Compliance with an Authority Person’s Demand
The intent of social psychology research has been and still is to explain how circumstances are more a power determinant of individual behavior than our own intuitions lead us to believe. Research on obedience and compliance is focused less on explaining why obedience can be a good thing—which it can—and more on explaining why people obey/comply with demands when they would likely prefer not to or when the demands compel them to do bad things (e.g., the classic Milgram and Stanford Prison studies).
Many are familiar with the experience of being tasked by someone in authority (e.g., a teacher, work supervisor, athletic coach) to do something of questionable value and which may be counterproductive. The demand itself appears to be arbitrary and may serve only to establish the authority of the person making it.
For this Discussion, you will share social conformity situations that you have experienced and apply social psychology theory to explain your actions in those situations.
Review the Learning Resources related to conformity and obedience and consider how they would apply to this Discussion.
Consider a time when you have experienced when compliance with a task was required, even when you believed that time could have been better spent doing something more productive. The task may have come from a teacher, supervisor, coach, or other authority figure.
If you complied with the order, reflect on why. If you did not, reflect on why you did not comply.
Post an example of a time when you complied with an authority person’s demand, despite thinking it was not a good use of your time. Please explain why you did. Then, give an example of a time when you refused to comply; explain why. Your post must be informed by social psychology theory and research.
Obedience Essay
Student's Name
College/University
Course
Professor's Name
Due Date
The specific instance that I complied with an authority person's demands despite thinking it was not an unwise use of my time is when I accepted to purchase a toothpaste because a well-known dentist recommended it. This is congruent with Cialdini's compliance psychology theory which suggests six psychological principles that augment the inclination of an individual to comply with requests. These principles include reciprocation, authority, scarcity, commitment and consistency, liking, and social proof (Halttu & Oinas-Kukkonen, 2022). Based on this theory, I believed that a dentist is an expert (authority) in their field and thus accepted their recommendation. I did not certainly need toothpaste at the moment but complied just because of their position of authority in terms of dental care (Halttu & Oinas-Kukkonen, 2022). In this context, I complied because of the perceived legitimacy of the dentist. Research defines legitimacy as the authority's characteristic that makes people believe or accept that they deserve to be obeyed (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2018). I was driven by the need to internalize and acknowledge the power structure in the community. This emanated from my internalized value that the dentist has a moral standing to influence my health promotion behavior and thus was obligated to accept their recommendation (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2018). Therefore, the dentist perceived legitimacy influenced me to allow him to shape my behavior due to their professional background in healthcare.
In another instance, one of my friends had recommended the same toothpaste, but I discredited their advice citing their lack of professional expertise. I believed that my friend did not have significant power or expert knowledge in dental care, and therefore, complying with their advice would result in unfavorable outcomes (Halttu & Oinas-Kukkonen, 2022). It was difficult to comply with his advice because he lacked legitimacy to command obedience, mainly because of my interactions with them.