In our daily lives we interact with various contexts and groups such as family, friends, activity groups, work, etc. Furthermore, we live immersed in a society full of information that reaches us through different media and social networks.
We make many decisions daily, but really… are we aware of how we make them? Do we base ourselves on our own criteria or do we allow ourselves to be influenced by this diversity of external factors?
This article invites us to reflect on how social phenomena impact us, highlighting the importance of maintaining our own criteria, freedom of choice and authenticity Through three social experiments, we will explore social influence, obedience to authority and role assignment, examining how these phenomena can shape our decisions and behaviors, precisely compromising our authenticity and self-criterion.
Experiment 1: Social Influence, Asch (1951)
Solomon Asch, a pioneer in social psychology, carried out fundamental studies on human conformity. Although he initially sought to test the hypothesis that people can resist social influence when they know others are wrong, his results revealed a more complex dynamic. He discovered that, in certain circumstances, a unquestioning conformity to avoid feeling different to the rest.
In their experiments, the participants were all accomplices of the experimenter except one who was the experimental subject who knew nothing about the experiment. The latter’s task was to compare pairs of cards with lines. He had to identify which of the three lines on the second card matched the line on the first. Although the answer was obvious, the accomplices, unanimously, intentionally provided incorrect answers on several occasions. The experimental subject, even if he knew the correct answer, often gave in to group pressure and adopted the majority response even if it was a wrong answer.
This study highlighted the notable influence of the opinions of others on our beliefs and decisions, demonstrating that, even in objective situations such as identifying lines, we can be susceptible to manipulation and social influence. This fact can also extend to the influence that our environment, groups, social networks can exert on us, if we are not aware, even in more subjective aspects of our life and personality, such as tastes, preferences, fashions, even ideals or political tendencies, compromising our authenticity and own criteria.
Have you ever found yourself deferring to a group’s opinion, even if you had a different opinion? How do you think that affected your self-esteem and self-criterion? Where do you think the line is between fitting in socially and compromising your authenticity? How do you think social pressure has influenced your decisions in more subjective areas of your life, such as your tastes, ideals or preferences?
Experiment 2: Obedience to authority, Milgram (1961)
Stanley Milgram, another renowned social psychologist, carried out revealing experiments on obedience to authority, questioning human nature and its relationship with obedience. Motivated by historical atrocities such as the Holocaust, where blind obedience to authority led to so many tragedies, Milgram explored the extent to which People could cause harm to others simply by following orders from a superior.
In these experiments, the participants, who knew nothing about the experiment, assumed the roles of teachers who had to administer supposed electric shocks to students under the orders of an authority figure, the researcher. Students and researcher were accomplices in this experiment. The students’ task was to learn words and the teacher had to administer increasing shocks to the student for incorrect answers, pressured by the researcher’s authority. The results were shocking: despite the students’ screams and apparent pain, 65% of the subjects continued to obey the orders even when the students simulated a lot of pain and the screams increased in volume until they seemed to fade away.
Although maintaining order, hierarchy and regulations is necessary for the proper functioning of hierarchical systems, this study showed that the phenomenon of obedience to authority, to the limit, can lead people to act against their principles and values It also shows how the very presence of an authority figure can exert such high social pressure that it influences people’s actions, even obeying orders that involve harming others and acting against one’s own ethical and ethical principles. morals. The delicate interaction between personal ethics and obedience in ethically challenging situations is shown in this experiment.
Have you ever felt conflicted between following orders and upholding your principles? What would be your personal limit in terms of obeying authority if it went against your values? How do you think this would impact your self-esteem and the way you exercise your own judgment?
Experiment 3: Stanford Prison, Zimbardo (1971)
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo carried out the well-known Stanford Prison experiments, in order to study how assigned roles affect and shape human behavior, as well as individual expectations. The experiment was carried out in the same basements of Stanford University where they simulated a prison. The participants were student volunteers from the same university who were randomly divided into two groups: one group was assigned the role of prisoners and the other group the role of guards. Both groups had to act according to the assigned role.
At the beginning of the experiment, participants fell into their assigned roles in a seemingly harmless way since they had not yet internalized their individual roles. However, by surprise, on the second day, already more immersed in their role, there was a rebellion. The guards had adopted authoritarian attitudes and the prisoners had rebelled, causing altercations and aggressive behavior. From then on, such was the lack of control of the planned situation and the escalation in aggressiveness, that after six days they had to stop the experiment that was initially planned to last two weeks.
The results of this study show how role assignment can quickly transform individuals, highlighting the influence of the environment on human behavior, under specific circumstances. This experiment reveals how quickly social structures can shape and transform human behavior. That is, under a specific role and context, by putting on a “hat”, the person can transform by adopting behaviors that they would not do in another context. In these conditions, we must also highlight the importance of maintaining one’s own criteria and personal principles.
How do you think the roles assigned in your daily life, at work or in your social environment, can or have been able to influence your behavior and decisions? Have you ever experienced the loss of your identity due to conformity to an assigned role? How could you balance adapting to social roles with preserving your authenticity and self-criterion?
In conclusion
Amid the diversity of our environments and influences, from family relationships to interactions in the workplace and the constant avalanche of information on social networks, Our daily decision making is immersed in a complex web of external factors
Although these social experiments have occurred in more extreme conditions than the situations we may encounter in our daily lives, and that a large part of our daily actions and decisions are carried out in autopilot mode from our subconscious programming, it is important to reflect. about how these social phenomena impact our autonomy and ability to choose. This does not mean that in certain situations we do not adapt to the circumstances, since the ability to be flexible and know how to adapt to certain contexts is necessary for human beings.
The social experiments presented show that, in the midst of these contexts, Preserving our authenticity and own criteria becomes a key challenge This article invites us to question and strengthen our decision-making capacity, consciously, amid the complexities of social influence.
