“The Psychology Of Evil”

1. “The Psychology Of Evil”

2. Warm Up • Set up chapter 18 table of contents

3. Questions to be Addressed • Can good, ordinary people be transformed into monsters or perpetrators of evil? • Are there certain psychological factors that can help facilitate this transformation?

4. Sabrina Harman-student that graduated from Fairfax County Public Schools who took AP Psychology.

5. Dispositional vs. Situational • Fundamental Attribution Error: social psychological theory that maintains people explain others behavior by overestimating the impact of internal disposition and underestimating the impact of situational influences. • Dispositional Example: those who took part in the Abu Ghraib abuse were sadists or prone to abusive tendencies. • Situational Example: external influences and the social environment mostly explains the abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib.

6. Tolerant reaction (proceed cautiously, allow driver a wide berth) Situational attribution “Maybe that driver is ill.” Negative behavior Unfavorable reaction (speed up and race past the other driver, give a dirty look) Dispositional attribution “Crazy driver!” Social Thinking • How we explain someone’s behavior affects how we react to it

7. Diffusion of Responsibility • Diffusion of Responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. • Examples: • Bystander Apathy: less likely to help emergency victim when many people around. • “Just following orders”—happens in hierarchy • Firing Squads: only one has bullet.

8. Group Pressure and Conformity • Conformity: means to adjust your behavior to fit in with a group. • Solomon’s Asch’s study illustrated the power of group influence and conformity.

9. Obedience to Authority • Stanley Milgram’s study is most famous for illustrating the powerful situational influence of authority. • Study completed in 1963. Milgram created the study in part because of his Jewish heritage. • “If Hitler asked you, would you execute a stranger?”

10. Milgram’s Obediance Study • Participants are told they are participating in a study based on the effects of punishment on learning behavior. • 3 Basic People in Study: • Participant: teacher who will read word pairs to the “student.” • Student: actor that will be shocked if answers incorrectly. • Experimenter: authority figure in lab coat that instructs the participant what to do.

11. Milgram’s Experimental Design • The range of electrical shocks had 30 variables ranging from mild shock (15 volts) to Danger Severe Shock and XXX (450 Volts).

12. Milgram’s Obedience Study • Major Question: how many people would inflict the maximum voltage on the “learner?” • Prior to the experiment, psychologists believed fewer than 1% would inflict maximum damage. • Actual Results: • 65% of participants gave “learner” maximum shock despite feelings of discomfort, no participant stopped prior to 300 volt level. • In studies compliance was as high as 90% and as low as 10% depending on the variables used.

13. The Power of Obedience: How? • Start with an Ideology---purpose is to help science find better ways of learning. • Use authority to legitimate ideology---Yale experimenter. • Give people desirable roles with meaningful status---teacher • Have rules that channel behavioral options and agree to them before “game” begins---explanation of experiment and purpose. • Have initial harmful act be minimal and subsequent acts escalate gradually---moves from slight shock gradually to severe…foot in the door phenomenon.

14. The Power of Obedience: How? • Displace responsibility for consequences on authority---Experimenter explains he is liable to the “teacher.” • Put Actors in a novel setting they are not used to---laboratory • Don’t allow usual forms of dissent to lead to disobedience---encouraged to follow agreement. “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”

15. Factors which Influenced Compliance in Milgram’s Study Obedience highest when: -person giving orders is close at hand. -authority figure is supported by prestigious institution. -victim is depersonalized and in another room. -there are no role models for defiance.

16. Deindividuation • Deindividuation: the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity. • Women dressed in depersonalizing outfits or masks delivered higher levels of shocks than those who were identifiable. • Some argue the process involved in creating soldiers in the military involves deindividuation.

17. Dehumanization • Dehumanization: the ability to view the victims of violence as somehow less than human. • Humans find it easier to inflict and rationalize violence against victims who seem less than human.

18. Bandura’s Dehumanization Experiments • Group of college students were to help train other visiting college students using shocks when they erred. • Participants overhear 1 of 3 statements: • Neutral: the subjects from the other school are here. • Humanized: the subjects from the other school are here and they seem nice. • Dehumanized: the subjects from the other school are here and they seem like animals. Results:escalated aggression toward dehumanized labeled individuals.

19. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment • Ordinary college students were randomly divided into groups of “prisoners” and “guards.” • “Prisoners” were “arrested” in their homes by real policemen, strip searched, deloused and put into a “jail” created in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department.

20. Deindividuation and Dehumanization In Stanford Prison Experiment • Prisoners: • Referred to only as a number • Wore ill-fitting smocks without underwear • Wore nylon panty-hose over head to simulate shaved head. • Wore small chain around ankle to remind them of their imprisonoment.

21. Deindividuation and Dehumanization in Stanford Prison Experiments • Guards: • Wore military style uniform, carried wooden baton • Given reflective sunglasses to avoid eye contact. • Only referred to prisoners by their numbers.

22. Results of Experiment • Role Playing affected both groups attitudes. • After a revolt on the 2nd day, “Prison Guards” became more and more sadistic in enforcing the law. • “Prisoners” broke down and became more obedient. • “Guards” most sadistic when thought experimenters were not watching them. • Experiment eventually had to be ended early.

23. Modern Comparison? US soldiers involvement in Abu Ghraib

24. How might social factors have influenced “ordinary” perpetrators in Nazi Germany?