Social key question

• Abu Ghraib prison complex is located in Abu Ghraib, an Iraqi city 32 km west of Baghdad. It was used for detention purposes by both the U.S.-led coalition

  occupying Iraq and the Iraqi government from 2003 to August 2006.
• The prison became notorious following revelations that prisoners were subjected to torture and abuse while being held there
• the Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted at Stanford University in California in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo. He wanted to investigate how people would behave if they took on the role of either prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment.
• success criteria for discuss

  What theories can be used from the specification content to explain the key

  question?

  • How can the theories explain how the key question developed in today’s

  society?

  • How can the theories explain how to reduce or possibly eliminate the impact

  of the key question on today’s society?

  • Are there any concepts from the specification content that can explain the

  key question in today’s society?
• Agency theory : People will obey authority because it is a survival advantage. Obeying LA means that they will avoid rejection from the social group. When in the autonomous state they feel moral strain. when they change from an autonomous state to the agentic state after they undergo the agent shift. This means that there is no more moral strain and they have displaced responsibility into the commander. 
• social impact theory : More likely to obey when one of these factors increase 

  F(SIN) strength, immediacy and number. However in the laws of diminishing returns once the source exceeds three the impact no longer increases even when the number of sources increased  
• Social identity theory : Behaviour e.g discrimination is motivated by your social identity. First stage is social categorisation which is an automatic sorting procedure where you belong to an ingroup. The next stage is social identification where you adopt the beliefs and values of your ingroup thus behaving in accordance with the norms of the group. Finally, social comparison occurs when you subjectivity perceive your ingroup as superior to out groups leading to discrimination to the out groups.
• Realistic Conflict theory :

  -Conflict: Sherif rejected the idea that different groups of people could share and cooperate in harmony.

  -Zero Sum Fate: Only one winner, if one side gains, someone else has to lose out. Realistic conflict occurs when people believe that an out group can only benefit at their experience. So, they see out group members doing well, they conclude that they must be losing our somehow.

  -Negative Interdependence: Where two groups of people are both seeking to achieve a goal that is important to both of them.
• agency theory:Army Military Police would have begun in the autonomous state during their training taught rules of combat responsible for their actions. Order given by the CIA and superior officers, legitimate  authority figures to soften up the prisoners. Moral strain when asked to 'soften up' the prisoners and gone through agentic shift. Displaced the responsibility for torture into their superior officers.
• social impact theory

  • There was a high strength as the soldiers  were wearing soldier uniform therefore it demonstrated a High authority power, and the high status increases the obedience of soldiers
  • Immediacy was high as the orders were face to face so it was hard for prisoners to disobey as they received direct orders. 
  • There were less Soldiers therefore they felt more obedient to “soften them up” from the CIA officers because there were no divisional effects. 
• social identity theory

  • Soldiers create an “in group” of being American, and an “out group” of being Iraqi (social categorisation) mere existence of groups = prejudice
  • Social identification as American leads to strong patriotism and nationalism. Adopt beliefs of superiority.
  • Social comparison between groups, subjective labelling everyone in the out group as a terrorist and enemy.
  • Low self-esteem caused by 9/11 makes prejudice develop into discrimination and hate crimes.
  • Soldiers believed torture was justifiable as it was against the “out group” who were terrorists 
• realistic conflict theory

  • Limited resource is information on the 9/11 attack and the cause of conflict
  • Superordinate goals keep people safe, if all countries followed the Geneva Convention then acts like this could be prevented
  • Zero-sum fate as if the prisoners gained control then the guards would have lost the control  & either the guards had the information or the prisoners did 
• The key question: to use social psychology to explain real life atrocities
• we are trying to understand why the soldiers in Abu Ghraib acted the way they did
• Agency Theory - The US Soldiers/guards initially entered as autonomous individuals. Soldiers would have experienced moral strain when their authority figure (officers) asked them to do something against their moral conscience. Due to the authority of the officers the soldiers undergo an agentic shift, whereby they displace responsibility for their actions onto the authority figure, allowing them to become agents and carry out the acts of torture against detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison.
• Research AO3 to evaluate the theory

  Milgram's research can be used to support this explanation of blind obedience, as when participants were asked by an authority figure (in uniform- lab coat) to supply electric shocks to a 'learner' 65% blindly obeyed and supplied the maximum 450V shock. Benefits to individuals and society therefore, it is evident that the principles of the agency theory can provide an explanation for how blind obedience can lead to atrocities similar to those at Abu Ghraib, whereby US soldiers were able to commit these acts without feeling personal responsibility.
• AO3 Slapback However, the agency theory cannot completely explain the atrocities. This is because Milgram found in his telephonic variation that when orders were given by the experimenter over the phone obedience dropped from 65% to 22%. This suggests that the theory may not be-able to provide a complete explanation for the atrocities because some of the initial orders provided at Abu Ghraib were not given in person, which would suggest more cases of dissent. Making agency therefore less useful in being able to explain why blindly obey
• Conclusion - need a conclusion for an ASSESS question

  To conclude, although there is some conflicting evidence to support the explanations that are provided by social psychology, overall, the research has been able to shed some light on the actions of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. By developing our understanding on how the agency theory or Milgram's research can explain the atrocities, strategies can be developed to try to prevent abuse like this happening
• The soldiers working as guards were part of the US military group that were against the Iraqi prisoners. groups were competing for the limited resource (winning the war). This zero-sum fate meant if the US soldiers wanted to win the limited resource of power the Iraqi prisoners would have to lose (negative interdependence) leading to prejudice and hostility against the groups. This competition for the limited resource lead to the US military abusing the prisoners,They did this as realistic conflict theory suggests the US military can only benefit at the expense of the Iragi prisoner
• Sherif robbers cave study supports this explanation of prejudice. During the study researchers created inter-group competition in the form of a sporting competition with zero-sum fate. The negative interdependence between the groups, resulted in an escalation of violence and prejudice, prejudice was reduced by the introduction of super-ordinate goals. the groups worked together and the number of friendships between groups increased. this evidence that principles of realistic conflict theory can provide an explanation for how prejudice can lead to atrocities similar to Abu Ghraib
• Benefits to society: can use the realistic conflict theory to highlight why the soldiers in the US army abused and showed prejudice towards the Iraqi prisoners and therefore superordinate goals can be introduced such as not harming prisoners of war using super-ordinate goals such as the Geneva Convention, which outlines set standard in war, such as treating prisoners with dignity and respect. This will benefit individuals such as solders and potential victims of atrocities and society because people will have more trust in the US military as it will prevent further abuse to prisoners of war.
• AO3 Slapback one must question the extent to which realistic conflict theory can explain the atrocities because there is a vast different in the environment of boys in a camp at the Robbers Cave and prisoners held captive in Abu Gharib. in Robbers Cave study, there was group of researcher who acted as a referee to ensuring violence was controlled unlike Abu Ghraib where there was no third group controlling the US military resulting in more cases of abuse. This makes the theory less useful explaining the abuse against Iragi soldiers
• Conclusion

  To conclude, although there is some conflicting evidence to support the explanations that are provided by social psychology, overall, the research has been able to shed some light on the actions of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. By developing our understanding on how Realistic Conflict Theory or Sherif's research can explain the atrocities, due to competition for limited resources, strategies can be developed such as having super-ordinate goals, to try to prevent abuse like this happening again.
• reason for prison guards' obedience is that there were no divisional effects as they were told 'soften up the prisoners' one to one. The CIA had higher ranking than Military Police (MPs), making them a strong source of impact. there was high immediacy due to relationships between MPs and senior officers who were in camp together. one to one confrontation meant there was no divisional effect, MPs felt full impact of orders. multiplicative effects meant that impact=f(SIN). This High impact and strength led to a greater impact on MPs making it harder to disobey orders to torture prisoners.
• Research

  This is supported by Sedikides and Jackson who found that the obedience levels at a 200 increased when there was high immediacy (obedience fell from 61% to 7% as immediacy was reduced. The number of targets also affected the obedience (60% to 14% as the number of targets increased. This demonstrates that the principles of SIT can explain different levels of obedience to orders.

  Benefits to society
• theory suggests that social impact theory affects levels of obedience and we can use it to explain why they guards at Abu Ghraib obeyed. This is beneficial to individuals such as solders and potential victims of atrocities and to society as it highlights issues with a hierarchal society and will allow inferiors to know when it is acceptable to disobey a superior.this allows US army to consider implementing knowledge of the SIT to explain how increased immediacy and strong sources can cause people to obey orders they know are wrong.
• However, one must question the extent to which social impact theory can explain the atrocities. The people at the zoo would not have felt threatened by the zookeeper unlike the prison guards who would fear for their life if they disobeyed. we cannot use this research to explain the occurrences at Abu Ghraib as there was more incentive for the prison guards to obey. This makes the social impact theory less useful in being able to explain why the officers willingly participated in abuse against Iraqi soldiers
• To conclude, although there is some conflicting evidence to support the explanations that are provided, overall, the research has been able to shed some light on the actions of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. developing our understanding on how Social Impact Theory or Sedekides and Jackons's research can explain the atrocities, , strategies can be developed such as improving training of recruits so they are aware of this theory and know that they must hold themselves personally responsible for their actions and be able to resist influence of others, to try to prevent this happening again.