Effect of Surveillance on Autonomy and Greed

Effect of Surveillance on Autonomy and GreedDiscussionThe interrogation hypothesis of this study stated that when souls were under watch, they would whole tone a need of autonomy or more controlled. Therefore, role players would afterwards demonstrate a high(prenominal) level of covetousness, in likeness to those non under watchfulness. This was supported by the ideas of SDT about autonomy being a fundamental psychological need, and so resulting in adverse consequences when non attained.The results derived from this query were non significant, indicating that no do were gear up in either condition and thusly do not support the sign research prediction. Although not significant, data call forthive of a social movement was found for finality and condition on prohibit affect. This exhibit that participants who were in the experimental condition and kept each of their tickets (indicating a higher(prenominal) level of voraciousness) showed increased levels of n egative affect, comp atomic number 18d to those who gave some tickets. This could be interpreted as the individuals sense of smell guilt or other negative emotions about their termination when under surveillance. This whitethorn indicate that surveillance has an effect on negative feelings, following behavior.Similarly, although no significant results were found, a trend suggests that participants who kept all their tickets in the experimental condition experienced a decrease in their just world beliefs. This demonstrates that those individuals who showed higher levels of greed under surveillance subsequently lacked beliefs in a just world, in comparison to the other participants. This whitethorn coincide with the trend found for negative affect implying that those participants under surveillance, who kept all tickets, had more feelings of negative affect and lower beliefs in a just world. Regardless of these trends, it has to be emphasised that the effects atomic number 18 not significant so the alleged effect is not concrete.One description for the lack of significance found within the trends may be collect to the sample size, which was limited to eighty participants. If a larger sample size was obtained then the trends found may potentially be more powerful. A possible recommendation for future research could be a restitution of this study using a greater sample size, to test whether this trend is more rife.As the initial predictions ar not supported by the results, they do not support the notions implied by SDT stating that autonomy is one of the polar needs that needs to be attained. The received results may also suggest that surveillance is not as controlling as previously implied (Lepper and Greene, 1975), as individuals may fluent feel autonomous when under surveillance. Alternatively, it may be that the individuals did not notice the cameras. During the study phase, participants were asked whether or not they noticed surveillance bo th the cameras and signs. When they did not take notice, which occurred frequently, participants often added comments implying that they had grown accustomed to this surveillance. This aligns with the initial thoughts that thither is an abundance of cameras in society, perhaps suggesting an everywhere-usage of the surveillance. These comments alongside the lack of sensory faculty of the cameras can be interpreted as an subdivision of desensitisation to the surveillance. As the originally quote by Home Office mentioned, individuals be gain so familiar with the cameras, that they are no longer something out of the ordinary therefore if unnoticed, their purpose may not be as effective. This also corresponds with findings from the earlier mentioned studies where the surveillance became ineffective after a time lag (Web and Laycock, 1992).In assenting to this, a study conducted by Tilley (1993) observing the power of surveillance in various car parks found that publicity of the surv eillance was necessary for it to be effective. Therefore the procedure of CCTV needs to be this instant brought to an individuals attention for an effect to occur. This coincides with the notion of familiarity with the cameras earlier stated, suggesting that individuals may need some sort of reminder or prompt to be aware of the surveillance.Prior research has supported the assumptions made by SDT and the command prediction that a lack of autonomy will affect behaviour. Particularly, Cozzolino et al., (2015) apply the similar measure of greed as the current study, alongside a measure of indirect aggression, finding that surveillance elicited higher levels of greed and aggression. However, Cozzolino et als., (2015) study included the usage of more than one experimental toil, which may explain the results. The antecedent assign provoking aggression may enhance the general demeanour of the participant, prompting individuals to display greed. This may append an explanation as to why results differed from this current research, as the scotch conceive task was measured independently.Self-concept is an important phenomenon to be observed in carnal knowledge to this primary study. Individuals tend to seek approval from others and feel the need to match that they switch a positive self-concept, as they prefer to feel give out about themselves. This was illustrated by Swann Jr. and Read (1980) who observed the values of self-concept over a series of experiments. Their results indicated that self-concept was of high significance to individuals as participants sought to range it through others. Lower levels of greed are apt(predicate) to contribute to a positive self-concept therefore this need for verification of self-concept may be a contributing factor to their behaviour in the current study. Thus, individuals may take away altered their answers intentionally for this reason. Despite being ensured confidentiality, experimenter effects may withdraw occ urred, causing the individual to be more sceptical of possible popular opinion from the experimenter. They may not have wanted to display their actual inclination to show a higher level of greed, fearful of the impression they may process on the experimenter, therefore portraying actions that they think may be expected of them, more accepted, or more aligned with their self-concept.In addition to this the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1980) may contribute to the notion that individuals conveyd in a way that they believed met societal expectations. This theory proposes that individuals have two disparate types of motivation, one of which is subjective norms this is perceived social pressure to execute genuine behaviours. In this case, subjective norms would point to acts of less greed (as this is more socially acceptable) which may explain the decision made by individuals in this study. Participants may be more influenced by their subjective norms than any othe r factors, causing them to behave differently.Interestingly Haley and Fessler (2005) observed the effect of evoked observability on pro-social behaviour through various different methods. These researchers measured levels of generosity using an economic game task, similar to that of the current study. This study provided a visual instigate to make individuals feel as though they were being observed. This was in the digit of stylised nerve centre representations on the background of the computer they were completing the task on. Although this differs to the primary study conducted, the use of eye spots may make individuals feel as though they are under control, or that they are being watched. They found that in the eye spot condition, in comparison to control, allocations were 55% higher, therefore displaying higher levels of generosity. This illustrates alternative effects to those initially predicted in the primary study, Haley and Fessler expected individuals to be more generou s when in the eye spot condition, which was found. Perhaps it should be reconsidered which types of behaviour are usually demo when being watched as pro-social behaviour may be more prevalent than anti-social behaviours predicted by this primary study.While it has been strongly implied that surveillance can be perceived as a rebound of social control (causing individuals to digest their autonomy), this control itself may infer different effects. When being watched, individuals may feel that they need to act in a certain way. They may be reluctant to portray their genuine feelings or actions as they are apprehensive of what those surveying may think. When not under surveillance individuals are in all probability to act more freely as a result of feeling less pressured by subjective norms, and therefore are able to behave more genuinely. Moreover, individuals actions may be more likely to be of an authentic nature, reflecting their intrinsic motivations. This coincides well with the trends found, implying that surveillance may chitchat feelings of negative affect. Individuals may only feel guilt about their decision because of the judgement they may face from being watched.Another possible terminal point which may have arisen with this study may be placed with the methodology. As stated the study involved an economic trust task, measuring levels of greed on the flat coat of the raffle tickets. Firstly, this task may lack an element of ecological validity as the situation that individuals were placed in with this task may be perceived as un existingistic. It is unconvincing that individuals would be asked to limit the allocation of raffle tickets therefore it may not reflect real life behaviour. In addition to this, the environment in which the task was faultless may also be considered less ecologically valid, being in a room with a computer and an experimenter close by. This may be a possible explanation as to why significant results were not found, as the task was not representative of a real-life situation, mirroring real behaviour.Furthermore, another(prenominal) methodological concern may be the takeat of the study. Participants were told that they were matched with another participant who made the tickets available to them however they may not have believed that there was another participant involved. The sample included a generous come of psychology students, who may have more cortical potential and so are aware that these studies often involve an element of deception. Therefore they may have displayed a higher level of greed, regardless of surveillance, if they realised that there was no other participant. To improve this farther studies could account for this in different ways. Firstly, using a sample of students from different departments, or not using a student population may affect findings, as they are unlikely to have prior background knowledge about experiments of this nature. Additionally it could be made more p lausible that there is another participant involved. next studies may have the other participant wait in the same area as the current participant, or have a companion pretend to be the other participant. This may make it more plausible to the participant, and may evoke the effect initially expected.Trying to gain the insight of someone else is a difficult task, which is one that has been challenged in this study. The evidence found for these various measures used such as the feelings of control involve self-examining awareness, observing the understanding of others. As earlier stated, the Cronbachs alpha for these measures were not self-consistent, therefore it has to be questioned whether it is possible to rely completely on the use of these measures as they tend to involve an element of inconsistency.Despite a consistent level of non-significance in the current study, the notion of social control is still very plausible. Previous research has delved into this phenomenon, such as the well-known respectfulness experiment by Milgram (1963). It was found that participants obeyed the instructions of those who they perceived as having authority. This illustrates that this form of social control can have an effect on individuals behaviour, altering it significantly. In the same way that surveillance plant life as social control in altering individuals behaviour.It can be argued, from an alternative viewpoint that there is an evolutionary basis for greed. Evolution emphasises the importance of survival, to the next generation and to continue to pass knock down genes. Therefore greed can be interpreted as a means of survival, gaining the resources necessary from an evolutionary standpoint. This could be an alternative explanation for higher levels of greed being prevalent individuals may not be moved(p) by surveillance but have evolutionary needs that conduct their behaviour.Frustration of psychological needs can be fatal and race to adverse consequences, especially when observing the analysis of certain disorders. For example it has been suggested that a frustration of autonomy can lead to obsessive-compulsive disorder. Individuals feel they are being controlled or are unable to be in depend upon of themselves, so they control their environment instead. Similarly eating disorders is another form of the regaining of this control from an experience of lack of autonomy, as they tend to come from a very controlling environment. With more controlling and strict parents, individuals are more vulnerable to eating disorders. Without autonomy, individuals are more likely to cave in psychopathology, as they defend against difficult experiences rather than overcoming them. Therefore it is important that further research is done to observe the implications that may derive from the thwarting of these needs, specifically autonomy.While no significant effects were found to support the suggested hypotheses of this current research, it is still cr ucial that further investigation takes place. An array of prior research has found prevalent effects demonstrating that surveillance can evoke feelings of powerlessness and that this lack of autonomy can be detrimental to individuals. Therefore special research is necessary to find concrete evidence for the effects of surveillance.