The Murder of Kitty The Murder of Kitty GenoveseGenovese

Catherine “Kitty” Catherine “Kitty” Genovese, 28, Was Genovese, 28, Was murdered in murdered in Queens, NY, on Queens, NY, on March 13, 1964. March 13, 1964.

At 3:15 am, Kitty parked in a lot 20 feet At 3:15 am, Kitty parked in a lot 20 feet from her apartment door. from her apartment door.

A man approached her from the A man approached her from the darkness…darkness…

““Oh my God! He stabbed me!” Oh my God! He stabbed me!” she screamed. “Please help she screamed. “Please help me! Please help me!... I’m me! Please help me!... I’m dying! I’m dying” dying! I’m dying”

Lights go on in nearby buildingsLights go on in nearby buildings

• A neighbor observes attack from 7th floor window across A neighbor observes attack from 7th floor window across the street. He yells down, “Hey, let that girl alone!”the street. He yells down, “Hey, let that girl alone!”– Attacker gets frightened and retreats to his car.Attacker gets frightened and retreats to his car.– But he returns minutes later, finds Kitty bleeding to death inside a But he returns minutes later, finds Kitty bleeding to death inside a

hallway and “finishes what he started” to use his words.hallway and “finishes what he started” to use his words.

• ““I heard a scream for I heard a scream for help, three times,“  a help, three times,“  a neighbor told the court, neighbor told the court, “I saw a girl lying down “I saw a girl lying down on the pavement with a on the pavement with a man bending down over man bending down over her, beating her.” her, beating her.”

At least 38 people heard At least 38 people heard or observed some part or observed some part of the fatal assault. of the fatal assault.

Attack lasted Attack lasted 32 minutes32 minutes

No one called the police during the 32-min No one called the police during the 32-min

attack. attack. Why didn’t anyone Why didn’t anyone respond?respond?

• We thought it was a lover’s We thought it was a lover’s quarrel!” said one tenant. quarrel!” said one tenant.

• ““Frankly, we were afraid,” said Frankly, we were afraid,” said another witness.another witness.

• A man wanted to call the police, A man wanted to call the police, but his wife thought otherwise. “I but his wife thought otherwise. “I didn’t let him. I told him there didn’t let him. I told him there must have been 30 calls must have been 30 calls already.” already.” 

• ““I didn’t want my husband to get I didn’t want my husband to get involved.” involved.”

• ““We went to the window to see We went to the window to see what was happening, but the light what was happening, but the light from our bedroom made it from our bedroom made it difficult to see the street.”difficult to see the street.”

• “ “I was tired.” I was tired.”

At 3:50 a.m a neighbor finally called the police. But At 3:50 a.m a neighbor finally called the police. But before he did, he called a friend and asked his opinion before he did, he called a friend and asked his opinion about what he should do.about what he should do.

Bystander EffectBystander Effect

•AmbiguityAmbiguity

•Pluralistic ignorancePluralistic ignorance

•Diffusion of responsibilityDiffusion of responsibility

Bystander EffectBystander Effect

Social ComparisonSocial Comparison

• How we interpret social events and How we interpret social events and settingssettings

• We use other’s perceptions to fill holes in We use other’s perceptions to fill holes in our own understanding of complex issuesour own understanding of complex issues

Zimbardo Video #19 Power of the SituationZimbardo Video #19 Power of the Situation

Types of Social InfluenceTypes of Social Influence• ConformityConformity: :

– To change perceptions, To change perceptions, opinions, and behavior opinions, and behavior to be consistent with to be consistent with group norms group norms

• ComplianceCompliance: : – To change behavior in To change behavior in

response to a direct response to a direct request request

• ObedienceObedience: : – To change behavior in To change behavior in

response to commands response to commands from an authority figure from an authority figure

Asch (1956)Asch (1956)

• 1 true subject, 1 true subject, 7 7 confederatesconfederates

• Initial few trials, Initial few trials, all give right all give right answersanswers

• Later trials, all Later trials, all give WRONG give WRONG answer, answer, unanimouslyunanimously

Results from AschResults from Asch

• 75% of subjects 75% of subjects conformed on conformed on at least at least oneone trial trial

• Subjects conformed Subjects conformed 37% on average 37% on average

• Group exerted Group exerted normative influencenormative influence by by instilling fear of instilling fear of appearing deviant appearing deviant

• Led to Led to public conformitypublic conformity (surface behavior (surface behavior change) in the subjects.change) in the subjects.

Break in ConformityBreak in Conformity

• Ally – subject rarely Ally – subject rarely yielded (10%)yielded (10%)

• Wrong confederate Wrong confederate – subject rarely – subject rarely yielded (14%)yielded (14%)

Distress and DifficultyDistress and Difficulty

• Distressed by Distressed by easier easier decisions, less decisions, less distressed by distressed by harder ones harder ones (e.g., (e.g., 6” v 6.25”)6” v 6.25”)

Influences on ConformityInfluences on Conformity

• Group size: Group size: – Conformity increases Conformity increases

with group size up to with group size up to four persons in the four persons in the group, then levels off group, then levels off

• Awareness of group Awareness of group norms: norms: – Conformity increases Conformity increases

when norm is brought when norm is brought to a person’s to a person’s attention attention

• Ally in dissent: Ally in dissent: – Presence of dissenter Presence of dissenter

reduces conformity reduces conformity

Age & Gender DifferencesAge & Gender Differences• Young adolescents more Young adolescents more

vulnerable to peer pressure vulnerable to peer pressure than younger children or than younger children or adults adults

• Older people (60y+) Older people (60y+) conform less often than conform less often than younger adultsyounger adults

• Sex differences are weak Sex differences are weak and unreliable and unreliable – Small sex differences emerge Small sex differences emerge

in face-to-face encounters in face-to-face encounters – Women conform more and men Women conform more and men

conform less when they think conform less when they think they are being observedthey are being observed

Interpersonal nature of Interpersonal nature of realityreality

• Many anxious and Many anxious and disturbed by group’s disturbed by group’s responses when they went responses when they went with group or went alone with group or went alone

• And unsure if they were And unsure if they were rightright

SOLOMON E. ASCH

ComplianceCompliance

SOCIAL INFLUENCE BY REDUCING RESISTANCE

Disrupt-Then-Reframe Techniques

• Door in the face

• Foot in the door

ComplianceCompliance

ObedienceObedience

• Social influences vary in degree of Social influences vary in degree of pressure they exert on individuals, and pressure they exert on individuals, and how much risk is involved in resisting this how much risk is involved in resisting this influence influence

Would you give a stranger a Would you give a stranger a

lethal shock if asked to?lethal shock if asked to?

From 1933-45, millions of innocent From 1933-45, millions of innocent people systematically slaughteredpeople systematically slaughtered

How could this happen?How could this happen?

• When you think of the long and When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been obedience than have ever been committed in the name of committed in the name of rebellion. rebellion. – C. P. SnowC. P. Snow (1905 - 1980) (1905 - 1980) – From From Science and GovernmentScience and Government , 1961 , 1961

““More puzzled intellectuals More puzzled intellectuals declaring their mystification over declaring their mystification over the systematic murder of millions. the systematic murder of millions. The reason they can never answer The reason they can never answer the question "How could it possibly the question "How could it possibly happen?" is that it's the wrong happen?" is that it's the wrong question...question...

… … given what people given what people are, the question is are, the question is "Why doesn't it "Why doesn't it happen more often?“ happen more often?“

– – Woody Allen, Woody Allen, 1986, Hannah & Her 1986, Hannah & Her SistersSisters

The Banality of EvilThe Banality of Evil

• ConformityConformity

• Authoritarian Authoritarian personalitiespersonalities

• ObedienceObedience

Eichmann

““Effect of Punishment on Effect of Punishment on Memory”Memory”

““Learner” is confederate; Learner” is confederate; mentions untrue mild heart mentions untrue mild heart condition. condition.

Teacher (true subject) straps Teacher (true subject) straps learner, samples 45 volt joltlearner, samples 45 volt jolt

Examiner says shocks may be Examiner says shocks may be painful but no permanent painful but no permanent damagedamage

STANLEY MILGRAM1933-1984

Version 1: n=40, YaleVersion 1: n=40, Yale

““Effect of Punishment on Effect of Punishment on Memory”Memory”

Shocks on machine run from Shocks on machine run from 15 (mild) to 450 volts (XXX) 15 (mild) to 450 volts (XXX) in steps of 15 volts in steps of 15 volts

Learner’s script:Learner’s script:120 shout about pain120 shout about pain150 demand experiment stops150 demand experiment stops180 “no more pain!”180 “no more pain!”300 pounds on wall, screams300 pounds on wall, screams330 single cry then answers no 330 single cry then answers no

moremore

Examiners prod subjects when Examiners prod subjects when they attempt to end they attempt to end experimentexperiment

“Learner” is an actor

““Effect of Punishment on Effect of Punishment on Memory”Memory”

Prior to experiment’s start, Prior to experiment’s start, psychiatrists predicted most psychiatrists predicted most would stop at 150 volts and would stop at 150 volts and only 1 in a 1000 might give only 1 in a 1000 might give maximum shock (450 volts)maximum shock (450 volts)

Obedience to Authority Obedience to Authority ExperimentExperiment

65% gave maximum 65% gave maximum shock!shock!

Failure to judge power Failure to judge power of situational factors of situational factors in determining in determining behaviorbehavior

Obedience to Authority Obedience to Authority ExperimentExperiment

Coercive factors:Coercive factors:Yale groundsYale groundsWorthy goalWorthy goalSubject volunteeredSubject volunteeredLearner volunteeredLearner volunteeredPaid to come to labPaid to come to labChance roleChance roleAssured not dangerousAssured not dangerousMust met demands on 1 of 2 Must met demands on 1 of 2

peoplepeopleLittle time for reflectionLittle time for reflectionNot to harm vs not to obeyNot to harm vs not to obey

Experimental VariationsExperimental Variations

FIRST RESULTS: 65% obeyed fullyFIRST RESULTS: 65% obeyed fully

Percent fully Percent fully obeyedobeyed

• 1) Experimenter absent 1) Experimenter absent 23% 23% • 2) Max. Proximity (touch) 2) Max. Proximity (touch) 30% 30% • 3) Proximity (same room) 3) Proximity (same room) 40% 40% • 4) Bridgeport Office 4) Bridgeport Office 48% 48% • 5) Adult women 5) Adult women 65% 65%

• 6) Group (others quit) 6) Group (others quit) 10% 10% • 7) Group (subsidiary role) 7) Group (subsidiary role) 93% 93%

Maximum compliance (450 Maximum compliance (450 volts)volts)

Factors that increase obedieFactors that increase obediencence

• Legitimacy of the Legitimacy of the authority authority – (vs ordinary person)(vs ordinary person)

• Greater distance from Greater distance from the victim the victim – (touch - different (touch - different

room)room)

• Closer supervision by Closer supervision by authority (absent, authority (absent, present, remindful)present, remindful)

• Presence of people who Presence of people who modeled obediencemodeled obedience

• Lack of dissent in groupLack of dissent in group

• Gender, age, education Gender, age, education not relevantnot relevant

Study Country Participants %Obedient

Milgram (1963) USAMale general population Female general population

65 65

Rosenhan (1974) USA Students 85

Ancona & Pareyson (1968) Italy Students 85

Mantell (1971) Germany Male general population 85

Kilham and Mann (1974) AustraliaMale students Female students

40 16

Burley & McGuiness (1977) UK Male students 50

Shanab and Yahya (1978) Jordan Students 62

Miranda, et al (1981) Spain Students 90

Schurz (1985) Austria General population 80

Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) Holland General population 92

Example Transcript –start Example Transcript –start herehere

Subject is a 50y unemployed man. After Subject is a 50y unemployed man. After delivering 180-volt shock, he pivots delivering 180-volt shock, he pivots around in the chair and addresses around in the chair and addresses experimenter in agitated tones:experimenter in agitated tones:

• Subject:Subject: I can't stand it I'm not going to I can't stand it I'm not going to kill that man in there. You hear him kill that man in there. You hear him hollering?hollering?

• Experimenter:Experimenter: As I told you before, the As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, but . . .shocks may be painful, but . . .

• S: But he's hollering. He can't stand it. S: But he's hollering. He can't stand it. What's going to happen to him?What's going to happen to him?

• E: The experiment requires that you E: The experiment requires that you continue…continue…

• S: I refuse to take the responsibility. He's S: I refuse to take the responsibility. He's in there holleringin there hollering

• E: It's absolutely essential that you E: It's absolutely essential that you continue….continue….

• S: All right. S: All right.

(He continues the experiment. Learner (He continues the experiment. Learner shocked…) shocked…)

STANLEY MILGRAM1933-1984

Milgram studied with Solomon E. Asch

Example TranscriptExample Transcript

• Learner (screaming): Let me out of here! Learner (screaming): Let me out of here! You have no right to keep me here! Let me You have no right to keep me here! Let me out of here, out of here, my my hearts bothering me, let hearts bothering me, let me out!me out!

• S: You see he's hollering. Hear that? S: You see he's hollering. Hear that? • E: The experiment requires . . .E: The experiment requires . . .• S: I know it does sir, but I mean -- he S: I know it does sir, but I mean -- he

doesn't know what he's getting in for. He's doesn't know what he's getting in for. He's up to 195 volts! up to 195 volts!

• (Experiment continues, through 210 volts, (Experiment continues, through 210 volts, 225 volts, 240 volts, 255 volts, 270 volts, 225 volts, 240 volts, 255 volts, 270 volts, at which point subject, at which point subject, with evident reliefwith evident relief, , runs out of word-pair questions.)runs out of word-pair questions.)

• E: You'll have to go back to the beginning E: You'll have to go back to the beginning of that page and go through them again of that page and go through them again until he's learned them all correctly….until he's learned them all correctly….

Example TranscriptExample Transcript

• (Experiment continues with no responses (Experiment continues with no responses by learner. At 375 volts, the subject by learner. At 375 volts, the subject stands up.) stands up.)

• S: I think something's happened to that S: I think something's happened to that fellow in there. I don't get no answer. He fellow in there. I don't get no answer. He was hollering at less voltage. Can't you was hollering at less voltage. Can't you check in and see if he's all right, please?check in and see if he's all right, please?

• E: Not once we've started. Please E: Not once we've started. Please continue, Teacher.continue, Teacher.

• S (sits down, sighs deeply): "Cool day, S (sits down, sighs deeply): "Cool day, shade, water, paint." Answer please. Are shade, water, paint." Answer please. Are you all right in there? Are you all right,you all right in there? Are you all right,

• E: Please continue, Teacher. Continue, E: Please continue, Teacher. Continue, please. (Subject pushes lever. Zzumph!)please. (Subject pushes lever. Zzumph!)

• S: You accept all responsibility?S: You accept all responsibility?• E: The responsibility is mine. Please go E: The responsibility is mine. Please go

on.on.

Example TranscriptExample Transcript• Subject returns to his list, runs thru words Subject returns to his list, runs thru words

as rapidly as he can read them, works as rapidly as he can read them, works through to 450 volts.through to 450 volts.

• S: That's that.S: That's that.• E: Continue using the 450 switch for each E: Continue using the 450 switch for each

wrong answer. wrong answer. • S: But I don't get anything!S: But I don't get anything!• E: Please continue…E: Please continue…

    Theories about why people obeyTheories about why people obey• Normative influence: we are taught to obey Normative influence: we are taught to obey

authority from an early ageauthority from an early age

• Informational influence: Because we can't Informational influence: Because we can't know everything, we trust experts when know everything, we trust experts when situation is confusing or ambiguous. situation is confusing or ambiguous. – Fast pace -- not enough time to make good Fast pace -- not enough time to make good

decisions decisions

• Conflicting norms (Conflicting norms (obey authorityobey authority and and don't don't hurt peoplehurt people)) are difficult to resolveare difficult to resolve

• Incremental steps (foot-in-the-door Incremental steps (foot-in-the-door compliance technique): starts out compliance technique): starts out reasonable, each small increase is reasonable, each small increase is reasonable, so where do we draw the line?reasonable, so where do we draw the line?

• Cognitive dissonance theory: we act to Cognitive dissonance theory: we act to meet rationale of past actions: after shocks meet rationale of past actions: after shocks got too high, can't undo past behavior and got too high, can't undo past behavior and don't want to label self as "bad" or don't want to label self as "bad" or "immoral""immoral"

  ConclusionConclusion

• Given strong Given strong situational situational factors, factors, mostmost people will obey people will obey orders to hurt orders to hurt someonesomeone

Do these effects occur in "real Do these effects occur in "real life"?life"?

Hofling et al. (1966) Hofling et al. (1966) • Nurses telephoned by a Nurses telephoned by a

doctor they didn't know. doctor they didn't know. • Ordered to administer a Ordered to administer a

non-prescribed drug they non-prescribed drug they had never heard of at had never heard of at double maximum dosage to double maximum dosage to a patient. a patient.

• 22 nurses were called. 22 nurses were called.

• Results: Results: 2121 followed the followed the doctor's orders.doctor's orders.

• However when experiment However when experiment repeated with drug nurses repeated with drug nurses were familiar with, no one were familiar with, no one obeyed.obeyed.

Bushman (1988)Bushman (1988) Woman searches for change Woman searches for change for parking meter. Another for parking meter. Another woman orders pedestrians to woman orders pedestrians to give her a nickel. give her a nickel. Second woman dressed: Second woman dressed:

- In uniform - In uniform - In business suit - In business suit - As panhandler - As panhandler

Results: More persons gave Results: More persons gave money if ordered by woman money if ordered by woman in uniform. in uniform.

Fundamental Attribution Fundamental Attribution ErrorError• Tendency for people to over-emphasize Tendency for people to over-emphasize

dispositionaldispositional, or personality-based, , or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the others while under-emphasizing the role and power of role and power of situational influencessituational influences on the same on the same behaviorbehavior. .

• ““Economic” decision based on limited Economic” decision based on limited datadata

Fundamental Attribution Fundamental Attribution ErrorError

• Positive effects of social influencePositive effects of social influence

• End of VHS 1518.19 – radio theft; eye End of VHS 1518.19 – radio theft; eye test with flightstest with flights

Prisoner’s Dilemma: Prisoner’s Dilemma: Rules about TrustRules about Trust

•Formalizing decisions on trustworthiness and trustful behaviorsFormalizing decisions on trustworthiness and trustful behaviors

Prisoner’s Dilemma: Prisoner’s Dilemma: Solution?Solution?

• Tit for Tat strategyTit for Tat strategy

• Cooperate on 1st round and Cooperate on 1st round and thereafter simply repeats opponent's thereafter simply repeats opponent's play on the previous round. play on the previous round.

• Doesn’t allows succeedDoesn’t allows succeed

• Evolution modelsEvolution models

USSRUSSR

USAUSA

WAITWAIT FIRST FIRST STRIKESTRIKE

WAITWAIT PEACEPEACE US US destroyeddestroyed

FIRST FIRST STRIKESTRIKE

USSR USSR destroyeddestroyed

ArmageddoArmageddonn

Missiles of October, 1961

Kennedy v Khrushchev

Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance TheoryTheory

• Festinger (1957) Dissonance is a Festinger (1957) Dissonance is a tension that arises when what we tension that arises when what we think conflicts with what we do. think conflicts with what we do.

•To relieve tension, we often change what we To relieve tension, we often change what we think about ourselvesthink about ourselves

•We don’t change how we act to fit our ideals, We don’t change how we act to fit our ideals, but change our idealsbut change our ideals

[Dr Phil #11][Dr Phil #11]

Festinger’s ExperimentFestinger’s Experiment• AttitudeAttitude0 0 = Initial dislike of tedious task = Initial dislike of tedious task • Behavior = Recruit others to do taskBehavior = Recruit others to do task

– Behavioral reward: $1 or $20Behavioral reward: $1 or $20

• ConditionCondition$20 $20 =behaved for money only=behaved for money only– so Attitudeso Attitude00 still holds still holds

• ConditionCondition$1 $1 =Money not sufficient to explain =Money not sufficient to explain your behavior to yourself so you must have your behavior to yourself so you must have another reason – actual interest in task, perhapsanother reason – actual interest in task, perhaps– AttitudeAttitude00 is changed is changed

Major ConclusionsMajor Conclusions

• Conformity and Conformity and obedience are much obedience are much greater than anyone greater than anyone expected. expected.

• People don't really know People don't really know how they will behave in how they will behave in many situations. many situations.

• The situation is The situation is extremely powerful in extremely powerful in determining people's determining people's behavior. behavior.

• Obedience is a basic Obedience is a basic element of social lifeelement of social life

Nuremburg Trials

Ethical considerations of Milgram’s Ethical considerations of Milgram’s workwork

• Consent - not informed.  Consent - not informed.  – Participants volunteered for a learning experiment, not on obedience.  Participants volunteered for a learning experiment, not on obedience. 

• Deception Deception – Shocks not real. Victim not really a participantShocks not real. Victim not really a participant

• Protection of subjects (now called participants)Protection of subjects (now called participants)– Many subjects displayed extreme stress reactions, anxietyMany subjects displayed extreme stress reactions, anxiety

• Withdrawal from the investigation Withdrawal from the investigation – physically yes but strong social pressures made it unlikely. physically yes but strong social pressures made it unlikely. – Experimenters used prods such as 'you have no alternative, you must Experimenters used prods such as 'you have no alternative, you must

go on‘go on‘–

• Observation - participants were filmed without their consent.Observation - participants were filmed without their consent.– And other forms of confidentialityAnd other forms of confidentiality

Ethics of Psychological Ethics of Psychological ResearchResearch• Ethical IssuesEthical Issues• 1. Risk/Benefit Ratio 1. Risk/Benefit Ratio • A. Definition of risk and Determination of A. Definition of risk and Determination of

risk risk B. Dealing with risk (or no lasting harm)B. Dealing with risk (or no lasting harm)

• 2. Informed Consent 2. Informed Consent • A. Nature of consent or assentA. Nature of consent or assent

B. Withholding information from subjects B. Withholding information from subjects

Ethics of Psychological Ethics of Psychological ResearchResearch• 3. Deception 3. Deception

• A. Controversy surrounding deception A. Controversy surrounding deception B. Decision to use deception B. Decision to use deception C. Problems arising from casual use of C. Problems arising from casual use of deception deception D. Role playing as alternative to D. Role playing as alternative to deception deception

• 4. Privacy (confidential or anonymous)4. Privacy (confidential or anonymous)

Ethics of Psychological Ethics of Psychological ResearchResearch• 5. Additional Responsibilities to 5. Additional Responsibilities to

Research Participants Research Participants • A. Sharing and utilizing data A. Sharing and utilizing data

B. Providing participants with B. Providing participants with information about study information about study

• 6. Research With Animals 6. Research With Animals

• 7. Reporting Psychological Research7. Reporting Psychological Research

Recent social issue: school Recent social issue: school shootingsshootings

Risk Factors in School Risk Factors in School ShootingShootingVerlinden, Mersen & Thomas (2000) – eight cases Verlinden, Mersen & Thomas (2000) – eight cases examinedexamined• Individual factorsIndividual factors• Threatened violenceThreatened violence• Detailed plan for attackDetailed plan for attack• Blamed others for problemsBlamed others for problems

• Peer factorsPeer factors• Poor coping and social skillsPoor coping and social skills• Felt rejected by peersFelt rejected by peers• Felt picked on, persecutedFelt picked on, persecuted• Member of antisocial peer group (6 of 8)Member of antisocial peer group (6 of 8)

• Social environmental factorsSocial environmental factors• Access to firearmsAccess to firearms• Fascinated with weapons and explosivesFascinated with weapons and explosives• Preoccupied with violent media (music, films, games)Preoccupied with violent media (music, films, games)

• Attack-related factorsAttack-related factors• Communicated violent intentionsCommunicated violent intentions• Experienced recent loss (7 of 8)Experienced recent loss (7 of 8)