SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Psychology of Evil

COULD ANYONE OF US COMMIT EVIL ACTS?

Which factors might play a part why some people harm other people?

OBEDIENCE – WOULD YOU OBEY?

Stanley Milgram’s experiments 1960/1962

http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpE

THE RESULTST

he result: 2 / 3 of the 40 participants gave the highest electric shocks!

The experiment showed that normally nice people with simple means can be made to execute other equally nice people.

MODERN TIME

A replication of his study-made in the present day: how do people react today? http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=BcvSNg0HZwk

OTHER OBEDIENCE STUDIES

Hofling et al. 1966: obedience in American hospitals

Bickman 1974

Gender?

Nationality?

Puppies?

TASKR

ead the study and summarize it into one paragraph (max. 200 words). Your summary should answer:

What was the:

- aim of the study?

- Procedure?

-Results?

GUESS HOW MANY BALLOONS

CONFORMITY – HOW ADJUSTABLE ARE YOU?

Elevator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B738X-ibz2o

SOLOMON ASCH

Solomon Asch’s experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA&feature=related

CONFORMITY – HOW ADJUSTABLE ARE YOU?

Handout: Asch’s study. Summarize it as the Milgram study but with only 150 words!

BYSTANDER-EFFECT – WOULD YOU HELP?

Kitty Genovese:

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozmWS6xYEw&feature=related

Girl being kidnapped in the USA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvGIwLcIuw

And another…Smoke filled room:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5YwN4NW5o

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN THE NEED OF HELP?

OR SEEN OTHERS BEEN? DID THEY HELP YOU/ YOU

HELP THEM?

Why do you think nobody helped?

What does it take for somebody to help?

BYSTANDER EFFECT• The tendency to be less likely to help if

others are also presentS

moke-filled room study (Latané and Darley, 1968)• IV: left alone

• with 2 other real participants• with 2 other confederates who pretended nothing

was wrong• DV: Percentage of participants who reported

smoke

80

60

20

0

40

SMOKE-FILLED ROOM STUDY

Percent who report smoke

Alone With 2 other real subjects

With 2 calm confederates

MORE VIDEOS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5A5Dq25UB0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCbNr4r2jQ&feature=related

SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES:5 STEPS TO HELPING

Step 1: Notice the Event• In order to help, you must realize something is happening• Often people are distracted and don’t even notice

(especially in large cities)

Step 2: Interpret as Emergency • If you see someone lying on the sidewalk, does that mean

they need or want help?• Pluralistic ignorance can play a role here

• Others not helping, must not be a problem

5 STEPS TO HELPINGS

tep 3: Feel responsible• Just because you notice someone in need of help, is that

your problem?• Diffusion of responsibility plays a role at this step

Step 4: Know how to help• If someone appears to need medical care and you’re not

a nurse or doctor, then what?• If you can’t offer appropriate help, you will likely not try

5 STEPS TO HELPING

Step 5: Assess costs of helping• You see someone in need of help, you feel

responsible, you know what to do, but…• Could be highly dangerous• Could make you financially liable• Could embarrass you

THE MORE BYSTANDERS…

MORE STUDIES

Piliavin et al. – subway in NY (proximity of bystanders and situation may play a role) (next slides)

Darley and Latane - the number of bystanders ( discussion over an intercom

2 in the group: 85% helped

3 in the group: 62%

5 other subejcts: 31 %

THE SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF HELPING BEHAVIOUR

The reaction of others: people look to each other to know how to act

The number of bystanders: a diffusion of responsibility occurs when many witnesses are present. More witnesses can actually men less helping!

The closeness of bystanders: the closer the more likely to help (face to face vs. over the phone) on the street vs. subway

Ambiguity, environmental location and the norms of the society

Results/Findings

Helping behaviour was very high and much higher than earlier laboratory studies.

The cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of the 65 trials, and the drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials.

On 60% of the 81 trials where spontaneous help was given, more than one person offered help. Once one person had started to help, there were no differences for different victim conditions (black/white, cane/drunk) on the number of extra helpers that appeared.

The race of the victims made no significant difference to helping behaviour, but there was a slight tendency for same-race helping in the drunken condition.

It was found that 90% of helpers were male. Although there were more men present, this percentage was statistically significant.

Diffusion of responsibility was not evident. The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis predicts that helping behaviour would decrease as the number of bystanders increases. In fact the field experiment found that the quickest help came from the largest groups.

FOR YOU!

Since you were so brilliant at acting last time…

In groups of 3-4, produce and perform a role-play of either obedience, conformity or bystander-effect.

You get 15 minutes to rehearse, then it’s show time!

PRISON STUDYBy Zimbardo, Haney and Banks (1973)

They wanted to demonstrate the situational rather than the dispositional causes of negative behaviour.

Read the study and answer the following questions: Why did they simulate a prison for their experiment?

What factors contributed to the study’s result?

CONCLUSIONPhilip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes"Philip Zimbardo knows how easy it is for nice people to turn bad. In this talk, he shares insights and graphic unseen photos from the Abu Ghraib trials. Then he talks about the flip side: how easy it is to be a hero, and how we can rise to the challenge." Ted Talks http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

ASSESSMENTSOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: PSYCHOLOGY OF

EVILE

ssay: Criteria B, C & D

2-3 pages, 1,5 space, size 12, bibliography

1. Pick one historical/current event/crime and summarize the event/outcome.

2. Then analyse that event/outcome/crime to reasons that we have studied for why and how people turn to negative behaviour, to see if one could come to another conclusion today or give an alternative answer to the “why”.