Social Psychology: Concepts and Research

Social Psychology: Concepts and Research Sophia Ashraf Social Psychology Assignment At times people and groups resort to negative, cruel and even murderous behaviour. Drawing upon contemporary or historical examples analyse whether this behaviour is influenced more by social pressure/structure or by something more personally sinister or selfish. Social psychologists have devoted extensive interest in studying the attitudes, feelings and behaviours of human beings. They have come up with numerous explanations for both helpful and aggressive human behaviours. Philosophers explain these differences in terms of human nature. For instance, Rousseau believes humans are innately peaceful creatures. Therefore, anti-social behaviours are a consequence of wider societal and structural factors. In contrast, Thomas Hobbes believes humans are born evil and are predisposed to criminality. Overall, history is filled with numerous examples of altruistic behaviours. One such example is of Oskar Schindler, who risked his life and saved over 4,000 Jews during the Holocaust. Equally, history has also witnessed inhumane atrocities which include the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam in the 1960’s and the Rwanda and Bosnia genocides of the 1990’s (Hogg Cooper, 2007; Hogg Vaughan, 2014). Social psychologists have offered numerous explanations that influence the behaviours, attitudes and perceptions of people, in performing horrendous crimes against humanity. These include: social pressures like conformity and obedience, and also individual personality traits such as possessing an evil, sadistic and psychopathic character. In this essay, I will use examples of historical and contemporary atrocities, social psychological studies and theoretical concepts to explain the reasons behind why certain individuals and groups commit negative, cruel and murderous behaviours. In doing so, I will analyse whether this behaviour is influenced more by social pressure/structure or by something more personally sinister or selfish (ibid). Social psychologists identify obedience as a major social influence on human behaviour. This is because it involves obeying the orders of other living beings. Psychologists have found obedience to have both a positive and negative impact on human behaviour. For example, it prevents chaos in everyday life as people are socialised to obey laws such as traffic lights, and do so even without the presence of an authority figure. Alternatively, obedience has also proven destructive as many people have blindly obeyed the orders of an authority figure without thinking of the consequences of their actions. Social psychologist Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974) was highly interested in the effects of obedience on human behaviour, and in particular whether an individual would follow the commands of an authority figure if it involved harming another living being (Aronson et al, 2013; Hogg Vaughan, 2014). In 1963, Milgram carried out a famous ground-breaking experiment on obedience to authority at Yale University. He recruited around forty participants from the community via an advertisement, to participate in a study that tested the effects of punishment on learning. The experiment consisted of three roles which include an experimenter who was a man dressed in a white lab coat, a teacher whose role was always played by the participants, and a learner named Mr Wallace who was actually a confederate of the researcher. All participants were provided with a shock generating machine which had thirty levers in total and ranged from 15 to 450 volts. Participants were also given a sample shock of 45 volts before the experiment commenced. As part of the study, Mr Wallace had to learn a set of pair associates, whereas the teacher was required to administer electric shocks progressively to the learner each time they gave an incorrect answer (ibid). During the experiment, the learner made some correct and incorrect responses. Whenever the learner received a shock for an incorrect response, he would cry and scream in pain and often demanded to be released from the experiment. Consequently, this made participants feel agitated and want to withdraw from the research. In response, the experimenter would reply with a series of direct coercive statements such as ‘the experiment requires that you continue’, and ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’. (Hogg Vaughan, 2014: 242). Milgram’s initial assumption was that his participants would refuse to follow orders that involved harming another individual. However, he was extremely shocked when his results revealed that 65% of his participants continued administering electric shocks till the very end. This study illustrates the devastating impact of obedience, a social pressure which induces ordinary people to perform damaging acts against innocent vict ims (Hogg Vaughan, 2014; Helm Morelli, 1979). Milgram’s experiment has received considerable support from numerous researchers such as Hofling et al, 1966 who found that nurses also obeyed doctor’s orders to administer what they knew were harmfully incorrect doses of drugs to their patients. Milgram’s study has also received substantial criticism for its ethical concerns. Firstly unknown to the participants, the learner was actually a confederate who did not receive any electric shocks throughout the study. Secondly, Milgram’s participants were not provided with a fully informed consent and right to withdraw. This is because the experimenter verbally prodded them to continue during the experiment. His participants were also deceived about the true aims of the study, as Milgram was actually investigating the effects of obedience to authority on human behaviour. Milgram’s findings also lack generalisation to the wider population. This is because the study involved male participants and was conduc ted in a laboratory setting which does not reflect real life situations (ibid). Many historical and contemporary crimes have been committed in the name of obedience to authority. These include historic atrocities witnessed during World War II and the Nazi era, and also contemporary atrocities such as those which have been witnessed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. In all of these horrific events, the perpetrators have claimed to be following orders. For instance, the Nazi official Adolf Eichmann who was held responsible for the death of six million Jews claimed he was following and implementing Hitler’s orders. Eichmann’s trial was covered by the journalist Hannah Arendt (1963) in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil’. Like Milgram, Arendt was also interested in what made Eichmann and other war criminals commit such devastating crimes against humanity (Aronson et al, 2013; Hogg Vaughan, 2014). Within her book, Arendt reveals a shocking finding and asserts that ‘these ‘monsters’ may not have been monsters at all. They were often mild-mannered, softly spoken, courteous people who repeatedly and politely explained that they did what they did not because they hated Jews (or Muslims etc.) but because- they were simply obeying orders’ (Hogg Vaughan, 2014: 240). Here, Arendt illustrates the importance of structural explanations, in particular obedience which a form of social influence that predisposes war time criminals to commit negative, cruel and murderous behaviours. Nevertheless, this structural explanation has been criticised for ignoring the very fact that an individual’s pathological personality and a group’s cultural norms, may also make them more vulnerable to anti-social and murderous behaviours (Aronson et al, 2013; Hogg Vaughan, 2014). To explain a perpetrators negative human behaviour, Milgram makes reference to the terms the agentic state which denotes absolute obedience. He claims that within the agentic state people see themselves as mere instruments obeying the commands of an authority figure. As a result, individuals experience a diffusion of responsibility for their actions. This is because they transfer personal responsibility onto the authority figure. For this reason, Milgram believes that the agentic state can be used to explain the behaviour of perpetrators, who claim they are not liable for their actions as they were simply following orders. Moreover, even the threat of punishment for disobedience can force many people and groups to perform criminal behaviours against their own wish. However, it must be noted that not everyone obeys the commands of an authority figure, and many people do display resistance to commands that go against their own beliefs (ibid). Social psychologists have also identified conformity as another major social influence on human behaviour. It is defined as a process in which the individual changes their attitudes and behaviours in accordance with the group’s views. Psychologists have identified two types of conformity. These are informational and normative social influence. Firstly, informational influence is a type of conformity where the individual relies on information, knowledge and opinions of others as evidence about reality. Secondly, normative social influence is a type of conformity which is heavily based on others expectations. Here, the individual conforms because they feel a need to gain acceptance and social approval from their group. They also want to avoid feeling socially ostracised. In support of conformity pressures Mark Twain asserts, ‘we are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going and then go with the drove’ (cited in Kassin et al, 2008: 221). This quote shows how suggestible and compliant people can be as a result of numerous group pressures (Aronson et al, 2013; Kassin et al, 2008). The famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo was highly interested in understanding the downside of conformity, and coined the concept ‘The Lucifer Effect’ to describe how good people turn evil. In 1971, he conducted a famous study named the Stanford Prison Experiment, where paid volunteers were randomly assigned to the role of either a prisoner or a guard. The prisoners were arrested from their house, and were taken to a prison which consisted of bare necessities. Their possessions were removed from them and they were provided with a uniform and a unique ID number. Alternatively, the guards were also given a uniform to wear, along with items such as clubs and whistles which were symbolic of their authority. All prisoners were required to follow a set of fixed rules; otherwise they risked receiving severe punishment (Baron and Branscombe, 2012: Meyers, 2008; Zimbardo, 2007). Within the experiment, Zimbardo played the role of a prison warden who was interested in observing the reactions of his participants. He also wanted to know whether his participants would conform to the norms and requirements of their roles and whether they would behave like genuine prisoners and guards. Zimbardo found that the prisoners were rebellious at first but, then later became passive whereas, the guards grew more and more brutal and sadistic in their character. This was seen in the manner in which they harassed and dehumanised prisoners. Zimbardo found that these changes in behaviour were so disturbing that it became necessary to end the study after six days, when initial plans called for it to last two weeks. According to the individualistic explanation of crime and deviance, such inhumane behaviours may be attributed to individual factors such as a genetic predisposition to criminality (ibid). In opposition to the individualistic explanation, Zimbardo (2007) adopts a structural perspective to explain his findings. He argues that a person inclination to conform to the norms of their social roles such as that of a soldier or prison guard can have harmful consequences, as they may make decent people perform indecent behaviours against members of their own species. A real life parallel to the Stanford Prison experiment is the disturbing events of the Abu Ghraib prison which started in Iraq in 2003. In this horrific event, American soldiers physically abused Iraqi prisoners as they perceived them to be less than human. According to the individualistic explanation, these horrific atrocities are attributed to individual deficiencies and limitations. For instance, people who are labelled psychopaths, sadists, and evil creatures are more vulnerable to behave inhumanely with innocent people than psychologically normal people (Aronson et al, 2013: Baron and Branscombe, 2012; Keller, 2006). In relation to the Nazi Holocaust, the historian Daniel Goldhagen argues that ‘many German citizens were willing anti-Semitic participants in the Holocaust, not mere ordinary people forced to follow orders’ (Kassin et al, 2008: 243). Therefore, it may well be argued that the Germans had a character defect and were prejudiced and pathologically frustrated individuals. These factors influenced them to behave with cruelty towards others. On the other hand, developmental psychologists argue that anti-social and aggressive personality disorders can also predispose individuals to resort to criminal behaviours. For example, Adorno et al, 1950 adopts a psychodynamic framework and argues that early childhood rearing practices that are harsh and authoritarian produce individuals who are obsessed by authority and are more likely to be hostile and aggressive towards other people. This provides support for the claim that personality factors cause individuals to behave in a negative and cruel manner towards others (Aronson et al, 2013; Hogg Cooper, 2007; Kassin et al, 2008). In conclusion, social influence has proved to be a fundamental area of inquiry for social psychologists who attempt to explain the numerous influences on human behaviour. Psychologists argue that people and groups are subject to powerful and complex social pressures. These may originate from people, groups and institutions. Social psychologists explain violent and anti-social human behaviours as being either attributed to the individual, situation or system. Social psychologists have identified conformity and obedience to play an important role in influencing human behaviour. They have also identified individual factors such as a genetic predisposition to crime and also personality attributes such as a possessing a selfish, sinister and authoritarian personality to predispose people to behave criminally. There are also other factors that may shape. These include prejudice, discrimination and a radical ideology which may predispose people and groups to behave inhumanely with others. O verall, research on crime and deviance have revealed that it is highly complex to determine whether negative, cruel and murderous human behaviours are due to social/structural pressures or individual factors or a combination of both. Sexual Offences Act 2003: An Analysis Sexual Offences Act 2003: An Analysis The questions as posed raises a number of issues concerning the interplay between child and youth sexuality and the criminal law that is not readily resolved. The question shall be addressed using the following analytical approach that is intended to be considered progressively, commencing with the identification of the specific provisions of the Sexual Offences Act that demand the greatest scrutiny in when considering the interests of children. The analysis then explores the implications of the key terms employed in the question and how each may be interpreted in light of the Sexual Offences Act provisions; ‘children, ‘protection, ‘sexual abuse, ‘legitimate sexual behaviour, and ‘mistake are highlighted. The expression ‘over-criminalise is afforded a distinct consideration in view of the breadth of the potential sexual acts that might be prosecuted pursuant to the Act, coupled with the potential reach of both police and prosecutorial discretion in these proceedings. The analysis includes the review and inclusion of relevant academic commentaries that consider the issues noted above; the paper concludes with the assertion that while the Sexual Offences Act is an imperfect mechanism upon which to construct a protective scheme for children who are exploited or otherwise the victim of nonconsensual sexual activity, the current statute represents a legislative scheme that is clearly rooted in the public interest and one that addresses a number of important societal issues. The Sexual Offences Act, 2003 The Act provides for the regulation of a broad range of defined types of sexual misconduct. Commencing with s. 5 (Rape of a child), the enumerated Child Sex Offences provisions that are set out at sections 9 through 19 define the age limits applicable to establishing proof of the various enumerated offences. Section 10 (Inciting a child to sexual activity) is an example of the age definition employed in all of the Child Sex Offences: A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if he intentionally causes or incites another person (B) to engage in an activity the activity is sexual, and   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Either: (i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  or over, or (ii) B is under 13 Various acts of sexual touching are criminalised: the offence of ‘Grooming (s.15) is noteworthy in that the proof of the offence does not require proof of any physical contact directed by the perpetrator to the child victim to establish criminal liability for a sexual offence. The ‘grooming provisions are primarily directed to Internet based contacts (such as by way of Internet chat rooms) or mobile telephone media, such as text messaging between adults and children as defined. Commentators have suggested ‘à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦that applying the ‘grooming clause in practice is highly problematic given the difficulty of demonstrating ‘sexual intent towards a childà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦(previous case law) à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦illustrates the extent to which some sex offenders are prepared to go to secure a child for sexual activity and the overt manner in which ‘grooming occurred. The penalty provisions of the Act generally invite one of two types of dispositions. For the more serious offences such as rape, the maximum penalty is 14 years in prison; for the lesser offences the maximum penalty is a 5 year term. Subject to the definitions contained in each section, most offences are also capable of prosecution by summary means and a corresponding maximum penalty of 6 months in prison, or fine in the alternative. These provisions are considered in the context of the suggested ‘over-criminalisation, below. Key words As noted in the introduction, five words and phrases extracted from the question are employed to advance the present analysis. ‘Children It is submitted that while the definition of ‘child may be variable and highly dependent upon the context of any particular sexual circumstance, the age parameters set out in the Act are generally appropriate for the following reasons. While a child aged 13 or under may have the physical maturity and the emotional desire to engage in sexual activity (this varies significantly from person to person), there is strong academic support for the proposition that a young person of this age will generally lack the appreciation of the consequences of sexual activity, coupled with a lack of emotional maturity to necessarily deal with the activity in a safe and socially acceptable manner. Further when children are provided with the opportunity to use the Internet to make contact with virtual strangers, one comprehensive study revealed that over 60 percent of a sampling of London children aged 10 to 13 had limited understanding of the extent to which others could potentially harm them if they were not discreet concerning their personal identifiers or if they agreed to meet someone they did not personally know. In many respects the statutory definition may be regarded as a societal approximation. For any critic of the Act who believes that the age bar is set to high, particularly with regard to the 13 to 16 year old age range that involves the additional consideration of the concept of honest and reasonable mistake as to age, there are significant segments of modern UK society that define a child not simply by their biological age but in terms of their status as members of the family household, or as unmarried persons. Without stereotyping a particular group, the conservative elements of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths all hold strong cultural / religious views that would place the definition of a child above age 13, or above age 16 where the mistake defences are invoked. An anomaly in the legislation is the disparity between the general age of majority laws in the UK and the sexual offence age provisions in some circumstances, a person can have consensual sexual intercourse at age 16 but be prohibited from voting, consuming alcohol, or entering into most kinds of contracts. The justification for this anomaly is beyond the scope of this paper; it is acknowledged that a greater measure of uniformity of age limits promotes consistency and social utility. However, it is also to be noted that the provisions are in general accord with the corresponding European Union conventions. ‘Protection It is submitted that one may properly be uneasy when significant consideration is given to concepts of protection when the conduct, such as sexual activity, is generally discovered after the fact. The protection afforded the public is that of the combined effects of publicity concerning the provisions and deterrence associated with the criminal process. ‘Sexual abuse The Act has properly defined a broad range of sexual touching and physical contact as potentially constituting sexual abuse. The definition must be broad to encompass the psychological and emotional harm that can (but not always does) stem from any kind of assaultive behaviour, no matter how seemingly minor. Further, the risk of long term damage in such occurrences is well documented; ‘à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦More convincing evidence of the dangers of adult-child sexual activity comes from studies of cycles of sexual abuse The evidence is much stronger here-penetrative sexual acts by certain sorts of adults are virtually universal in paedophiles‘ childhood. Cramer reviewed numerous academic studies in this respect and concluded that ‘à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is not surprising that no measurable harm comes to some teenagers who knowingly consent to an involvement with adults just a few years older than themselves. In some communities with different laws, they might be old enough to be free to engage in sexual relations. ..However, this does not mean that all adult-young person sexual relations are invariably non-damaging-or that it is possible to predict ‘harmless‘ ones with any confidence. The question as posed carries the implicit suggestion that sexual activity involving a ‘consenting child (consent as defined in the Act) is not a risk to the child. Cramer properly identifies the fact that harm is a considerable variable for the reasons noted above. Further, all considerations of what is abusive behaviour deserving of societal sanction and what is acceptable will engage a number of different perspectives. As mentioned with respect to the definition of a child, the cultural and moral position of the child and their family may be a significant factor in how the activity is characterised. Biological, emotional and psychological considerations are also at stake. Given the passage of the Act by the UK Parliament, there must be some measure of societal acceptance of the statutory regime as one that properly reflects UK societal concerns regarding this activity. ‘Over-criminalise This term must be approached from two perspectives. The first is the effect of the statutory penalty sections. These provisions on their face provide significant latitude for a sentencing judge to fashion a disposition that meets the demands of each case. One would expect the cardinal sentencing rule of ‘worst offence, worst offender to draw the sentences approaching what is unquestionably a significant penalty of 14 years for rape; rape is equally a horrible offence. It is also clear that the mitigating factors of a positive relationship between the offender and child, relative age disparity, and similar issues must mitigate in the favour of the offender. The concern expressed for over-criminalisation is addressed at least in part through the power to deal with the extremely minor transgressions of this nature by way of the conditional caution provisions, or by virtue of the general powers of discretion vested in the Crown Prosecution Service. There are elements of UK society who may legitimately feel that public legislation that mandates certain proceedings or dispositions is far preferable a public interest safety mechanism than a discretion vested in the prosecution that is essentially unreviewable. Conditional cautions have attracted a mixed review in the UK press and legal commentaries; they are perceived in some quarters as a system soft on crime. However, the conditional caution mechanisms address precisely the issue posited in the present question while the Act may provide significant sentences in the proper case, like all other UK statutes, its effect is ameliorated by the discretionary caution. The distinctiveness of the administrative structure of the conditional caution has been furthered through the development of the Gravity Factor Matrix, an assessment tool developed by the Home Office to assist police services and prosecutors in the determination of which types of occurrences should be subject to a conditional caution. Police forces throughout the UK have now incorporated the matrix into their internal policy and procedures. The general considerations of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances are set out in detail; the Home Office issued a similarly comprehensive guideline concerning warnings for young offenders in May 2006. The use of the caution process enjoys a widespread acceptance with prosecutors, with 24 per cent of all UK criminal offences charged resulting in this disposition; 17per cent more conditional cautions were issued in 2005 over the previous year. Given this trend, concerns regarding the risk of over-criminalised youth sex activity are misplaced, provided the prosecutorial discretion remains active in the consideration of sexual offences. ‘Legitimate sexual behaviour The question is one that is loaded with the assumption that ‘children (depending upon the age definition) will innocently engage or perhaps experiment with sexual activity. In a hypothetical occurrence between a 14 year old boy and a 13 year old girl, where consent in the practical sense is alleged, it is difficult to imagine a reasonable person characterising the interaction as ‘sexual abuse† (subject to the cultural and religious observations noted above). The Act is clearly aimed at circumstances of the prescribed age difference creating a practical presumption of inequality, or the obvious circumstances of harm that are consistent with abuse. ‘Mistake It is contended that there is nothing within the framework of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 that creates a potential deviation form the now well developed legal principles in support of the defence of mistake. Due statutory deference is paid to the fact that sexual offence circumstances are often emotionally charged, carrying the potential to affect recollection and perception,. For these reasons reasonable mistake of fact as to age must remain an available defence; wilful blindness and recklessness are relegated (as they should be) to the category of mitigation, if any. It seems doubtful given all of the factors noted above that the UK courts would embrace the de facto reverse onus now imposed upon an accused in these circumstances by the Supreme Court of Canada. The availability of mistake in the statutory regime is consistent with the European Convention provisions regarding the assurance of a fair trial. Conclusion The present question does not recognise the strengths of the Sexual Offences Act as they pertain to children who are victims of sexual assault. The act strikes an appropriate balance between individual rights and societal protection.