Can you help out with a Psych experiment I'm running?

I didn't quote your post, but I did read it. It was sensible and well written.

I do have to ask though..

Say we research **** Germany to the fullest, come up with some pretty solid theories as to why those people conformed to such evil.

Then what?

Apply this "knowledge" to current people so they don't do what we (the norm) think they might do?
That’s a great question, and it’s one I entertained myself!

Regarding **** germany, a few explanations come to mind:

(1) Dehumanization to justify acts of aggression: A key study in this area is Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment (they even made a movie out of this, starring Adrian Brody, I believe). Initially, students were separated into two groups—the prisoners and the guards. After awhile, the prisoners ceased being individuals in the eyes of the guards. This made their subsequent mistreatment easier. The experiment devolved into a “Lord of the Flies” scenario so quicklly that it had to be terminated!
(2) Brainwashing: by chanting hateful slogans (e.g., “death to J…s), you might come to believe in their authenticity. Another example: the brainwashing of American POWs by the Chinese. The way to shift a POWs thinking is to get him to write essays increasingly sympathetic to your point of view. The POW will seek to minimize cognitive dissonance by telling himself that his “new” viewpoint isn’t all that bad, after all, because he’s writing in support of it! This is a form of insidious, coercive persuasion/attitude shift. The key here is that even normal people--just like you and me--can be made to commit great acts of evil--through errors of omission (ignoring atrocities) or commission (going along with them).

The best part is that people can be “inoculated” against these insidious shifts in attitude. The way to do it is just like vaccinating a person against a pathogen like the flu, where an attenuated form of the pathogen is introduced into the system and allows the build-up of protective antibodies (memory B and T cells). Here, you introduce people to an argument that challenges a certain aspect of their belief system (in the case of soldiers, it would be their loyalty to their country’s philosophies). Then, you force them to defend their position. If they are able to successfully refute the challenge to their beliefs, they will be more resistant to attempts at attitudinal shift in the future! Note: this works for other forms of propaganda, including the advertisements you see on television. For more info, google “inoculation theory."

If you’re interested in this stuff, here’s a book to read: Aronson’s “The Social Animal.” It’s a best seller on Amazon for a reason.

Best,
 
I'm sensing you will never be convinced otherwise on the topic and have made your mind up. So be it,
So you are saying that a mind that is made up cannot be changed?

You should read the work of a fellow psychologist:

Kevin Dutton, Ph.D., author of Split-Second Persuasion (link is external): The Ancient Art & New Science of Changing Minds.
Nope, just saying I don't have the desire or energy to try to change yours ! Honestly, if you want to believe Psychology is evil, a waste of time, pseudoscience, etc., go for it - I'm not taking the bait, especially as this is a photography site at the end of the day.
 
I didn't quote your post, but I did read it. It was sensible and well written.

I do have to ask though..

Say we research **** Germany to the fullest, come up with some pretty solid theories as to why those people conformed to such evil.

Then what?

Apply this "knowledge" to current people so they don't do what we (the norm) think they might do?
That’s a great question, and it’s one I entertained myself!

Regarding **** germany, a few explanations come to mind:

(1) Dehumanization to justify acts of aggression: A key study in this area is Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment (they even made a movie out of this, starring Adrian Brody, I believe). Initially, students were separated into two groups—the prisoners and the guards. After awhile, the prisoners ceased being individuals in the eyes of the guards. This made their subsequent mistreatment easier. The experiment devolved into a “Lord of the Flies” scenario so quicklly that it had to be terminated!
(2) Brainwashing: by chanting hateful slogans (e.g., “death to J…s), you might come to believe in their authenticity. Another example: the brainwashing of American POWs by the Chinese. The way to shift a POWs thinking is to get him to write essays increasingly sympathetic to your point of view. The POW will seek to minimize cognitive dissonance by telling himself that his “new” viewpoint isn’t all that bad, after all, because he’s writing in support of it! This is a form of insidious, coercive persuasion/attitude shift. The key here is that even normal people--just like you and me--can be made to commit great acts of evil--through errors of omission (ignoring atrocities) or commission (going along with them).

The best part is that people can be “inoculated” against these insidious shifts in attitude. The way to do it is just like vaccinating a person against a pathogen like the flu, where an attenuated form of the pathogen is introduced into the system and allows the build-up of protective antibodies (memory B and T cells). Here, you introduce people to an argument that challenges a certain aspect of their belief system (in the case of soldiers, it would be their loyalty to their country’s philosophies). Then, you force them to defend their position. If they are able to successfully refute the challenge to their beliefs, they will be more resistant to attempts at attitudinal shift in the future! Note: this works for other forms of propaganda, including the advertisements you see on television. For more info, google “inoculation theory."

If you’re interested in this stuff, here’s a book to read: Aronson’s “The Social Animal.” It’s a best seller on Amazon for a reason.

Best,
Well said! I just lectured on Milgram and Zimbardo on my social psychology course last week actually.
 
I hit cancel when the question was did I put her salary in dollars or punds and I kept getting a prompt to put a valid numeric value in question 13.
 
I did the survey - good luck with the results!

I would say, by the way, that the survey software you're using is not great, I'm not sure if I skipped a page in the middle by accident and I couldn't go back. And are you intentionally defaulting some of the initial questions to "Yes"? That seems a little strange to me. (Not the first page, but the first couple of pages after that.)

Anyway, good luck with gathering enough data, and I look forward to hearing the conclusions!
 
That was fun participating

It might be helpful to know some basic information about your sample population here. Maybe you gathered that information already. But if not, here is a link.

 
done!

looking forward to see results.
 
No.
 
The calibration/randomisation sounded fishy to me right from the start, and I found your need to do it, and then explain it all to be a bit weird. Then you had to confirm that you weren't previously aware of the bogus calibration. Weirder still! Or was that a way of confirming that one was naïve to the test?

As a matter of interest, I was a volunteer subject in an Asch test (The effect of peer pressure, for the non-psychologists), and at the end of the test I mentioned that I had learnt about the test in Psych101. "Oh, that explains it", they said, and tore up my results.

I tried to tell them that my results would have been the same had I been unaware of the set-up, but they were adamant that I was not a naïve subject. Shows you how little they knew of psychology.

Oh yes, I ran the questionnaire again, just to test if that was allowed. Perhaps your system should check for that. I gave null answers the second time, answered "Yes" to knowledge about the bogus calibration, and added my email for the receipt of results.

Good luck.

Time for my next little white pill.

-Dr Bob
 
Last edited:
The calibration/randomisation sounded fishy to me right from the start, and I found your need to do it, and then explain it all to be a bit weird. Then you had to confirm that you weren't previously aware of the bogus calibration. Weirder still! Or was that a way of confirming that one was naïve to the test?

As a matter of interest, I was a volunteer subject in an Asch test (The effect of peer pressure, for the non-psychologists), and at the end of the test I mentioned that I had learnt about the test in Psych101. "Oh, that explains it", they said, and tore up my results.

I tried to tell them that my results would have been the same had I been unaware of the set-up, but they were adamant that I was not a naïve subject. Shows you how little they knew of psychology.

Oh yes, I ran the questionnaire again, just to test if that was allowed. Perhaps your system should check for that. I gave null answers the second time, answered "Yes" to knowledge about the bogus calibration, and added my email for the receipt of results.

Good luck.

Time for my next little white pill.

-Dr Bob
Many thanks for doing it.
 
I did take a part but I don't give my email away (sorry). Hope you will come back after the study is complete and provide in depth explanation reviving this tread.

Cheers
 
I did take a part but I don't give my email away (sorry). Hope you will come back after the study is complete and provide in depth explanation reviving this tread.

Cheers
Yes sure I am happy to provide a summary by resurrecting this thread when the findings are available
 
I suspect my responses did not help with your experiment. I have absolutely no opinions about detailed personality traits based on a photo. Not having any way to respond to my opinions I just selected mid point responses. I probably should have avoided making any responses.

Again a photo of an attractive, well dressed young woman with a smile tells me nothing about her personality and nothing about characteristics such as honesty.
 
I suspect my responses did not help with your experiment. I have absolutely no opinions about detailed personality traits based on a photo. Not having any way to respond to my opinions I just selected mid point responses. I probably should have avoided making any responses.

Again a photo of an attractive, well dressed young woman with a smile tells me nothing about her personality and nothing about characteristics such as honesty.
 
I suspect my responses did not help with your experiment. I have absolutely no opinions about detailed personality traits based on a photo. Not having any way to respond to my opinions I just selected mid point responses. I probably should have avoided making any responses.

Again a photo of an attractive, well dressed young woman with a smile tells me nothing about her personality and nothing about characteristics such as honesty.
 
I suspect my responses did not help with your experiment. I have absolutely no opinions about detailed personality traits based on a photo. Not having any way to respond to my opinions I just selected mid point responses. I probably should have avoided making any responses.

Again a photo of an attractive, well dressed young woman with a smile tells me nothing about her personality and nothing about characteristics such as honesty.
 
I suspect my responses did not help with your experiment. I have absolutely no opinions about detailed personality traits based on a photo. Not having any way to respond to my opinions I just selected mid point responses. I probably should have avoided making any responses.

Again a photo of an attractive, well dressed young woman with a smile tells me nothing about her personality and nothing about characteristics such as honesty.
 
Dear all,

Please note our server will be down for maintenance between 1700 and 1800 UK time (GMT) this evening so please don't attempt the survey close to or during this time period. Many thanks.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top