Week 18: More Experimentation!

Last week I asked myself why during the experiments, most people deviated from what we would consider the norm and found themselves conforming to the pressures set by the experimenters. There are plenty of in-depth studies that look into this, but what I found most interesting was the fact that the participants in the Asche experiment were comfortable performing their duties after the experimenter explained that he would assume all the blame. It seems like that wouldn't be enough to sway one's moral convictions, but history shows us that this is not the case. If we look at something like the Nuremberg trials, we see that most of the higher ranking Nazi officers claimed that they were just following orders. The experiment shows that conforming to an authority figure is not only the easier way, but the preferred way. As long as we aren't the ones to be held accountable, we can find ourselves doing things that we would never expect from ourselves. In the end, we really are the ones to be held accountable, but as the situation presents itself, we aren't aware of this until the consequences make themselves apparent.

This week, we took a deeper look into the psycological experiments we had been introduced to in the previous last week, focusing on the Asche and Stanford experiments. We watched a video where Primetime repeated the Asche experiment to see if the results would differ from its initial run. I found it interesting that they weren't, proving that a change in society hasn't affected human nature over the course of a few decades. It was also interesting that those interviewed afterwords were so quick to lay the blame on the experimenters, claiming that they were just following orders. Others claimed that they could tell the man in the other room was faking it. No one came forward and said that they handled themselves poorly in the difficult situation.

We also watched a speech given by Philip Zimbardo, the mastermind behind the Stanford Prison Experiment. His lecture looked deeply into the behavior of people and what classifies someone as good or evil. The experiment showed that good people can be driven to do bad things based on the situation they are placed in. In other words, the situation can show a person's true nature. The experiment also showed that authority can easily be abused. When Zimbardo placed the prison guards in the "prison" he gave them no instruction, yet they pursued the roles of violent, malicious guards. Zimbardo went on to explain the different ways people can be turned evil, but summarized it into three categories, either a person is naturally evil, they were persuaded by others, or they were persuaded by the environment they grew up in. He also explained what it meant to truly be a hero, which means someone that deviates from the norm for the betterment of others. The fallacies of superheroes and martyrs were exposed, and Zimbardo explained that these are horrible role models for children because their not realistic role models.

Zimbardo made a lot of good points. This week I'd like to look to see if there's anymore evidence out there that supports his theories as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Can good people really be turned evil?

Sources:

Escher, M. C. Angels and Demons. HNorthop.com. Web. http://www.blogger.com/Escher,%20M.%20C.%20Angels%20and%20Demons.%20HNorthop.com.%20Web.%20%3Chttp://www.hnorthrop.com/escher.jpg%3E.

Philip Zimbardo. Photograph. Altervista.org. Web. http://www.blogger.com/Philip%20Zimbardo.%20Photograph.%20Altervista.org.%20Web.%20%3Chttp://baw2008.altervista.org/DOCUMENTS/images/Zimbardo.gif%3E.