SOURCE

ANNOTATION

THOUGHTS/CONNECTI
ONS

Romm,Cari.
"Rethinking
Oneof
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 Milgrams 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 Milgrams
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
arent morally correct).
Milgrams 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
,
Responsibilit
y,AndFair
Opportunity."
vol.30,no.1
2(Jan2013),
p.121149.
(n.d.):Web.
27Sept.
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 Milgrams 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
meaning than what would

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
Romms discussion on modern views of the Milgram
Obedience Study, Brinks 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.

otherwise just be a cynical

view of society.

Stamps,
L. W., &
Teevan, R.
C.
(January
01,
1974).
Fear of
failure
and
conformit
y in the
Asch and
Crutchfiel
d
situations
.
Psycholo
gical
Reports,
34, 3,
1327-30.

This article discusses the incredible results found in

Aschs 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://w
ww.youtu

This short documentary includes testimonies from the

scientists and participants of the Stanford Prison Study.

This study is a real shocker. It

is probably the most

http://uncc.w
orldcat.org/tit
le/fearof
failureand
conformity
intheasch
and
crutchfield
situations/ocl
c/106921763
&referer=brie
f_results

be.com/w
atch?
v=sZwfNs
1pqG0

The Stanford Prison Study is like Milgrams 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
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

astounding proof that we are

not as resilient to external
stimuli as we would like to
believe. It also makes a perfect
connection with Abu Ghraib,
which will tie in with my
discussion of historical
atrocities.

www.kriti
ke.org/jou
rnal/issue
_12/magu
ndayao_j
une2013.
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://digi
tal.films.c
om.librar

This Ted Talk by Philip Zimbardo discusses what he

calls the Lucifer effect. The Lucifer Effect occurs

This Ted Talk ties together

many of the previous ideas into

ylink.unc
c.edu/Por
talViewVi
deo.aspx
?
xtid=483
60

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
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.

Zimbardos analysis of
humanity. I will likely use this
talk to delve deeper into
Zimbardo and his work
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
Zimbardos 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). Beyo
nd 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 authors 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

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

Sherifs argument falls in line

with the situationist school of
thought. I think it gives a good

conflict and
cooperation.
Middletown,
Conn:
Wesleyan
University
Press.

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
knew of the others 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.

specific reason to explain the

way people act. It is definitely
an idea on which I will want to
expand in my essay.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkingoneofpsychologysmostinfamous
experiments/384913/
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy141.nclive.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=37dca2528daf48f5bc70
eeeb93c4d936%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#AN=1497161594&db=fb4602ab
http://uncc.worldcat.org/title/fearoffailureandconformityintheaschandcrutchfield
situations/oclc/106921763&referer=brief_results
OtherResources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI_4GZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA