The Impact of Milgrams Obedience Studies on Personality - Research Paper Example

? Review Assignment Review Assignment The article The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology by Benjamin & Simpson, evaluates the psychological studies done by Stanley Milgram regarding obedience to authority (2009). The focus of the review is on how the studies impacted diverse facets of psychological research ethics, research studies design, and presumptions in terms of conceptualizing and performing research. The researchers Benjamin & Simpson, asserts that the Milgram obedience studies brought about dramatic transformations not just within the spheres of personality, but also in social psychology. This is more so regarding the diminution of individual variables and trait variables. The key conclusion derived from the study, is that psychological science rules touching on conducts of performing research studies, has replaced elevated experimental realism with minimal experimental realism. This has resulted in tremendous changes regarding the salience in which such studies have in enlightening the most important issues contemporary society faces. The key premise being evaluated by Benjamin & Simpson (2009), regarding blind obedience is the extent in which individuals are willing to go, so as to mete out ruthless pain on an unfamiliar person when convinced to do so by an influential figure. The argument is that even Migram study provided the scientific basis on the inherent risks of obedience, especially given that it focused more so on the power of situation as a behavioral determinant (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). This then helps to underscore person-by-situation relations, fresh interpretations of association of attitudes plus conducts, in addition to a shift in research from laboratory based studies to field based studies. Given that the concept of obedience has for a long time been focusing more so on positive gains, Milgram study created different meanings of obedience in psychology. However, Benjamin & Simpson argue that even though Milgram obedience experiments brought out the effects of ineffectual and irresolute disobedience, it failed to answer the main question or hypothesis it was intended to answer and that is destructive obedience inside a social context (2009). As a result, new rules stipulated by IRB placed emphasis on lesser experimental realism investigations with higher ordinary realism outside the laboratory. These regulations have resulted in most researchers using less strong but impactful experimental management processes or measures when investigating theoretical predictions (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). Benjamin & Simpson asserts that these regulations have resulted in researchers being restricted in scrutinizing and understanding the periphery conditions of particular effects (2009). Furthermore, when it comes to evaluating the outcomes of extreme actions or circumstances, researchers need to enter upon the actual world of participants in order to study how people react to upsetting life events, such as critical life transitions, or life-based stressors. Therefore, this will result in an increase in external validity of the study findings. Also, the now typical application of minimal experimental realism studies with higher commonplace realism has provided researchers the ability to evaluate theories including pertinent models within a great deal of precision and rigor, while at the same time taking into consideration the overwhelming influence of situational variables. They provide an example of the increasing tendency by researchers to study individuals within the context of their natural lives, social groups, work settings, relationships, and even in the context of their natural environments. This has in the end facilitated the progression of non-experimental research techniques, new research designs, as well as data-analytic techniques like new statistical models, and which allow researchers to design smaller study units and larger groups (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). The most interesting thing about the article is the section on the impact of ethical issues. This section shows the importance of securing participants wellbeing and personality traits as a factor in participant reactions to the presented scenario. Thus, ethical consideration put a stop to researchers from offering definitive answers regarding obedience. This is because advancing science while at the same time safeguarding the participant rights, are two of psychology key values. Accordingly, by permitting studies to be done under no boundaries whatsoever, will just create damage that cannot be justified by the answer or knowledge acquired (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). Benjamin & Simpson notes that even though increasingly strict IRB policies have certainly curtailed a number of high-impact studies so as to defend participants from injury, distress, and discomfort, such regulations can be rightly adjusted but without compromising the rational, legitimacy, and necessity of the IRB rules (2009). It is also argued that in trying to steer clear of damaging the welfare of participants entirely, research studies objective will be undermined. Hence, there needs to be a balance between the gain trades-offs to be analyzed and the welfare of participants, while also recognizing that there needs to be an assessment of how individuals handle and cope with adverse outcomes within well-controlled experiments. Benjamin & Simpson asserts that even contemporary social or personality psychology practices have in the very least managed to enforce this balance (2009). What this suggest is that, it is not the framework of the direct social scenario that can result in individuals to obey even extreme of directives, but instead the wider culture into which participants have been socialized. Hence, the relationship involving the personality and the construct of obedience is just speculative, and a researcher can only do his or her part to replicate. Even though this is a high-impact study it is not well-designed so as to evaluate the theoretical and practical aspects of obedience. Given that methodology is the key driver, through which ethical apprehensions involving opposing values are negotiated, Benjamin & Simpson should have mentioned extensively methodologies which accommodate the intentions of advancing science, while safeguarding participants’ welfare (2009). This is because the two intentions are basically two competing principles. Hence, there needs to be a clear explanation of pertinent and presumed causal variables on the premise of obedience within psychology (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). This would have helped to offer a deeper perception as to why certain individuals experience dissimilar outcomes in a number of social contexts, compared to others. In the end, any study whether causal, descriptive, or relational should be able to define variables which are correlated under the natural background, and which will eventually provide clearer insights regarding the precursor variables driving any precise outcomes in a given social setting. Moreover, the results and conclusions presented by Benjamin & Simpson are rather confusing since there is no articulation on how exactly the balance between studies which comprise higher experimental realism and those comprising minimal experimental realism can be attained (2009). In particular, Benjamin & Simpson (2009) wish to emphasize that they do not support the use of extreme circumstances, manipulations or even measures like those used by previous researchers like Milgram, but they also do not support the notion of investigators moving into public settings to conduct assessments, whereby participants do not have to offer their informed consent. Then how do you struck this balance without using high impact experiments, while at the same time capturing people distressing, complicated, or discomforting events. However, they are right to suggest that such studies can occasionally unconfined variables which are interrelated in natural scenario, since they provide clearer outlook regarding which precursor variables can be enforcing particular outcomes within a given social setting (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). Reference Benjamin, L. T., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist , 64 (1), 12-19. Read More