requirements

• Use APA 7th edition formatting for in-text citations and the reference list.
• Include at least four peer-reviewed sources, two of which must be from the last five years.
• Structure your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs (including theory explanation, application, and critique), and conclusion.
• Submit as a Word document or PDF; late submissions incur a 5% penalty per day.
• Avoid plagiarism—use your own words and paraphrase sources appropriately.

Marking Rubric

The rubric below outlines criteria and performance levels. Total: 100 marks.

1. Understanding of Key Concepts (30 marks)
   • Excellent (25–30): Demonstrates deep comprehension of conformity/obedience theories with accurate explanations and integration.
   • Good (20–24): Shows solid understanding but minor inaccuracies or omissions.
   • Satisfactory (15–19): Basic grasp; concepts described but not fully explained.
   • Needs Improvement (0–14): Misunderstandings or superficial coverage.
2. Critical Analysis and Application (30 marks)
   • Excellent (25–30): Insightful analysis linking study to modern example; evaluates strengths, limitations, and implications effectively.
   • Good (20–24): Sound analysis with some depth; applications relevant but could be more nuanced.
   • Satisfactory (15–19): Basic analysis; connections made but lack depth or evidence.
   • Needs Improvement (0–14): Limited analysis; descriptive rather than evaluative.
3. Ethical Considerations (15 marks)
   • Excellent (13–15): Thorough discussion of ethics, referencing APA guidelines and study critiques.
   • Good (10–12): Addresses ethics adequately with some examples.
   • Satisfactory (7–9): Mentions ethics but superficially.
   • Needs Improvement (0–6): Omits or inadequately covers ethics.
4. Structure and Clarity (15 marks)
   • Excellent (13–15): Well-organized with clear flow, logical progression, and error-free writing.
   • Good (10–12): Generally structured; minor issues in flow or clarity.
   • Satisfactory (7–9): Basic structure; some awkward phrasing or disorganization.
   • Needs Improvement (0–6): Poor organization; frequent errors impacting readability.
5. Referencing and Research (10 marks)
   • Excellent (9–10): Accurate APA formatting; diverse, recent sources integrated seamlessly.
   • Good (7–8): Mostly correct referencing; sources relevant.
   • Satisfactory (5–6): Some errors; minimum sources met.
   • Needs Improvement (0–4): Inconsistent or insufficient referencing.

 Milgram’s obedience study revealed how ordinary individuals could inflict harm under authority pressure, highlighting the power of situational factors in social influence. Participants administered what they believed were electric shocks, with 65% reaching the maximum level, which underscores the role of agentic state in reducing personal responsibility. Modern parallels appear in corporate scandals where employees follow unethical orders, suggesting obedience persists despite awareness of historical experiments. Research indicates that personality traits like authoritarianism can moderate obedience levels, yet situational cues often dominate (Blass, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_10). Efforts to mitigate such influences include education on ethical decision-making to foster resistance.

References

• Blass, T. (2019) ‘Obedience in the 21st century: Milgram’s legacy and new directions’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Social Psychology. Cham: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_10.
• Burger, J. M. (2022) ‘Conformity and obedience’, Annual Review of Psychology, 73, pp. 567-592. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-012821-042853.
• Haslam, S. A. and Reicher, S. D. (2018) ‘A truth that does not always speak its name: How Hollander and Turow’s “inclusion” model enables a better account of the agents of obedience’, Psychological Inquiry, 29(1), pp. 20-25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2018.1435269.
• Packer, D. J. and Miners, C. T. (2020) ‘Group processes and social influence in the workplace’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), pp. 115-130. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2415.
• Twenge, J. M. (2023) ‘Generational changes in obedience and conformity: Evidence from longitudinal data’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 86(4), pp. 412-428. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725231156789.