Systematic desensitization

 Systematic Desensitization: This is a form of treatment or therapy for phobias, fears, and aversions that people have. The premise is to reduce a person's anxiety responses through counterconditioning - a person who learned to be afraid of something is associating fear with that object or behavior, and the way to eliminate this is to teach the person to replace the feelings of anxiety with feelings of relaxation when the object or behavior is present. This approach is based on conditioning relaxation with the feared object or object of anxiety.

Social support

  When we are having stress, our friends and family can help us as discussing the problem which you are experiencing stress, to cope the stress. This helps us healing the stress more successfully than solving the stress by ourselves. To avoid the stress or to make better deal for us, in the situation of, if we could identify that what might cause the stress as if we could find out that what trigger the stress; it is more likely situation to avoid it.
 Examination is a good example to proof this. It can cause a great deal of stress. Student can cause this, because they do not have much experience for the emotional impact of the important examination, so they are not well prepared for that kind of impact. Furthermore, learning techniques to deal with stress, which caused by examination could be useful for them. Other thing that they could do is prepare well for the examination. These dealing as problem-focused methods are useful for healing stress in these cases and engaging in a form of training is also useful. In this way, people could be better practiced and better able to cope with it, when stress comes along.
 In 1984 Kiecolt Glaser et al found that students who had more social support suffered less reduction of their immune responses prior to university examinations however, we need to consider definitions of social support.

Anticipatory coping

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggested that there are two coping strategies that people use to deal with stress. There are emotion-focused and problem-focused methods of coping. Another known as 'Anticipatory Coping' this method is stress and anxiety come with certain symptoms which might include physical responses, like a tightening of the stomach or shortness of breath. For example, if we anticipate a change, or we have sensitivity to dealing with crowds, then we might change our plan to avoid crowds. Because of this our stress levels will not increase. So, to improve our anticipation we need to gain information about what makes us stressed and developed a plan of action to help us deal with it once we have successfully anticipated it.

Ethical concerts associated with research into obedience

Other criticisms of Milgram's research and other research into obedience focus on ethical concern. These include:

- Causing distress

- Deceiving participant

- A lack of informed consent

- Participants not being given the opportunity to withdraw from the study.

Milgram responded to these criticisms by arguing that:

- The distress was not anticipated and there was no long-term harm

- The deception was necessary and the means justified the ends

- Informed consent was replace by presumptive consent

- Debriefing took place

 Both Milgram and Aronson argued that people made ethical objection because of the actual (distasteful) finding, not because of the methods used.

External validity

- This describes the extent to which the result of a study can be applied to other everyday life situation other individuals.

- Laboratory experiments are often seen as artificial and unreal (they lack mundane realism.) However, if they have experimental realism this may give them external validity ( if the participants regard the experimental situation as real).

- Further support for external validity from research with similar result in other cultures, showing that the findings can be applied to other situations and other people.

- Milgram's experiment raises question as to whether any parallels to the Holocaust can be drawn from his research.

Research studies into obedience

Classic research studies into obedience include

- Milgram

- Hofling

- Messue and Raajimakers

Miligram's classic study on obedience showed that people were more obedient than we would imagine.

The main criticisms if his research concern the lack of internal and external rapidity, and the contravention of ethical codes.

Issue of validity associated with research into obedience

Obedience research has been criticized in term of:

Internal validity:

- This describes the extent to which a participant believes in the experimental manipulation and therefore the extent to which the participants behavior can tell us anything about real behavior.

- The roles of demands characteristics and social contracts are important consideration.

- Milgram's research raised questions as to whether the participants believed the "victim" was received shocked and was in pain.

Explanation of why people yield to majority and minority influence

We can further explain majority and minority influence in terms of the factors that influence it.

People differ in the extent of their conformity as result of:

- situation factors: e.g. cultural and historical factors:

- genders,

- dispointional factors: self esteem, the need for personal control.

Non-conformity can be explained in terms if reactance.

What is obedience to authority?

Obedience to authority is behaving as instructed, usually in response to an individual rather than a group.

It can usually be considered a desirable social influence, unless it is unjust, and is generally a positive a response to social instruction.

Obedience and influence (major and minority) differ in term of the source of social pressure and the extent to which private opinion is changed.