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 RESULTS
The 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?
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?
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 present
 Smoke-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
SMOKE-FILLED ROOM
STUDY
80
Percent
who
report
smoke
60
40
2
0
0
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=r
elated
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 HELPING

Step 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 %
T H E S I T UAT I O N A L D E T E R M I N A N T S
O F H E L P I N G B E H AV I O U R
 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 STUDY
By 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?
CONCLUSION
Philip 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_zimbar
do_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html
ASSESSMENT
SOCIA L P SYCHOLOG Y: P SYCHOLOG Y
OF EVIL
Essay: 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”.