Obedience, Deindividuation, and the Bystander Effect

Crimes of Obedience

Crimes of obedience are instances where individuals commit acts, often deemed unethical or illegal, due to direct orders from an authority figure.

The Milgram Experiment

• Purpose: Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments to determine variables involved in obedience to authority.
• Methodology:
  • Participants were volunteers, unaware of the experiment's true nature.
  • An "experimenter" instructed participants to administer electric shocks to another individual (the "learner") for incorrect answers on a learning task.
  • Each incorrect answer resulted in a progressively stronger shock.
  • Important Note: The "learner" was an actor, and no real shocks were administered. The experiment involved deception.
• Key Findings:
  • The experiment revealed the overwhelming power of certain situations in influencing human behavior.
  • A significant proportion, approximately $\frac{2}{3}$ (two-thirds), of subjects obeyed Milgram and continued to administer what they believed to be increasingly strong shocks to the learner.
  • Variations: Subsequent experiments found that participants obeyed the experimenter less if the punishment was perceived as physical, as opposed to visual or auditory.
  • Authority's Role: Milgram concluded that the higher the perceived authority of a person in a position of power, the more obedient individuals tend to be in following orders.
  • Loss of Personal Choice: Depending on the perceived role, individuals may believe they are not acting on personal choice but merely doing what someone else says, effectively taking away their personal sense of agency.
• Ethical Concerns: The experiment faced significant ethical criticism due to the deception of participants, highlighting the conflict between scientific discovery and participant well-being.
• Core Concept: Situational factors, particularly the presence of an authority figure, can override individual factors, leading people to perform actions they normally would not.

Deindividuation Theory

• Definition: Deindividuation is a psychological process by which individuals feel they cannot be identified, primarily because they are disguised or subsumed within a group or crowd. This often leads to a loss of individuality and personal responsibility.
• Basis: This concept is based on crowd theory, suggesting that anonymity within a group can alter individual behavior.

The Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo)

• Purpose: A study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to explore the idea of deindividuation in a simulated environment.
• Methodology:
  • A prison environment was simulated, and student volunteers were randomly assigned roles as either guards or prisoners.
• Outcome: The experiment was terminated prematurely on the sixth day primarily due to the intense and abusive behavior exhibited by the students assigned the guard roles.
• Key Findings on Deindividuation:
  • Anonymity: The presence of many other persons fostered a feeling of anonymity, where individuals felt they were not singled out and lost their individual identity. This led to a reduced sense of personal responsibility for their actions.
  • Lowered Restraints: Being part of a group or crowd, where individual identity is hidden, can lower internal restraints against criminal or abusive behavior. Individuals may be more abusive or aggressive if their identity is obscured.

The BBC Prison Study (Haslam and Reicher)

• Purpose: This study (conducted by Haslam and Reicher) was a later attempt to recreate and re-examine dynamics similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment.
• Outcome: Unlike the Stanford experiment, this study lost cohesion and fell apart. The participants assigned to guard roles, perhaps由于 being hyper-vigilant about the controversial results and ethical concerns of the previous study, did not fully assume dominant leadership roles.
• Conclusion: The BBC Prison Study did not confirm that powerful situations always override personality, indicating that individual differences among persons can significantly influence reactions in different situations. It was not considered a successful measure or study in terms of replicating the previous findings.

Deindividuation and Crowd Violence / Mob Actions

• Focus: This concept zeroes in on the likelihood that individuals within a crowd may lose their personal identity and adopt the behaviors of those around them, often leading to negative or violent acts.
• Mechanism: In intense crowd situations, the feeling of anonymity increases, and individuals feel less identifiable as specific participants. This diminished sense of identification leads to a reduced feeling of personal responsibility for their behavior, which can escalate into "mob actions" or crowd violence.

The Bystander Effect

• Definition: The bystander effect describes the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. The presence of others leads to a diffusion of responsibility, meaning each individual feels less personally responsible for taking action.

The Kitty Genovese Case

• Incident: Kitty Genovese was attacked and stabbed while walking home from work. She screamed for help.
• Initial Reporting: Early reports suggested that $38$ witnesses did nothing to intervene or call for help, which deeply shocked the public and prompted social psychologists to research the bystander effect.
• Later Discrepancies: Subsequent investigations revealed a few discrepancies in the initial reporting. Some witnesses did call the police (though response was slow), one neighbor yelled at the attacker, and another neighbor came to Kitty's aid as she died.
• Far-Reaching Effects and Significance: Regardless of the exact number of non-intervening witnesses, the Kitty Genovese case had profound societal impact:
  • It led to the creation of the 911 emergency telephone number in the United States.
  • It contributed to the establishment of Good Samaritan Laws in several states.

Good Samaritan Laws

• Purpose: These laws serve two main functions:
  1. Requirement to Aid: In some states, they require certain individuals (or all citizens) to come to the aid of a victim in an emergency.
  2. Protection for Interveners: They protect individuals from civil penalties or liability if they intervene to help a victim, even if their actions unintentionally cause harm, as long as they act reasonably and in good faith.
• Discussion Points & Ethical Considerations:
  • Pros and Cons: While such laws encourage intervention, they raise questions about personal safety and the level of risk individuals should be expected to take.
  • Gray Area: Measuring the level of danger and potential harm (e.g., if the intervener believes they were in danger) presents a significant legal and ethical challenge.
  • Conditions for Intervention (in some contexts): Some interpretations or specific laws might require proving a direct, life-threatening danger to the victim and that the bystander would not be in any personal danger to be held liable for non-intervention (e.g., if one can swim and someone is drowning, they might be obligated to help).
  • Alternative Aid: Calling 911 or seeking help from others is often considered a valid form of intervention under these laws, even if direct physical intervention is not possible or safe.
• Real-World Examples & Personal Experiences:
  • Subway Stabbing: A recent incident where a person was stabbed on a subway with multiple bystanders present, many of whom did not intervene or call for help, highlights the continued relevance of the bystander effect.
  • Staged Child Abuse Experiment: A staged experiment in a public park, clearly depicting child abuse, showed that a majority of passersby did not intervene, leading to questions about actual versus perceived willingness to act.
  • Personal Anecdotes: The discussion included personal accounts of intervening in minor fights or domestic violence situations, or witnessing medical emergencies (like a cardiac arrest at a baseball game where nurses intervened), emphasizing that individual responses depend on circumstances, personal knowledge, training (e.g., medical training), and the perception of danger.
• Conclusion: The bystander effect remains a significant and increasingly publicized issue. While people may believe they would intervene, actual behavior in real-life emergency situations can be unpredictable and is influenced by various factors, including the presence of others, personal safety concerns, and individual experiences/training.