SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Psychology of Evil
Mar 26, 2015
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology of Evil
COULD ANYONE OF US COMMIT EVIL ACTS?
W
hich 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
H
ofling et al. 1966: obedience in American hospitals
B
ickman 1974
G
ender?
N
ationality?
P
uppies?
TASK
Read 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?
E
levator:
h
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B738X-ibz2o
SOLOMON ASCH
S
olomon Asch’s experiment:
h
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=iRh5qy09nNw&feature=related
h
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=TYIh4MkcfJA&feature=related
CONFORMITY – HOW ADJUSTABLE ARE YOU?
H
andout: Asch’s study. Summarize it as the
Milgram study but with only 150 words!
BYSTANDER-EFFECT – WOULD YOU HELP?
K
itty Genovese:
Http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozmWS6xYEw&feature=related
Girl being kidnapped in the USA
http:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvGIwLcIuw
An
d 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?
W
hy do you think nobody helped?
W
hat 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
8080
6060
2020
00
4040
SMOKE-FILLED ROOM STUDY
Percent who report smoke
Alone With 2 other real subjects
With 2 calm confederates
MORE VIDEOS
h
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5A5Dq25UB0
h
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=8FCbNr4r2jQ&feature=related
SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES:5 STEPS TO HELPING
S
tep 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)
S
tep 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
S
tep 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
S
tep 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
P
iliavin et al. – subway in NY (proximity of bystanders and situation may play a
role) (next slides)
D
arley 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
T
he reaction of others: people look to each other to know
how to act
T
he number of bystanders: a diffusion of responsibility
occurs when many witnesses are present. More witnesses can
actually men less helping!
T
he closeness of bystanders: the closer the more likely to
help (face to face vs. over the phone) on the street vs. subway
A
mbiguity, environmental location and the norms of the society
R
esults/Findings
H
elping behaviour was very high and much higher
than earlier laboratory studies.
T
he 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.
O
n 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.
T
he 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.
I
t was found that 90% of helpers were male. Although
there were more men present, this percentage was
statistically significant.
D
iffusion 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!
S
ince you were so brilliant at acting last time…
I
n groups of 3-4, produce and perform a role-play of
either obedience, conformity or bystander-effect.
Y
ou 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
EVIL
E
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”.