Resisting the influence of cults

Resisting the influence of cults

Moral Reasoning and awareness of own values

Kolherg (1969) believed that moral development proceeds in stages throughout life. Some people never achieve thee highest stage of moral development, post-conventional reasoning, which involves an understanding that society's rules and conventions are not always morally right. An awareness of one's values, and confidence in these values, can help people to resist conformity.

Hornsey et al. (2003) found that if someone has a strongly held conviction about an issue, they are less likely to conform. In a follow up to Asch's study, Perrin and Spencer (1980) found that engineering students were much less likely to conform. This may relate to their self-confidence in their own ability to make visual judgements. Confidence is promoted in schools, and may help young people resist the pressure to abuse alcohol and drugs.

This theory helps to explain why some people act immorally, but raising people's moral development is very difficult. It is not practical as a short-term strategy.

Questioning Motives

Another factor affecting compliance is the ability to question motives. To achieve sales, certain compliance techniques are sometimes used.

The low-ball technique is similar to Milgram's obedience study- participants had agreed to take part, and didn't feel they could pull out when greater 'costs' (in terms of stress) were later revealed.

Cults are experts in using compliance techniques, making people feel that they have made a commitment that they cannot escape from. Raising awareness of these techniques makes them much less powerful.

Simply making people aware of the techniques that are used can help people to resist them. Anderson and Zimbardo (1984) state that it is important that people avoid making decisions when under stress, and avoid making decisions when in the presence of the person who triggers the stress.

Disobedient Models

As Milgram (1974) demonstrated, having peers who refused to continue led to the lowest levels of obedience. In Asch's study, the presence of just one other group member who disagreed with the majority was enough to reduce conformity to under 10%. Both of these studies show the potential effect on our behaviour if other people in society resist social pressure. These disobedient peers act as role models, making it easier for others to do the same.

In a partial replication of Hofling et al.'s (1966) study of obedience, Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that only 11% of nurses obeyed when they were allowed to check with a colleague. The idea that disobedience is more likely when people are allowed to discuss their course of action was supported by Gamson et al. (1982), who found greater levels or dissent when people were put into groups, and allowed to mix and discuss their ideas.

Experimental evidence supports the strong effect of disobedient models on our behaviour. Children could be encouraged to discuss a problem with friends or guidance staff at school, for example, when they are being pressured into doing something. Telephone helplines may also be valuable.

A limitation is that all too often in the real world, there is no disobedient model to help people resist obedience.

Some real-world evidence goes against the value of disobedient models. During the Second World War, the Nazi soldiers of Reserve Police Battalion 101 murdered Jewish civilians despite being given the option to be assigned to other duties. Despite several 'disobedient models', 80% of the troops continued to carry out the killings (Browning, 1992).

Stress- Part 2

Aims

Friedman and Rosenman proposed that some individuals (Type A) are typically impatient, competitive, time pressured and hostile. Type B individuals lack these characteristics and are generally more relaxed. Friedman and Rosenman predicted that Type As would be less able to cope with stress and therefore more likely to experience CHD.

Method and Procedure

The study recruited 3154 healthy men aged between 39 and 59, living around San Francisco. This was a longitudinal study. The men were first interviewed in 1960, using a set of 25 questions to assess the way that a person typically responds to everyday pressures that would create feelings of impatience, competitiveness or hostility. For example, the participants were asked how they would cope with having to wait in a long queue or working with a slow partner. The interview was conducted in a provocative manner to try to elicit Type A behaviour. For example, the interviewer might speak slowly and hesitantly, so that a Type A person would want to interrupt. The researchers recorded the participants' answers and the way that the participants' responded. Participants were then classes as A1 (Type A), A2 (not fully Type A), X (equal amounts of Type A and B), and B.

Results

1. Eight and a half years later, 257 of the total sample had developed CHD: 178 of these had been assessed as Type A (69%), whereas half as many were Type B (31%).
2. Twenty-two years later, 214 men had died from CHD: 119 were Type A and 95 Type B, a rather less impressive difference.

Conclusion

This offers strong support for the idea that aspects of a person's temperament are associated with CHD. The key factor may be stress. This results from the follow-up study 22 years later suggest that personality type may not be as important as originally suggested. However, it might be that of some of the men took preventative measures after being diagnosed with CHD and that this altered the death rates later recorded.

Evaluation

Friedman and Rosenman's study was the first to show that a psychological trait could be a risk-factor in heart disease, just like smoking or a bad diet. It was a large-scale, well-designed study. However, the participants were all male, making it unclear whether results apply to women. Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) suggested that, rather than being a personality trait, type A behaviour depended on the fit between the person and the environment. A follow-up study 22 years later found a much smaller difference. However, it could be that in their later years, type A men stopped being so hostile and competitive.

Stress- Part 1

The fight-or-flight response is the body's immediate reaction to a threatening situation. This could happen if you are in a fight, feel threatened, or even if you have to give a speech.  Walter Cannon (1927) came up with a theory of the 'fight-or-flight' response. The key idea is that an animal or person reacts to an immediate threat by releasing energy and preparing for action- either self-defence or running away. No matter which option is taken, the body will benefit from energy and oxygen to the muscles, improved vision, reduced tendency to bleed, etc. Because this is the response to an immediate threat, certain longer-term processes can be switched off, for example digestion, as immediate survival is much more important.

The environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (EEA) means the environment in which human ancestors are thought to have lived for most of the evolution of our species. It is thought that humans evolved in the African savannah, and lived in small tribes of hunter-gatherers for approximately two million years. It is only in the last 10.000 years that we have developed agriculture and lived in settled villages and towns. This helps to explain why the stress response can be unhelpful in the modern world.

This response evolved in our evolutionary past to aid survival. It helps to explain why our heart rate rises and we release energy in response to threats. The response is an over-generalisation. Animals such as cats respond differently in a fight, and some animals such as snakes use a 'play dead' strategy in response to a threat. The response only covers immediate threats, and doesn't explain prolonged stress.

Two stress responses:

The sympathetic adrenal- medullary (SAM) system

This process involves the autonomic nervous system, the branch of the PNS which controls the automatic processes of our organs. This has two branches- sympathetic branch, which takes control when the body is stressed or active, and the parasympathetic branch, which takes control when the body is at rest. When the body is stressed, nerves from the sympathetic branch of the ANS stimulate the centre of the adrenal glands to release adrenalin- the hormone which is most closely associated with symptoms of the fight-or-flight response, such as raised heart rate.

The HPA axis

The second process which causes the fight-or-flight response is the action of the endocrine system, the body's network of glands which release hormones. This system is regulated by an area of the midbrain called the hypothalamus. In stress, the hypothalamus instructs the pituitary gland to release a hormone called ATCH, which in turn instructs the adrenal cortex to release stress hormones such as cortisol. These hormones help to release the energy needed to fight stress, and trigger the changes in the body which cause the fight-or-flight response. This set of processes is called the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

The way a person reacts to the stress hormone cortisol may also depend on sex. Taylor et al. (2000) found that the hormone oxytocin can reduce cortisol. Oxytocin is affected by sex hormones: it is boosted by oestrogen, whereas testosterone makes it less effective.