sites.santarosa.k12.fl.us · web viewdestructive obedience in a political context. ap capstone...

1DESTRUCTIVE OBEDIENCE IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT

Destructive Obedience in a Political Context

AP Capstone Research

Word Count: 4870


Abstract

As polarization and extreme views become an increasing issue in the United States, it was decided to focus on how political ideologies could influence destructive obedience as it is already known through comparisons with authority and conformity. The basic methods used was to have the subjects watch a politically charged video, gauge their reactions, and then do the same for a fake execution, in order to see how the political context effects their reactions, especially in comparison to when a larger group is present and the control where they only see the execution. The main results were that while no one outwardly reacted positively to the execution, the ideological groups saw a 32% decrease in those willing to outwardly disagree to the execution in comparison to the authority group, and the conformity group saw a 62% decrease in those willing to outwardly disagree to the execution in comparison to the authority group. Thus leading to the conclusion that ideology does have limited influence over obedience in comparison to authority, while conformity seems to exacerbate the issue.

Introduction

One of the latest additions into the Public Library of Science opens with this “Political polarization and opinion fragmentation is a generally observed, ingravescent negative trend in modern western societies.” This statement fits the current trend of American politics to a tee as polarization increasingly pulls the country towards extremes. Since the effect of polarization in American has become so prolific in the United States, it is pertinent to examine how increasing ideological loyalty could relate to some possible future and even current problems, namely in how it could contribute to “destructive obedience” (Blass, 1991).

Literature Review

To fully grasp where the concept of destructive obedience could be heading, it must first be understood where it has been. The most natural place to begin, is the all too famous Milgram Obedience Experiment (1963), where the subjects were told that they were studying the effect of pain on learning, but in actuality the researchers were studying whether or not the subject would lethally shock another person simply because they were ordered to. However, the findings of Milgram’s experiment are far more complicated than the simple summary of 65% obeyed and 35% disobeyed, rather obedience and disobedience arises from a compromise that exists between the fact that humans are “autonomous” beings, yet are “brought into a hierarchy,” where there are naturally going to be authority figures, people are conditioned to follow (Milgram, 1974, p. 78). To grossly oversimplify, humans need each other in order to prosper and survive, thus they need to organize and control themselves in a manner that allows for greater cooperation, which requires that each individual does not act in ways that harm the other individuals for their own gain (Milgram, 1974). This can be easily understood in the context of human societies in general, as the majority of human civilization submits to a government, an authority, which outlines its commands through laws- a large portion of which exist to limit the harmful actions a person can inflict on another with impunity, such as basic ones like ‘do not steal’ or ‘do not murder. These laws allow facilitate a mutual trust, through regulating behaviors. Milgram (1974) likewise suggests that the reason humans are so inclined to obey authority figures stems


from conditioning (p. 85-86). According to Milgram (1974), children obeying their parent’s ethical commands creates a learned association between morality and obedience, yet while a parent’s commands will vary in their moral concerns, the demand of obedience will always be constant, thus lending obedience “a prepotent strength relative to any particular moral content”(p. 85). This is then further ingrained in institutions such as schooling and work as they continue to instill an association between success/reward and obedience. Ultimately meaning that, while morality is taught it is taught under institutions and through the strength that authority has over a child and then adult, creating a subconscious hierarchy of what to be obedient of. Kholberg’s levels of moral development also supports this assumption to a degree, as children in the preconventional morality stage only care for whether they receive punishment or reward, while children in the conventional morality stage care for whatever their societal order deems correct and moral, and the children who finally reach postconventional morality stage care for moral principles they have constructed (Myers & Dewall, 2018). While the final stage does offer some semblance of moral autonomy, it should be noted that principles constructed in postconventional morality more often than not are based in the learned morality of the other two stages which embed themselves in the authority of the parents, teachers, and society at large, thus morality has originally gained its authority over individual behavior through outside authority figures, which again puts individual morality under the rule of authority. In the context of explaining the function of political ideology in the creation of destructive obedience, this postulating could mean that when people subscribe to a certain political ideology and align themselves with certain political leaders they likewise subscribe to an authority and the code of opinion said authorities stand for. This indicates that ideologies have the potential to create an authority for a group of people that supersedes that of the member’s individual morality, and possibly the common morality of society at large, as an ideological group identifying themselves with another hierarchy eases and even necessitates breaking away from others, which seemingly makes everything from small bands of radicals to nation spanning populations capable of atrocities under the wrong leadership. Potentially, this could also mean that the more active a supporter of a political ideology is the more likely they are to be radicalized as they become loyal to an authority that makes commands on behavior as much as it does on additional opinions and beliefs that the members are encouraged to take up, that can grow more and more extreme with involvement.

As it so happens, there is a term that encapsulates an ideology or belief becoming so closely held by people that it can turns into a destructive force of suicide bombings and shootings, and that term is extreme “overvalued beliefs”, which Tahir Rahman (2018) of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Washington describes as a belief “that is shared by others in a person’s cultural, religious, or subcultural group. The belief is often relished, amplified, and defended by the possessor of the belief and should be differentiated from an obsession or a delusion. The belief grows more dominant over time, more refined and more resistant to challenge. The individual has an intense emotional commitment to the belief and may carry out violent behavior in its service.” Rahman (2018) then goes on in his article to elaborate that the term is meant to differentiate from delusional and obsessive beliefs as overvalued beliefs are often shared with others while delusions are solitary ventures and overvalued beliefs are also something the owner wholeheartedly and passionately accepts while obsessive beliefs are often


met with resistance by the owner. These two aspects make up important components of overvalued beliefs as these ideologies are often made extreme in a person through the belief being shared and “amplified” by a community of like-minded people and thusly “normalized” to them like an echo-chamber that only gains more energy and gets louder the longer its allowed to echo amongst believers, and these ideologies are also made immune in the zealous owner to de-radicalization as the belief is held so tightly no “contradicting evidence” that would over time make a moderate of a normal person can tarnish the belief in an extremists eyes (Rahman, 2018). Extreme overvalued belief is a term typically applied, as Rahman (2018) expounds, when, in general, the people joining the beliefs show no signs of being psychologically disturbed and those already holding the beliefs show few if any signs of psychopathology, such as what has been found with religious cults and terrorist groups, despite the members later behaving extremely abnormally. While Rahman (2018) postulates that extreme overvalued beliefs are likely failures of the personality, the fact that those who hold them are noted as “seemingly normal,” and show little to no prior signs of psychological disturbance, as well as the discussion of radicalization processes found in the former paragraph, suggest that, if said beliefs are a personality failure, it is a personality failure most humans are capable of manifesting. Lastly, it should be noted as Rahman (2018) did, that the nature of overvalued beliefs incites a sense of “mob mentality” or “group think,” due to their being shared, contributing a big part to their spread, and amplification, which leads the conversation to the role of conformity on ideological obedience.

Milgram, like Rahman also made a note of conformity, and its influence on human behavior, both through noting the Solomon Asch study, but Milgram (1974) also differentiated between conformity and obedience to authority on the basis of four distinctions: hierarchy, imitation, explicitness, and volunteerism (p. 72-73). From these distinctions, conformity may be considered a more subliminal form of obedience where there is no obvious figure head, the demands are more implicit, and volunteer responsibility for their actions more. This subliminal obedience is shown through the Solomon Asch study mentioned earlier, in which the subjects were asked to identify which four lines labeled A, B, C, and D were longest, but were also situated around confederates who were told beforehand to answer wrong for a certain number trials (Milgram, 1974, p. 72). The subjects, who were blind to their peers alternative motives and were asked to answer after most of their peers, tended to answer in tandem with their peers despite being able to see the real answer all too clearly, and yet the participants denied the groups involvement in influencing their answer (Milgram, 1974 p.72). This certainly appears to provide more insight into the radicalization process, as it exemplifies an abandon of logic for the sake of obeying the group opinion, supporting Rahman’s claim that a key component of overvalued beliefs is the group think aspect. When it comes to ascertaining how destructive obedience comes to be, group conformity is a key component to study.

For a more modern proof of this certain vulnerability, consider an experiment published in the Journal of Psychology as a collaborative effort between the Universities of Milano-Bicocca, St. John’s, and Perdue (2014), which had its subjects play a game of cyberball in which some were excluded and others were included more in the game, and, when later asked for their current satisfaction and to do a task, it was found that those who were ostracized had lower


satisfaction but significantly higher success in the task than those who were included. The researchers of the cyberball experiment took this to mean “that the negative consequences of ostracism augmented the individual’s tendency to obey an explicit direction” (Riva, Williams, Torstrick, & Montali, 2014). The ostracized subjects increased efforts to fulfill the requirements of the tasks fall in line with their lower levels of self-esteem, confidence, and empowerment caused through ostracization, and implies that an ostracized person is vulnerable to a sense of distress that makes them desperate to fit in with a group and thus “increases [their] susceptibility to conformity, compliance, and now, obedience” (Riva, Williams, Torstrick, & Montali, 2014). This could help explain how those with perhaps less acceptable political opinions may be desperate to fit in with those they have managed to identify with, and facilitates in accepting overvalued beliefs making conforming a key component of the upward spiral of increased involvement and indoctrination that facilitates radicalization.

When it comes to understanding the nature of destructive obedience, there is something of a confounding variable in the midst, and that is, of course, the individual’s personality. Another experiment from the Journal of Psychology produced by the University of Southern Mississippi and Oakland University finds “that the greatest reluctance to obey was exhibited by those with low levels of neuroticism who experienced high levels of negative affect during the procedure,” which suggests a correlation between those who are neurotic and those who are more susceptible to obedience, which corresponds to the anxiety created through ostracism increasing susceptibility as well (Zeigler-Hill, Southard, Archer & Donohoe, 2013). This provides a basis for personality traits contributing to the obedience paradigm, which Milgram himself suggested in the quote “We need to focus on the individuals who took part in the study not only because this provides a personal dimension to the experiment but also because the quality of each person’s experience gives us clues to the nature of the process of obedience” (p. 27) despite also had qualms about aggressive traits or even sadism being considered culpable in the behavior of soldiers and radicals- he places it solely on obedience and a sense of “duty” (Milgram, 1974, p. 90). However, a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in reviewing historical recounts of the Germans and their persecution and genocide of the Jewish people- the behavior Milgram was originally attempting to explain- found such explanations wanting, as he describes “The initiative that the perpetrators routinely showed in their cruel and lethal actions toward the Jews, the zeal that characterized the Germans carrying out the retributive and exterminatory policy against European Jewry, cannot be accounted for by conventional explanations,” and that antisemitism, and in some cases sadism must have been present to explain historical evidence such as the perpetrators' "willingness to have their wives live among them as they slaughtered Jews... their eagerness to preserve memories of their genocidal deeds by means of photographs which they took and posed for with evident pride” (Hollander, 2016). Either way, if the experiment is to be tailored to examining how political ideologies effect American willingness to obey, then there is a sincere need to control for at least some personality traits, especially neuroticism.

Gap


Throughout the reading of research papers and articles, a distinct pattern was noticed, while there were many research papers describing in quantitative terms with empirical evidence the effects that obedience to authority and peers could have on destructive behavior, most papers about political ideologies contribution were either mostly speculative and were based far more on qualitative evidence and review rather than experimentation. Furthermore, few if any papers conducted an experiment focused on determining the relationships between these three factors.

This leads the review into the main focus of the paper: in comparison to obedience to authority and conformity, how do American political ideologies contribute to destructive obedience? Method

The experimental method was essentially to have the subjects watch a politically charged video on a generally agreed upon stance on the left about regulating businesses causing biological harm through their waste disposal, track whether they agree, disagree, or stay neutral, and then record whether or not they do the same for a faux execution linked to the message. All of this was done by the “authority figure”. The authority figure chosen was picked based on being a generally respected and well-known authority figure to high-school students, in this case the FBI. The goal was to see if ideological agreement predicted agreement to the execution in comparison to conformity in a large mixed group, and authority in the control. The video itself was formed through visual clips of FBI officers talking in an open street over-laid with audio clips from The Ring of Fire’s “The EPA Cares More About Protecting Corporate Profits Than Protecting Your Health” (2018), and an explanation dubbed by the researcher’s father that the following execution is an enforcement of management laws, which is then followed by a clip of a man being shot by a police officer with a “pepperball” over-laid with the sound of a hockey puck, which sounds like a gun firing. The video clip of the fake execution is distinctly non-explicit like that which could be found in a PG-13 movie. The way the subjects were tracked for agreement, disagreement, or neutrality is that they were asked to cheer, boo, or stay neutral, along with correlating hand gestures to help distinguish the responses in the recording. For this experiment, the verbal responses were taken as an expression of opinion the subject was willing to produce in front of their peers.

While the experiment is certainly inspired by the work of Milgram, as it still gives the subject the opportunity to either defy or accept an amoral action, it more closely follows suit of an experiment found in a peer reviewed article done by Slater et al. (2006) called “A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments.” The researchers made use of a virtual reality simulation to conduct the experiment and focused more on the physiological signs of stress on the subjects, rather than whether they would or would not shock the virtually created “learner”, as the subject knows it is all fake. Slater et al chose to update Milgram's study in this way to make it more ethical, as it would likely not cause as much psychological stress to ‘kill’ a computer-generated person as it would a supposedly real one. However, due to a lack of knowledge in how to program interactive computer simulations, as well as a lack of access to virtual reality equipment, this experiment used a video of a speech and fake execution instead. The effect was similar as it is knowingly false to the participant, and yet still in an immersive


form of media, if only slightly less so. Using a video instead of virtual reality also provides the benefit of being able to show to video to a group of subjects together, which aides in the studying conformity among ideology and authority. Furthermore, since there was a lack in equipment to measure some of the physiological factors, such as skin conductance that was measured in the study, the change was made to study the subjects willing verbal reactions to what they saw, which had the added benefit of mimicking situations more typical to the sharing of political opinions.

Subjects

The subjects desired for the project are those within the grade range of juniors and seniors in high school, as students who are approaching voting age and are more likely to be aware of their political environment. The students asked to participate were in a class typically filled with juniors and seniors. Twenty-two students were scheduled to participate, but four dropped out, which led to only eighteen subjects. They all signed parent consent forms that outlined the procedure, as well as their right to anonymity, right to withdrawal consent as they saw fit, and right to ask questions or report concerns.

Experimental and Control Groups

In order to study how the subjects’ levels of political ideology affiliation effects their levels of compliance, their political affiliations must first be determined. For this, test subjects were asked to take a political ideology test, that can be seen in Appendix B, which is the widely used political compass test from Pace News. Once their political opinions were recorded, they were blocked off into the groups independent leaning democrat, democrat, centrist and independent leaning republican.

Out of the eighteen that participated seven were independent leaning democrats, seven were democrat, two were centrist and two were independent leaning republican. Since the majority of participants were democrats the groups were based around that, and so was the political message.

Those of each political group were assigned into the experimental groups 1a, 1b, 1c, 2b, and control group 2a. Experimental groups 1a, 1b and 1c were the ideology-based groups with two independent leaning democrats in the first two groups, and three democrats in the last. Group 2a, as the control for the authority, only saw the execution, and had no political context; they also had a balanced, mixed group with one independent leaning democrat, one democrat, one centrist and one independent leaning democrat. Experimental group 2b, had a large group of mix views where the majority were democrats in order to see how those with different opinions would react to being the minority view. There were three democrats, two independent leaning democrats, one centrist, and one independent leaning democrat

Confounding Variable

To control for the confounding variable of neuroticism, the test subjects were tested for such through John and Srivastava’s Big Five personality test (1999) as seen in Appendix C, however, those who test positive for neuroticism were treated the same as other subjects, due to


the limited sample size, albeit noted for their neuroticism and monitored through the data collection and analysis process for any differences in behavior that would skew the data. The neuroticism test was taken alongside the survey (Appendix D), that existed to garner the personal reasonings behind the behavior as Milgram (1974) did in his interviews (p. 29-68), as well as asses the effectiveness of the video.

Results

The most hopeful part of the results comes from the fact that no one cheered for the execution; rather, the biggest distinction one could find in the subject’s reaction is who stayed neutral, who booed, and when.

Authority vs. Ideology

In the control group for authority, one stayed neutral, while the other three booed the execution.

Pie Chart 1

Breakdown:

The independent

leaning Republican

stayed neutral, as the

centrist, independent

leaning democrat

and democrat

displayed open


disapproval.

During the ideology trials, four stayed neutral, three booed

Pie Chart 2

Breakdown:

In group 1a, one

independent leaning

democrat booed, the

other stayed neutral,

while in group 1b

both independent

leaning democrats

booed, while in

group 1c all

three democrats

stayed neutral

While the individuals in ideology groups did differ in their show of opinion, they reveal a stark contrast to the authority group when brought together. As one can glean from the graphs, the subjects seemed to be about 32% less likely to openly disagree with the execution when a political context was introduced alongside the authority than when the executioner acted on authority alone, even going so far as to overtake the majority.

This contrast is elaborated on through observing and comparing those within the ideology groups who showed no prior agreement with the political statements made in the video to those who did show agreement.

Pie Chart 3

Of the three that

57%

43%

Ideology Group's Response to Exe-cution

NeutralDisagree


did not show

agreement with

the video, only

one stayed neutral.

Pie Chart 4

But of the four that

did show agreement

with the video,

three stayed

neutral

The proportion of those willing to outwardly express opposition to the event predictably dwindles with ideological agreement, from 67% to 25%.

Conformity vs. Ideology

In the conformity trial, only one subject stayed neutral, the other six booed.

Pie Chart 5

Breakdown:

The independent

leaning republican,

centrist, one

33%

67%

Neutral on Video, Response to Ex-ecution

NeutralDisagree

75%

25%

Agreed with Video, Response to Ex-ecution:

NeutralDisagree

88%

13%

Conformity Group's Response to Execution

NeutralDisagree


independent leaning

democrat, and three

democrats all

stayed neutral, while

one independent

leaning democrat

booed

Conformity appeared to further suppress the subjects willingness to actively disagree with the execution, as seen by a comparison of conformity’s chart to Pie Chart 2, with ideology, where the proportion of those who stayed neutral when confronted with the execution increased by about 30% from that of the ideology groups with the introduction of a larger group. However, conformity also seemed to further suppress agreement with the video as well, as only two subjects displayed agreement with the video, and one said subjects who expressed agreement was also the only subject to boo the execution, going against what was found in the ideology trials, while also suggesting that the larger group may have suppressed open opinions in general.

The Survey

The results for the neuroticism were unexpected as both the four subjects scoring higher and five subjects scoring lower for the trait tended towards booing at the execution, while the more moderately scoring subjects were far more likely to stay neutral.

When asked if they thought the execution was unfair, or why they booed, half cited moral reasons such as "it's murder," “inhumane,” or “wrong to take another human, while a third referred to a lack of context of the scene, or how it was presented. Responses in the latter category include it being seemingly unofficial with the way the executed was dressed, the lack of people conducting the execution, or the lack of clarification as to whether or not a fair trial was held.

As for the dissenting opinions, one mentioned that they were okay with the execution being held, just not in the unofficial manner with which it was done, while another took issue with the execution only in that it was not enough action for what the executed did, which may suggest that one person may have been cheering yet- just inside their own head. A third dissenting subject as well seemed to approve of the execution, as they were morally outraged at the supposed actions of the executed, suggesting that some of the subjects were actually swayed by the politics, they just were not as vocal about it.

More interestingly, however, was the noticeable trend where subjects that stayed neutral either claimed to boo, or wrote their survey out similarly to those who did boo.

All students, except one, professed, when asked, that they felt they were either a generally independent or free-thinking person, despite however they behaved.

Limitations

The majority of problems with the experiment come from the number of participants and the video itself. On one hand, only 18 students took part in the experiment, which not only drastically limited sizes of each group and the variation of political views, but it also limited the reliability of the data. With such a small sample, it is hard to conclude whether or not the results

88%

13%

Conformity Group's Response to Execution

NeutralDisagree


gained were due to the effects of ideology, conformity, etc. or simply mere chance. On the other hand, the design of the video itself also posed many problems, such as the fact that it was too short, and probably hindered how immersed in the political message the subjects were before they were subjected to the execution, as well as inhibiting the researcher’s ability to track their responses across time. Another notable problem were mistakes arising in establishing the authority figure: while the majority of the visuals were actual FBI agents, they wore uniforms that made them look like regular police officers, and attempts at clarifying this point were less than successful, so the authority figure came out far more ambiguous and vaguer than it should have been. The most extreme problem with the video, however, was how it was edited together. When the students were asked in the survey if the situations presented in the video were “too staged to feel real" or in other words were so obviously fake as to break immersion, nine out of the eighteen said that it did, and four others stated that it did feel “somewhat” or “slightly” staged. In other words, the immersion of the video was diminished in a variety of ways that likely hindered the effectiveness of the experimental treatment, and, thus, the results.

The surveys were likewise vulnerable to confusing wording that hindered the clarity of the responses as well, making the subject’s reasoning harder to understand and interpret.

Conclusions

So, in terms of how ideology affects a tendency towards destructive obedience in comparison to authority and conformity what does the data suggest? The comparison between authority and ideology, while going against the trend of Milgram’s experiments, does give some credence to the idea that ideology may have an effect, but it is dubious as to whether it contributes to full on acceptance of amoral behavior, as opposed to a lack of outward opposition. Perhaps it merely points to momentary confusion caused by an agreement with the cause but not the method, or perhaps it could then be seen as a precursor to such destructive behavior, as the aforementioned Tahir Rahman (2018) suggested, when he theorized on martyrs, stating that those who did stay neutral in the face of extremist action, but agree with them politically, secretly see the extremists as martyrs fighting the good fight. In light of those who did agree with the execution in the survey, this may seem ever more plausible; however, the vast majority of the survey results from those who stayed neutral completely contradicts this theory, as they adamantly denounced the execution, just from the safety of their isolated paper. The results of the conformity group support this view in particular where, as opposed to the original hypothesis in which the minority parties are either suppressed or swayed by the majority, such as it was in Asch’s study, the opinions of most of the group members were apparently stunted far more than their peers in the smaller groups- until they got to the paper that is. On paper, both those who agreed and disagreed with the execution were able to voice why. This neutral effect carries with it its own set of concerns, since Milgram (1974) noted in his book that the 35% that did disobey were far more likely to do so if they saw someone else doing it first, meaning that refusing to rock the boat with seemingly uncommon opinions can sheath away both destructive and much needed voices. Perhaps a better term for the neutrality influenced by ideology and conformity found in this study is destructive passivity.

On how personality may have obstructed the findings, it is hard to tell. From the survey, it was revealed that the majority of participants feel they are independent or generally free thinking; however the one that did not express such confidence did not seem to experience any more difficulties in disagreeing. Without further testing it is hard to tell exactly whether this is due to overconfidence on the subject’s part with how much they were influenced or overconfidence on the study’s part with how much they were not influenced. The neuroticism results, like the authority results, go against prior studies in that, instead of those scoring higher in neuroticism tending towards obedience (Zeigler-Hill, Southard, Archer & Donohoe, 2013), those scoring moderately tended towards neutrality far more than their higher scoring and lower scoring counterparts. Perhaps the high emotionality or objectivity of the individuals on the


opposite ends of the spectrum influenced their behavior, although, like with perceived independence, it is impossible to tell with the current data.

While the data suggests at a problem that ideological obedience may pose for the future political health of America, especially in comparison to authority and in tandem with conformity, the vague but possible obstructions caused by individual personalities, the fact that much of the results go against accepted scholarly articles, and the already stated limitations staunchly require more research into its effects before the suggestion can become a fully realized assurance. Based on this study, more scholarly attention directed at the relationship identified may be wise, as the earlier it can be proven whether they pose a threat, the earlier Americans can, if need be, stay wary how political opinions may be affecting them.

Appendix A

Title of Study: The Destructive Nature of the American Political Climate

Investigators: Name: Phone: Parent/Guardian Name:

Introduction

Your child is being asked to be in a research study of gauging the potential for political ideologies when it comes to destructive obedience. S/he was selected as a possible participant because your child is within the eligible age range and volunteered to participate. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions that you may have before allowing your child to participate in this study.

Purpose of Study The purpose of the study is examine how American political ideologies can be a destructive influence on people. Ultimately, this research may be presented as a paper to College Board as a part of the AP Capstone Research program. Description of the Study Procedures

If you decide to allow your child to participate in this study, s/he will be asked to do the following things: take a test to determine their current political position, watch a politically charged speech and watch a pretend execution that will be around as graphic as one would be in a PG-13 movie. Throughout the speech and fake execution they will be asked to vocally express forms of support or opposition through cheers and boos, and the will be asked about their reflections on their behavior afterwards.

Risks/Discomforts of Being in this Study The study has the following risks. If PG-13 levels of violence puts your child through high levels of distress, then this study is likely to cause them undue harm.

Benefits of Being in the Study There are no expected benefits of your child participating in this study.

Confidentiality


The records of this study will be kept strictly confidential. Research records will be kept in a locked file, and all electronic information will be coded and secured using a password protected file. Video recordings will be made to aide in the collection of observational data, however only the primary researcher will have access to them- no one else, and, after the recordings have been sufficiently examined and analyzed, they will be permanently deleted from every file in which they exist. We will not include any information in any report we may publish that would make it possible to identify your child. Right to Refuse or Withdraw

The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you and your child. You are welcome to observe the interview if you wish. Your child may refuse to take part in the study at any time without affecting your relationship with the investigators of this study or Smith College or losing benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your child has the right not to answer any single question, as well as to withdraw completely from the interview at any point during the process; additionally, you have the right to request that the interviewer not use any of the interview material.

Right to Ask Questions and Report Concerns You have the right to ask questions about this research study and to have those questions answered by me before, during or after the research. If you have any further questions about the study, at any time feel free to contact me, at or by telephone at . If you like, a summary of the results of the study will be sent to you. If you have any other concerns about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by the investigators, you may contact the Research teacher at If you have any problems or concerns that occur as a result of your participation, you can report them to at the number above.

Consent Your signature below indicates that you have decided to allow your child participate as a research subject for this study, and that you have read and understood the information provided above. You will be given a signed and dated copy of this form to keep, along with any other printed materials deemed necessary by the study investigators.

Parent/Guardian

Name:

Parent/Guardian Signature:

Date:

Investigator’s Signature:

Date:

VI. VITA - Primary researcher should attach a copy of résumé or vita. (Only if requested) VII. RESEARCH APPROVAL

Sufficient copies of the Research Project Proposal will be sent to the affected school principals and participants before conducting any sort of sampling or experiment.

VIII. Signatures of Sponsoring Agency (Usually the class professor) and the proposed researcher(s) IX. School Contact: Questions about research review procedures or the acceptability of research should be referred to:


Appendix B

If economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree


Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.


Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The rich are too highly taxed.

Strongly disagree


Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The freer the market, the freer the people.

Strongly disagree

Disagree


Agree

Strongly agree

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal. Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

All authority should be questioned.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree


Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree


Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

There are no savage and civilized peoples; there are only different cultures.

Strongly disagree


Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree


Strongly agree

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.


Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

Strongly disagree


Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree


Strongly agree

Astrology accurately explains many things.

Strongly disagree Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

You cannot be moral without being religious.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Some people are naturally unlucky.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree


It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

Strongly disagree


Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No one can feel naturally homosexual.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

These days openness about sex has gone too far.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Appendix C

Disagree strongly 1, Disagree a little 2, Neither agree nor disagree 3, Agree a little 4, Agree strongly 5

I see myself as someone who. . .

__1. is depressed, blue__2. is relaxed, handles stress well__3. starts quarrels with others__4. can be tense__5. worries a lot__6. is emotionally stable, not easily upset__7. is inventive__8. has an assertive personality__9. can be moody__10. remains calm in tense situations__11. gets nervous easily

Appendix D


1. Why did you cheer for/boo the ‘execution’?

2. Did you think the pretend execution was fair, and if so why?

3. Would you expect yourself to act differently next time?

4. Did the situations presented in the production seem too staged to feel real to you?

5. Do you believe you are skeptical of authority or a generally independent person?

References

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding Behavior in the Milgram Obedience Experiment: The Role of Personality, Situations, and Their Interactions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(3), 398–413. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9103180627&site=ehost-live

Hollander, P. (2016). Revisiting the Banality of Evil: Contemporary Political Violence and the Milgram Experiments. Society, 53(1), 56-66. doi:10.1007/s12115-015-9973-4

iMovie. Hockey Shot 1 [Audio File].

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

KFMX. (2010). Lubbock D.J. Takes Pepperball To The Chest [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGCLL-rxQVQ&t=8s

Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Pinter and Martin, 1974.

Myers, D., & DeWall, C. (2018). Myers' psychology for AP. Bedford, Freeman & Worth High School Publishers.

News Now Houston. (2018). Washington,DC-FBI Field Office w/Theresa R [Video]. Retrieved from https;//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B4tLKiitbE

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9103180627&site=ehost-live

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9103180627&site=ehost-live


Rahman, T. (2018). Extreme Overvalued Beliefs: How Violent Extremist Beliefs Become “Normalized.” Behavioral Sciences (2076-328X), 8(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8010010

Riva, P., Williams, K. D., Torstrick, A. M., & Montali, L. (2014). Orders to Shoot (a Camera): Effects of Ostracism on Obedience. Journal of Social Psychology, 154(3), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.883354

Sirbu, A., Pedreschi, D., Giannotti, F., & Kertesz, J. (2019). Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0213246. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A577131563/AONE?u=fl_profdev&sid=AONE&xid=d3c6d086

Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., ...Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1), e39. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A471943104/AONE?u=fl_profdev&sid=AONE&xid=95a13560

The Political Compass. (2019). Retrieved from https://politicalcompass.org/test/it

The Ring of Fire. (2018). The EPA Cares More About Protecting Corporate Profits Than Protecting Your Health [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?

Zeigler-Hill, V., Southard, A. C., Archer, L. M., & Donohoe, P. L. (2013). Neuroticism and Negative Affect Influence the Reluctance to Engage in Destructive Obedience in the Milgram Paradigm. Journal of Social Psychology, 153(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.713041

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.713041

https://politicalcompass.org/test/it

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A471943104/AONE?u=fl_profdev&sid=AONE&xid=95a13560

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A471943104/AONE?u=fl_profdev&sid=AONE&xid=95a13560

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A577131563/AONE?u=fl_profdev&sid=AONE&xid=d3c6d086

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A577131563/AONE?u=fl_profdev&sid=AONE&xid=d3c6d086

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.883354

sites.santarosa.k12.fl.us · web viewdestructive obedience in a political context. ap capstone...

Documents