Experiments

• What the Stanford Prison Experiment teaches us about human behaviour


  • It shows that it is not evil people who commit terrible inhumane brutality but ordinary people who are obeying orders
  • Conformity: Individuals identify with a group to maintain and enhance their self-concept, known as self-categorisation. Membership in a group is crucial, and actions must align with group norms. The more committed individuals are to their group, the more likely to conform to the behaviour and attitudes of the group they will be, highlighting the importance of group membership in shaping behaviour and attitudes.
  • Social Norms: The experiment demonstrated how taking on a role can change a person's behaviour and values, leading to unexpected behaviours.
  • Leadership: The experiment explores the impact of leadership on human behaviour, with a guard taking on the role of leader and making decisions about prisoners' treatment. This highlights the power of socialization and the influence of individuals on group behaviour. The guards wore uniforms and reflective sunglasses to convey power and authority, affecting obedience. Deindividuation occurred as participants lost their individuality, becoming caught in events and feelings of their groups. The prisoners were identified by a number, further reinforcing this process. Once individuality is reduced, we lose track of our identity and values.
  • Ethical Consideration: The safety, health and wellbeing of the participants is of utmost importance and the ability of the participants to decide to withdraw at any time must be explained beforehand.
  • Situational factors: Situational factors significantly influence human behaviour, influencing obedience in various real-life situations like the workplace and emergencies. Understanding how authority figures, group dynamics, social norms, and situational ambiguity influence obedience allows individuals to make informed decisions, promoting ethical behaviour and improving decision-making in various situations.
• What Milgram's Experiment on Obedience teaches us about human behaviour


  • Social Norms: By the people answering the ad, in Milgram's study, they had agreed to follow the directions of the person in charge, see the job through to completion and cooperate. This is a strong social norm agreeing to do something and not going back on your word.
  • Surveillance: The presence of someone else can have an effect on your performance. When the experimenter in the Milgram's study left the room and gave the orders by telephone the level of obedience dropped from 65% to 21%.
  • Buffers: The more buffers there is between the person and the subject, the more likely the subject will obey. E.g. the subject in the next room, not face to face with the other person.
  • Ideological justification: one of the most important factors is the individual's acceptance of an ideology that legitimises the authority of the person in charge and justifies following his/her direction.
• What the Kitty Genovese case teaches us about human behaviour


  • Bystander intervention - the inability to help/approach a stranger in difficulty as they think someone else will do it. Why does this happen? 1) Diffusion of responsibility - expecting somebody else to act 2) Not wanting to appear foolish in front of others. (evaluation apprehension) 3) Personal safety.
  • When will people help? Darley and Latané studied for many years the Bystander Effect. Their studies show that witnesses are much less likely to help a crime victim if there are more people are around. The greater the number of bystanders, the less likely anyone of them will help. They proposed a five-step decision model of helping, during which bystanders can decide to do nothing: 1) The event must be observed. 2) The event must be interpreted as an emergency. 3) The person must accept responsibility for intervening. 4) the person must decide how to help. 5) the person must act.