Book Review: The Lucifer Effect How Good People Turn Evil.

The Lucifer Effect, a New York Best Selling book written by research psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo  highlights an uncomfortable but honest observation regarding human nature: That even the most seemingly ordinary, up-right and good person can become a perpetrator of evil. When we're trying to understand behavior that is destructive, irrational and malicious we often direct our focus primarily onto innate characteristics or personality traits which would have lead to such behavior, while ignoring any circumstantial factors which would have shaped such behaviors. Similar to the Fundamental Attribution Error which you can read more about here.

What Zimbardo hypothesized is that it is possible for external situations and systems to become key influences of  change in behavior and that they can often override a persons morals and values and be a corruptive force in extreme circumstances. The analogy of Lucifer within this book was that he was God’s favorite angel, but due to Lucifers fall from grace when he challenged God’s omnipotent authority, Lucifer was transformed into the forever recognized symbol of evil, Satan. This is the idea of people turning from good to evil.

In The Lucifer Effect, the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 is the ideal starting point for Zimbardo as he recalls from first person accounts on how the events of the experiment unfolded. He describes how he and the other researchers set up a simulated prison in the basement of one of Stanford University's academic buildings and then selected 24 students to participate and play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The students he said were chosen from a larger group of 70 volunteers and were chosen specifically because they had no criminal background, had no psychological issues or medical conditions. The student volunteers agreed to participate during a one to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

Lasting only a premature six days due to the experiment having to be stopped early Zimbardo describes in gripping detail how the students began to sink deeper and deeper into their roles and how they as guards became abusive, and the prisoners begin to show more signs of extreme stress and anxiety as their time in the experiment went on. While the prisoners and guards were free to interact in any way they pleased, the interactions became hostile and malicious. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive, depressed and show signs of anxiety.

He writes that even the researchers themselves began to lose grip of the situation and lose sight of their objective whilst potentially leaving the students open to psychological damage. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, repetitively overlooked the hostile behavior of the jail guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced her concerns as to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment. Zimbardo aptly draws out every bit of emotion and drama involved in the experiment in 1971, which keeps the  reader in awe every step of the way. The Lucifer Effect is brilliantly written, intriguing, and keeps you emotionally engaged throughout reading it. In reference to the end of the experiment Zimbardo beautifully quotes in his book "Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously, I was not among that noble class,"

The book doesn't stop there.

In the remainder of The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo goes to show how important the concept of the Stanford Prison Experiment is and extrapolates that to some of the more horrifying real world events in recent times, such as the abuse at the hands of agents of the US at Abu Ghraib, the genocide in Rwanda and the rape of Nanking. He discusses how the insidious and corrosive effect of power often leads to the creation of a corrupt system corrupting the people involved.

The prison study of Abu Ghraib in Iraq is used as an example. Zimbardo became thoroughly involved in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib when he was asked to be an expert witness for Sergeant Ivan Frederick, one of the accused who inevitably stood trial for alleged prisoner abuses. Through his research into what transpired at the Abu Ghraib prison, Zimbardo was able to gain insight into what it was like for the soldiers who spent long weeks working shifts within a military prison, and although the accused was eventually sentenced to eight years hard time in another military prison, Zimbardo was able to document the failures in leadership that led to many of the abuses and states that the military system itself was the leading proponent and should be to blame for the conditions in which such atrocities could take place.

In conclusion, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Much of the book has much of a darker sombre feel to it compared to other books due to the descriptions of how ordinary good people can perform evil acts. The final chapters of The Lucifer Effect offers us a lighter tone reminding us that some people are able to resist situational influence and can have an unbending resolve against peer pressure and systemic evil. Zimbardo gives examples of such unique individuals which include Christina Maslach, the graduate student who spoke up to Zimbardo to end the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Private Joe Darby, the soldier who blew the whistle on the atrocities that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison.

If you want to learn more about The Lucifer Effect and read other book reviews about it...

Check it out here on Amazon.

Continue

Deindividuation and ''losing yourself'' in the moment.

Deindividuation, a term first used by social psychologists Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone and Theodore Newcomb in 1952 where a person may feel they can act impulsively without social repercussions and commit actions that they wouldn't normally do, this is particular in groups or crowds. When a person is deindividuated their sense of identity is reduced which temporarily affects their ethical and moral codes which makes them more suggestible to situational influence; you are basically just ''letting yourself go''. Deindividuation can explain a range of irrational and bold behaviours such as riots, criminal activities taking place at night or dark alley ways, gang related crime and much more.


Factors that contribute towards deindividuation. 



Anonymity
Regarding deindividuation anonymity provides cloak away from social disapproval when committing an act which doesn't the follow social norms. In a classic study conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1969 which is very similar to Stanley Milgrims electrical shock experiment where a group of participants were to give electrical shocks to another set of participants. The first group wore a lab coat and a mask to conceal their identity and create a sense of anonymity while the second group wore casual clothing with a name tag. It was concluded that the participants who wore the lab coats and mask were more likely to administer an electrical shock to their ''victims'' and for longer than the participants who were in casual clothing. A recent study in 2003 conducted by psychology professor Andrew Silke who found that in Northern Ireland 203 out of 500 violent attacks occurring July 1994 and December 1996 were committed by individuals who wore disguises. This goes to show that anonymity increases the likelihood of antisocial behaviour and may even encourage uninhibited actions that they would not otherwise do because they feel less like they are being watched ''socially'' if their identity is concealed .

Diffused self awareness in a group
Similar to anonymity; a diffused sense of self awareness in a group creates a situation where an individual is less likely to focus on their own actions and more likely to take part in behaviours that deviate from social norms. Psychologist Edward Diener in 1976 conducted a study on the psychology of self awareness which included 3 groups (1) the self aware group (2) the non self aware group (3) and the deindividuated group, each group participated in an activity which were designed to create either of the three levels of conditions. Using these activities Diener measured the subjects disinhibitions. In the self aware group the participants spoke quietly and acted nervously and did not form any group unity of such as they were forced to ask questions about each others backgrounds and interests. The second group which was the non self aware group were friendly to each other but did not form any group unity, this group completed puzzles and other non-deindividuating activities. The deindividuated group performed group activities which encouraged group unity such as singing together.

Free £59.50 from Topcashback. Click here to learn how!

The results showed that the subjects in the deindividuated group felt more unity, liked the group more and unlike the other groups they acted more spontaneously, were less self aware, felt a loss of identity and lastly felt uninhibited. Diener concluded that these deindividuated group activities and behaviours would keep their attention focused anywhere but themselves, this prevention of self awareness in the deindividuated state disables self regulation meaning that the individual is unable to engage in cognitive functions used to guide their behaviour such as the concept of the self, making them more vulnerable to influence by external factors.
.
Social Arousal
It has also been found that arousal promotes deindividuation, arousal can be emotional such as anger, joy, excitement and also the feeling of fear, while arousal can also be physical where the body has an adrenal rush in preparation for engaging in sport, exercise, a fight or something similar which involves a large amount of physical energy.

In Washington there was a study investigating group presence and arousal in deindividuation lead by Edward Diener. This study was conducted on Halloween involving 841 trick or treaters and 23 selected homes which were set up so the children can be watched taking candy from the bowl without the observers being seen themselves. In one group of homes the children were physically aroused by playing a game of simon says while another group were aroused through taped ghost like noises, also some of the homes experimental conditions were groups of children vs one child at a time. The young participants were instructed to take one candy at a time. The results indicated that the children that were in groups were more anti-social than those that were alone, while both arousal conditions had a stealing effect. Children that were physically aroused by playing simon says were significantly more anti-social than the children listening to taped ghost like noises. To summarize, groups that exhibit high arousal can have an energizing effect on each person, which in turn makes them more excited and disindividuated reducing self awareness also having less concern with their how others perceive them making them more likely to commit to bold behaviour hence the good old ''mob mentality''.

Continue

Understanding motivation.

Definition.

mo-ti-va-tion   [moh-tuh-vey-shuh-n]

Noun
1. the act or an instance or motivating, or providing with a reason to act a certain way: I don't understand her motivation was for quitting her job. Synonyms: motive, inspiration, inducement, cause, impetus.
2. the state or condition of being motivated: We know that these students have strong motivation to learn 
3. something that motivates; inducement; incentive: Clearly the companies motivation is profit.


Motivation is known as the reason behind an action or behaviour. This is the driving force and what causes us to begin and then commit to an action whether its going to the shop because you're hungry, going for a jog to get into shape, read a book to increase your knowledge etc. The list goes on. When finding your own motivations there are a few components to help build and maintain motivation.

Goal setting
When setting goals it is important to set them in a way that they are realistic and achievable, nothing will be more deflating than a goal which is far too unrealistic and out of reach. For example you may want to make £10,000 in 6 months but just this goal alone in its self can seem quite a feat depending on how much you are earning already. What you want to do is make mini-goals that will stream line themselves directly towards your main goal making it that much more easier to achieve. So once you have achieved one mini-goal you are one step closer to your main goal, then you focus on to the next mini-goal getting you closer again. Think of it as a staircase heading towards a treasure chest, each step is a mini-goal and the main goal is the treasure chest.

Extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation is when someone is motived by an external incentive of one form or another. This can be a trophy at the end of a game, money to perform a deed, even praise from other people. A psychologist named Mark Lepper performed some psychology researched on motivation where he asked two groups of children to do some drawings. One group was promised a medal for the drawings whilst the other group was promised nothing. the children were given paper and crayons to do their work, what was observed was the reward group spent less time on their work than the no reward group, meaning the motivation of the reward pushed the children to work faster and harder in hope of receiving their medal. Lastly extrinsic motivations can come in many forms such as praise, money, prizes, medals trophies, recognition. It all depends on what you want and what you are after.

Free £59.50 from Topcashback. Click here to learn how!


Intrinsic motivation
A very simple motivational factor where you engage in an activity just for the sake of doing it, you have no reason to do it other than the enjoyment of it. This is actually is more powerful than extrinsic motivation because your very own values align with performing the activity itself meaning you doing it is part of your identity as a person (as cheesy as it sounds). For instance most people have a hobby which they are intrinsically motivated, a sport you like doing because you've being doing it since you were young or collect stamps because you love the look of them and keep them, even going to the gym because it makes you feel healthy and fit. Arguably intrinsic motivation is another word for passion and people who are passionate about what they do tend to get further than people who are extrinsically motivated.

Persistence
Persistence is a mixture of everything I have mentioned above but mostly it would relate to intrinsic motivation. This means actually pushing yourself to reach to the end of your overall goal despite all the hurdles, bumps and hiccups you will naturally encounter along the way. It takes a certain amount of drive to take punishment and keep pushing forward but the rewards always outweigh the punishment as the delay will make victory taste that much sweeter when you finally get it. 

Usually when you do something for the first time you never get it right straight away, you probably practised until you got the hang of it and now comfortable with it. Now imagine giving up at the first sign of trouble. Now imagine having that attitude with everything you do. You'd get nothing done. You'd essentially be weak as you wouldn't have the inner strength to see anything through. Nothing ever comes easy, you have to push yourself towards your maximum limit to get to where you want to be. Sometimes things make come easier than others but sometimes thats just one skill you've previously worked hard at already being translated into another skill. Similar to a professional journalist turning into a successful book writer.


''Persistence is the twin sister of excellence. One is a matter of quality, another is a matter of time.''
Author unknown

Continue