1. Obedience and The Lucifer Effect
Zimbardo and Milgram
Obedience and The Lucifer Effect

2. Stanley Milgram B.1933/New York
Gifted student in many areas
Interested in issues of conformity
For doctoral work, revisited Solomon Asch’s experiments
“Garfinkeling” investigations into social rules/roles

3. Asch Conformity trials
Groups of 35; 1 to 15 confederates in the group will give increasingly wrong answers
1 has no effect, 2 little effect, but 3 or more provoked the subjects to give at least one incorrect answer
35 out of 50 gave at least one wrong answer intentionally
14 conformed on 6 out of 12 trials

4. Asch Continued
There were several reasons: First, the real subject observed that the majority did not ridicule the dissenter for his answers. Second, the dissenter's answers made the subject more certain that the majority was wrong. Third, the real subject now experienced social pressure from the dissenter as well as from the majority. Many of the real subjects later reported that they wanted to be like their nonconformist partner (the similarity principle again). Apparently, it is difficult to be a minority of one but not so difficult to be part of a minority of two.
Some of the subjects indicated afterward that they assumed the rest of the people were correct and that their own perceptions were wrong. Others knew they were correct but didn't want to be different from the rest of the group. Some even insisted they saw the line lengths as the majority claimed to see them.

5. 'Excuse Me. May I Have Your Seat?'
Stanley Milgram
                                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                     
Milgram builds on Asch’s interest in conformity AND his feelings about the Holocaust (4 days after Milgram’s last subject participated, Adolf Eichmann was hanged for war crimes)
Subway experiments (1974): May I have your seat?

6. How far would you go?
Under what circumstances would you obey an order that contradicts your values?
Milgram tape one: does pain and punishment improve learning? Will we learn more if we are threatened with punishment?

7. Zimbardo: Stanford “prison” meets Abu Ghraib

8. A Binary Answer?
Why do we like to think there must be something inherently flawed in people who do evil things?
Is it true that there are just “bad apples” who will act in an anti-social manner regardless of circumstances?
OR, does evil often happen incrementally? by regular people?

9. What makes good people do evil things?
Zimbardo posits that we often focus on DISPOSITIONAL factors and do not carefully consider SITUATIONAL AND SYSTEMIC FACTORS when we look for answers.

10. Dispositional Factors
What is the your disposition like? Are you shy? Outgoing? Aggressive? Thoughtful?
Dispositional factors include our personal psychological strengths and weaknesses
Intelligence, stability, temperament, mental illnesses, past performance…

11. Situational Factors What is the situation?
Are you facing new challenges you have not encountered before? Are they emotionally or physically dangerous?
Do you have too much freedom? Not enough structure? No guidelines?
Is there pressure from peers? Colleagues? Bosses? Authority figures?
What do you have to gain/preserve from any particular action?

12. Systemic Factors Is obedience carefully taught? Assumed? Demanded?
Are you held accountable for results but not methods of achieving results? Is it accepted that the ends justify the means?
Are expectations of your behavior/results unreasonable?
Are other/opposing groups presented as if they are “Other”? Dangerous? Not like you?
Are you rewarded for your group participation?

13. GROUPTHINK: Groupthink is a concept described by Irving Janus of Yale
A process by which bad decisions are made by groups of intelligent people; dissent and debate is suppressed in order to achieve harmony or a perceived need for action

14. Social processes in groupthink involve: :
Conformity and dehumanization

15. Groupthink:Emotional stressors
Fear of keeping your job
Fear of failing
Fear of letting down your group
Exhaustion: physical and emotional
Excitement of belonging or feeling like a contributor
Feelings associated with nationalism, patriotism…

16. Groupthink:Situational Stressors
Fear of punishment
Fear of ostracism
Need to belong
Need to achieve/lead
Group pressure
Socialized obedience to authority: example Military; school; boss…

17. Deindividuation is another factor contributing to anti-social acts
Deindividuation: the ability or belief that your actions are anonymous, not observed (p25 )

18. Deindividuation Community vs. deindividuation
“Masks”, anonymity, darkness make it easier to commit immoral acts
Bonds to the community make it less likely that anti-social acts will be committed
Classic “car in the street” study and how it works in other places: CONDITIONS MAKE US FEEL ANONYMOUS

19. Gradual Escalation: a characteristic of mass acts of violence as well as individual acts
If a line is crossed;
If there are no repercussions;
If it is encouraged, rewarded;
If, as an individual, you can pass responsibility to another figure or a group ie. a form of deindividuation

20. Chip Frederick: Case study
DISPOSITIONAL VERSUS SITUATIONAL FACTORS:
Dispositional: Personal factors such as temperament, intelligence, reliability, social-emotional skills, leadership skills…
Chip: Stable, quiet, kind, intelligent, diligent, more likely to be an excellent social-emotional leader, but not a task leader…

21. Chip’s Situation at Abu Ghraib
No training to be in that extreme situation
No support from his superiors
Often no active supervision and supervisors with no training
Suggestions and requests often scoffed at or was reprimanded for making requests
No written procedures or clear policies or guidelines

22. Reading from The Lucifer Effect
Read the description of the problems at Abu Ghraib.
Consider the complexity of the situation and how this could happen. Was this the result of a “bad apple” who was in charge?
Is Mr. Frederick responsible for his actions given the situation?
How are examinations of events like this useful?

23. Reading about being Heroic
If we all have the potential to commit bad acts, do we also have the potential to be heroes?