Over six million individuals were killed in the Holocaust during World War II in Germany. To this day, people still wonder how an entire country could stand by while millions of people were massacred. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) and Zimbardo (1971) both conducted experiments that involved cognitive dissonance, which helped explain how good people could be persuaded to do bad things. Cognitive dissonance is a feeling of discomfort that occurs when an individual’s actions are inconsistent with his behavior (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). To reduce this tension, an individual often changes his/her attitude to align with his or behavior (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). The results of both of these prominent studies provided valuable clinical information regarding the impact of cognitive dissonance that is still …show more content…
Throughout history catastrophic decisions were made and people stood by while atrocities ensued. These studies demonstrated how maladaptive behavior could result from cognitive dissonance. Although these experiments were conducted several decades ago the results are still extremely relevant today. For example, the Stanford Prison Experiment was cited when discussing the brutalities that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison (Zimbardo, 2007). It is our responsibility as humans and as future psychologists to understand the clinical implications of these experiments to help prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. Understanding cognitive dissonance and the impact of situational factors can help the criminal justice system and psychologists understand why an individual committed a crime. More importantly, recognizing the potency of cognitive dissonance and the influence of authority and situational factors can hopefully help society take preventative measures to help avoid future Holocausts from
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
It is only natural to dismiss the idea of our own personal flaws, for who with a healthy sense of self wanders in thoughts of their own insufficiency? The idea of hypocrisy is one that strikes a sensitive nerve to most, and being labeled a hypocrite is something we all strive to avoid. Philip Meyer takes this emotion to the extreme by examining a study done by a social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, involving the effects of discipline. In the essay, "If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably", Meyer takes a look at Milgram's study that mimics the execution of the Jews (among others) during World War II by placing a series of subjects under similar conditions of stress, authority, and obedience. The main theme of this experiment is giving subjects the impression that they are shocking an individual for incorrectly answering a list of questions, but perhaps more interesting is the results that occur from both ends of the research. Meyer's skill in this essay is using both the logical appeal of facts and statistics as well as the pathetic appeal to emotion to get inside the reader's mind in order to inform and dissuade us about our own unscrupulous actions.
Comparative Analysis The power of blind obedience taints individuals’ ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong in terms of obedience, or disobedience, to an unjust superior. In the article “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak discusses the unwarranted murder of innocent individuals due to vague orders that did not survive with certainty. Szegedy-Maszak utilizes the tactics of authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, respectively, to attempt to justify the soldiers’ heinous actions (Szegedy-Maszak 76-77). In addition, “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” by Theodore Dalrymple distinguishes between blind disobedience and blind obedience to authority and stating that neither is superior;
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, a senior writer at U.S. News and World, published her article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," in 2004. She uses the article to briefly overview the scandal as a whole before diving into what can trigger sadistic behavior. The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal took place in 2004, wherein American troops humiliated and tortured Iraqi detainees (Szegedy-Maszak 75). The main objective of Szegedy-Maszak’s article is to investigate the causation behind sadistic behavior, exclusively in the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. She effectively does so by gathering information and research from professional psychologists and professors of psychology, specifically Herbert Kelman and Robert Okin (Szegedy-Maszak 76). She finds
Cooper, Joel. Cognitive Dissonance: Fifty Years of a Classic Theory. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2007. Print
While people deal with everyday life, a plethora of events is occurring throughout the day. Most people usually do a multitude of actions to resolve these events without thinking as well. This can be anything from trying to get to class as soon as possible, talking to someone that recently was introduced, or doing a kind of tradition at a football game. Cognitive Biases is defined as a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. This article will talk about a small sample of these situations and clarify what the meaning behind them. It shall discuss Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, Gamblers Fallacy, and Illusion of Control
“Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one” (“Class 20”). This was asserted by the much acclaimed, significant, and influential social psychologist Leon Festinger as referencing to his theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Social psychology is “a branch of psychology particularly concerned with understanding social behaviors such as” incentive and compliance (Sheehy). Festinger’s contributions to the social and cognitive branches of psychology as well psychology overall prove themselves worthy to today. This theory specifically challenged many common notions that were seemingly already accepted by behaviorists everywhere during his time (Tavris and Aronson). Its reality awakens its verifications. Consecutively, its “enormous motivational power” affects many on a daily basis (Tavris and Aronson). In the final analysis, the theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger is fundamental to behaviorism while directly changing the way human beings across the planet think and do.
Video: American Psychological Association. (2012, October 4). "This Is Psychology" Episode 5: Eyewitness testimony. Retrieved December 9, 2013
There is also the idea that there is more incentive to act because of heightened arousal, and less of a restraint because of the weakened sense of responsibility. This experiment is an extension of a study done by Dobbs, which examined if there was a difference between educated students and prison members when deindividuated from a situation. Using the Dobbs method, this experiment explored the differences between male and female deindividuated participants. It is expected that both male and female participants, when deindividuated, will act in an antisocial manner. Meaning that participants will be “behaving as if injuring others or depriving them of their rights.”
In this paper I will discuss police brutality, which is a highly controversial topic in the media. The social psychology topics I will discuss in relation to the event are cognitive dissonance/self justification (Ch. 5) and privilege (Ch.8) My news sources are from NBC Philadelphia and CNN.
Application: As a manager, I used to work in a team of five people. The colleges that I had was wonderful, but the clients were not that nice. There are situations in which I had to communicate with my clients to explain over and over again about certain terms or definitions on the contract. I do think it is one’s duty to fully understand the contract before he signs it, but most clients don’t actually understand that the contract is what constrains us. Arguing with me will not help to fulfill his demand. But I had to confront these people every once in a while. That is where cognitive dissonance grows. Patient
In the past, it was common place for scholars to classify terrorist acts as pathological manifestations of an individual’s own psychological shortcomings.
The unjust are, by nature, inclined to disobey the law and Sovereign authority out of an overestimation of their natural abilities (or any other motive contrary to self-preservation). Therefore, the fear of impending punishment serves as an immediate and overwhelming deterrent force that compels the unjust individual to commit just actions. Because the unjust few fail to adhere to the fundamental command to “seek peace,” their potential criminal acts must be held in check by a fear of violent punishments and/or death. Thus, the orthodox interpretation of sovereign punishment as a fear induced “psychological” deterrent is accurate, but only applicable to a small subset of the