SOURCE ANNOTATION THOUGHTS/CONNECTIONS

Romm, Cari. "Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.

This article from The Atlantic gives a fairly detailed description of the history of Milgram’s Obedience Study, from its first critics to its more recent interpretations. In the study, volunteers are asked to shock a student whenever he answers a problem incorrectly. As the questioning continues, the shocks become more and more severe up until they risk killing the student, and the student is begging to be released (no students were actually harmed, the questioners only thought that they were in danger). 65% of volunteers went all the way to endanger the life of the student, and 80% of volunteers who reached the 150 volt mark continued all the way until the final 450 volt mark. The volunteers were willing to continue as long as the administrator of the experiment assured them that it was okay to continue. This authority convinced people to do things that we could not ever imagine doing normally. Cari Romm, the author of this article, cites critics of this study. This experiment is generally accepted by the entire scientific community, although today many scientists disagree with Milgram’s inferences on human nature from his results. Milgram believed that this was proof that there is an evil that lies dormant within the hearts of most people. Many – myself included – believe instead that we are simply very prone to doing what we are told or what seems acceptable given our particular circumstances.

This article and study will be useful as I argue that while humans are not inherently bad, we are susceptible to situationism (we will act in a way that seems correct for the situation – even if those acts aren’t morally correct). Milgram’s original reason for creating this experiment was to understand how the German people could have allowed Hitler to convince them to kill so many innocent Jewish people. As I will likely delve into this topic in my paper as well, this study fits in perfectly with my essay.

Brink, David O. "Situationism, Responsibility, And Fair Opportunity." vol. 30, no. 1-2 (Jan 2013), p. 121-149.(n.d.): Web. 27 Sept. 2015.

David O. Brink is a professor of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, making him a fairly reliable source. In this article he summarizes the ideas behind situationism. He cites a variety of studies, including Milgram’s study of obedience. He also cites the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment to demonstrate how we act specifically to fill our envisioned role. The basic idea is against what most people view as the cause of their actions. Brink argues that Character is less important than situational factors

This article helps connect my ideas on human behavior and - through his explanation of how we can fight our natural reaction to situational factors - assists me in understanding that I can direct my paper in a way that will give it more

in explaining human behavior. Although Brink explains that it is easy to become skeptical about the human situation, he also explains that understanding our own inclinations can allow us to fight them. Similar to Cari Romm’s discussion on modern views of the Milgram Obedience Study, Brink’s paper explains that we are not inherently evil as one might consider after seeing these studies. Brink argument demonstrates a practical purpose behind understanding his paper.

meaning than what would otherwise just be a cynical view of society.

Stamps, L. W., & Teevan, R. C. (January 01, 1974). Fear of failure and conformity in the Asch and Crutchfield situations. Psychological Reports, 34, 3, 1327-30. http://uncc.worldcat.org/title/fear-of-failure-and-conformity-in-the-asch-and-crutchfield-situations/oclc/106921763&referer=brief_results

This article discusses the incredible results found in Asch’s conformity study. The volunteers in the study have a simple task, to match lines of equal length. On their own any human could easily get every answer correct, but the twist was that there were five other volunteers questioned as well. These assistants had been previously instructed to give incorrect answers on some of the questions. In cases where all of the preceding assistants gave the wrong answer the volunteer in question did so as well 37% of the time. Over one third of people would blatantly lie simply to conform with the group. This article explains that when interviewed after the experiment, the volunteers who had chosen to lie did so for varying reasons. Some of them actually believed that the group was correct, and that their own eyes had deceived them. Others knew that they were correct, but did not want to cause the disruption of disagreeing with everyone else. In cases where at least one of the other assistants gave the correct answer, the volunteer gave the incorrect answer only 5% of the time. As long as we have one ally we are generally willing to avoid conforming to the rest of the group.

This study will tie into my discussion of situationism well. People often have a greater desire to fit in than actually choose what they believe – even in cases as trivial as choosing the right line segment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0

This short documentary includes testimonies from the scientists and participants of the Stanford Prison Study. The Stanford Prison Study is like Milgram’s obedience study in that it is remembered for being one of the most abusive studies ever performed. It would never be permitted today, but its results are incredibly important

This study is a real shocker. It is probably the most astounding proof that we are not as resilient to external stimuli as we would like to believe. It also makes a perfect

for understanding how easily humans can become corrupt. This video makes an important connection between the study and the events at Abu Ghraib. We could never see ourselves doing the things that normal people are doing in these studies, but clearly certain psychological stimuli will push people to do things they never would have thought possible. In this study 24 totally normal men were chosen to take part in a 2 week prison experiment. Half were guards, and half were prisoners. Within only a few days of the start of the experiment, the participants had gone from laughing off the ridiculousness of the whole experiment to abusing each other. It became so bad that the study was cut short after only one week. Although the experiment never reached levels similar to those at Abu Ghraib, when questioned about it, the participants said that if it had gone on much longer that it likely would have gotten that bad

connection with Abu Ghraib, which will tie in with my discussion of historical atrocities.

www.kritike.org/journal/issue_12/magundayao_june2013.pdf

This analysis of situationism and virtue ethics makes an argument in support of virtue against the many studies that support situationism. Magundayao explains that while it may be true that situational factors are more important in determining human behavior, that does not mean that we should stop cultivating virtue. Magundayao says that we should not view traits as inherent features of individuals. The previously discussed experiments already show that even normal people will act totally different in changing circumstances. Instead, we should view virtue as a skill that we need to grow. We can build up an immunity to situationism. Once we understand what external stimuli cause us to be dishonest or abusive, we can then teach ourselves to counter situational impulses.

I like this source a lot because it gives an ethical solution in view on overwhelmingly cynical data. I would like to make a similar message in my paper and probably go into further depth into how we can accomplish what this writer discusses. It goes along nicely with the other sources because it supports their data, but strays from their conclusion

http://digital.films.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=48360

This Ted Talk by Philip Zimbardo discusses what he calls “the Lucifer effect.” The Lucifer Effect occurs when normal good people become evil in the same way that Lucifer fell from heaven. Zimbardo, the engineer behind the Stanford Prison Experiment, discusses his study and other similar studies. He speaks about his

This Ted Talk ties together many of the previous ideas into Zimbardo’s analysis of humanity. I will likely use this talk to delve deeper into Zimbardo and his work

time analyzing one of the prison guards from Abu Ghraib. He paints a fairly depressing picture of humanity overall, but he does mention that while we can go from good to evil very easily, we can also go from evil to good. The main idea is that people are not inherently anything. Our situation makes us a certain way.

relating to Abu Ghraib and Milgram. Although his is a very cynical view of humanity, it is also a lazy one. It is easier to think that we are simply a result of our situation because then we can blame the things around us. I think that while there is a lot of truth to Zimbardo’s argument, we need to remember to focus on the things that we can control. Situational factors do not control every aspect of human behavior.

Tabery, J. (2014). Beyond versus: The struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture.

This book is a great source for understanding the history of the nature versus nurture debate. The author analyzes its history from the early 20th century up until now. He interprets and explains many specific studies and demonstrates how the debate has shifted back and forth so much over time. This source sets the stage for all of the other sources, and will help me better interpret them based on their time period. This author attempts to bridge the gap by making the sensible argument that the interaction between nature and nurture is what forms the people that we become. After having read from this book, my perspective on human nature is now starting to solidify. I believe that a combination of experiences and natural traits the people that we are, but that in any specific scenario situational factors will, nonetheless, play the lead role in determining our actions

This source helps connect all of the ideas. It appears that this was the author’s goal in writing the book to begin with. This source makes what seems to me to be the best, most compromised argument in the nature vs nurture debate. However, there are more factors in determining human behavior than just this.

Sherif, M. (1988). The Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University

This book was written by Muzafer Sherif about the experiment and theory for which he is famous. I find his theory very compelling, but his studies seemed somewhat lacking. In the Robbers Cave experiment, Sherif and his assistants brought two homogenous groups of boys to a scout camp. For the first week, these groups did team bonding exercises. Neither group

Sherif’s argument falls in line with the situationist school of thought. I think it gives a good specific reason to explain the way people act. It is definitely an idea on which I will want to

Press. knew of the other’s existence. At the end of the first week, Sherif introduced the two groups and gave them some competitions (Basketball, Tug of War, etc…). Soon after these competitions had begun, the two groups became very violent with one another. From this experiment, Sherif made the conclusion that competition leads to conflict. Of his conclusion and his experiment, I find neither convincing. It seems obvious that competition leads to conflict. What I find more interesting is his expansion upon this conclusion. He argued that human behavior and interaction between different groups of people is affected by the competition for limited resources. This idea is supported by other studies that show that when jobs become more scarce, people become more racist. This idea ties into situationism, but I also think that it gives a better, more specific answer to group behavior.

expand in my essay.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy141.nclive.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=37dca252-8daf-48f5-bc70-eeeb93c4d936%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=1497161594&db=fb4602ab

http://uncc.worldcat.org/title/fear-of-failure-and-conformity-in-the-asch-and-crutchfield-situations/oclc/106921763&referer=brief_results

Other Resources:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA