“The Psychology Of Evil”
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?
Sabrina Harman-student that
graduated from Fairfax County
Public Schools who took AP
Psychology.
Warm Up
 Get out HW
 After quiz, clear your desk and get a marker
or colored pencil
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.
Social Thinking
 How we explain someone’s behavior affects how we
react to it
Situational attribution
“Maybe that driver is ill.”
Tolerant reaction
(proceed cautiously, allow
driver a wide berth)
Dispositional attribution
“Crazy driver!”
Unfavorable reaction
(speed up and race past the
other driver, give a dirty look)
Negative behavior
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mo
de=1&safe=active
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?”
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.
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).
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.
The Power of Obedience:
How?
1. Start with an Ideology---purpose is to help science
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
The Power of Obedience: How?
6. Displace responsibility for consequences on
authority---Experimenter explains he is liable to
the “teacher.”
7. Put Actors in a novel setting they are not used
to---laboratory
8. Don’t allow usual forms of dissent to lead to
disobedience---encouraged to follow
agreement. “It is absolutely essential that you
continue.”
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.
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.
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.
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:
1. Neutral: the subjects from the other school are here.
2. Humanized: the subjects from the other school are
here and they seem nice.
3. Dehumanized: the subjects from the other school
are here and they seem like animals.
Results: escalated aggression toward dehumanized
labeled individuals.

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.
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.
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.
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.
Modern Comparison? US soldiers
involvement in Abu Ghraib
How might social factors have
influenced “ordinary”
perpetrators in Nazi Germany?