PSY 400 Week 3 Conformity, Obedience and Social Influence Example

Skipping the Double-Check: Conformity, Obedience and Speaking Up in a Hospital Pharmacy

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSY/400: Social Psychology

Week 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The pharmacy, staff and events are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.

People like to believe they act on their own judgment, yet decades of research show how strongly others' behavior and instructions shape what people do. This paper explains conformity and obedience through a new hospital pharmacy technician facing pressure to skip a safety check.

The Situation

Kayla is twenty-three and three weeks into her first job as a pharmacy technician at a hospital in Mesa, Arizona. Hospital policy says two people must confirm each dose of certain high-risk drugs, insulin and heparin among them, before it leaves the pharmacy. During busy evening shifts, Kayla notices that experienced technicians often skip the second check, initialing for each other. When she paused the line to verify a heparin dose, a coworker laughed and said, "You'll learn." Her supervisor added, "We trust each other here. Keep it moving." Kayla wants to keep her job and fit in, but she was trained that the check catches errors.

Two Kinds of Social Influence

Informational influence occurs when people conform because they believe others have better knowledge, especially in ambiguous or new situations. Normative influence occurs when people conform to be accepted and avoid disapproval. Kayla faces both. As a new employee, she wonders whether experienced colleagues know something she does not, perhaps that the check is unnecessary for routine doses. She also feels the sting of being laughed at and wants to belong.

Pressure From a Unanimous Group

Asch (1956) asked college students to judge which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, a task with an obvious answer. Each real participant sat among confederates who, on certain trials, unanimously gave the same wrong answer. Participants went along with the incorrect majority on about a third of these critical trials, and roughly three quarters conformed at least once, though a substantial minority never did. Conformity dropped sharply when just one other person gave the correct answer, breaking the group's unanimity, and when participants could write their answers privately.

Kayla's situation resembles Asch's in key ways. The group's behavior is unanimous, and disagreement is public. The research suggests that one ally, another technician who also performs the check, would greatly reduce the pressure she feels.

Following an Authority

Milgram (1963) recruited men from the community to serve as "teachers" in a supposed learning experiment, instructing them to deliver increasingly strong electric shocks to a "learner," a confederate who received no real shocks, for each error. As the learner protested and then fell silent, the experimenter used a fixed series of verbal prods, for example telling the teacher that the experiment needed him to go on. In the original condition, about two thirds of participants continued to the highest level on the shock generator. Later variations showed that obedience fell when the authority was absent or when other teachers refused.

Kayla's supervisor is a legitimate authority, close at hand and calm. Milgram's work shows that people often follow such authorities step by step, especially when the authority seems to take responsibility. The small first step, skipping one check on a routine dose, makes each later skip easier.

No one told Kayla to harm a patient; they told her to keep the line moving, one initialed box at a time.

Does the Finding Still Hold?

Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of Milgram's study with safeguards required by modern ethics review: screening out people likely to be distressed, stopping at the point where the learner first protested strongly and reminding participants repeatedly that they could leave. At that point, the rate of participants willing to continue was only slightly lower than in Milgram's comparable condition and not significantly different. A model who refused did not significantly reduce obedience in this study. The results suggest that the basic finding has not disappeared with time.

Ethics of the Classic Studies

Milgram's participants experienced significant stress and were deceived about the study's purpose, raising concerns that led to stronger protections for research participants. Burger's design shows how research can address such questions while protecting people.

Compliance Techniques at Work

Kayla's slide toward skipping checks also shows compliance, agreeing to a direct or implied request. The pattern resembles the foot-in-the-door technique, in which agreeing to a small request makes agreeing to a larger one more likely. On her first busy night, a coworker asked her only to initial one routine insulin dose he had checked alone. A week later, the request had grown to initialing a full tray. Each yes made the next feel consistent with what she had already done, and refusing would have meant admitting the earlier steps were wrong.

Why Group Size and Status Matter

Influence also grows with the status of the people applying it. The technicians who skip checks are senior, respected and fast, and newcomers tend to treat high-status members as better sources of information about how work is really done. In Asch's studies, conformity rose as the majority grew to three or four people and then leveled off, which suggests that even a small, confident group can set the norm on an evening shift.

Conformity Is Not Always Bad

Following others is often reasonable. In a new job, watching experienced coworkers is a good way to learn. The problem arises when group norms drift away from safety rules, a process sometimes called normalization of deviance, and newcomers adopt the drifted norm because it is what everyone does.

Making Resistance Easier

Research points to changes in the situation, not just in Kayla's courage. The pharmacy can adopt a stop rule protected by policy, so that any technician can pause for a verification without penalty. Pairing each new technician with a designated ally on each shift breaks unanimity. Making checks visible, with electronic verification that cannot be initialed on another's behalf, removes the opportunity to skip. Leaders who publicly thank staff for catching errors shift the norm. Kayla herself can raise the issue with the pharmacy's safety officer, framing it as a question about policy rather than an accusation.

Conclusion

Kayla faces informational and normative pressure from a unanimous group and an instruction from a nearby authority. The line-judgment studies, the original obedience research and its modern replication show that such pressures move most people, but also that one ally, distance from authority and clear permission to refuse reduce them. Changing the situation is the most reliable way to protect both Kayla's integrity and patients' safety.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525