Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • If someone in a position of authority told you to like, stop walking on the grass, you

  • would stop walking on the grass, right? And if they told you to help someone's grandma

  • cross the street, or pick up your dog's poop, or put your shoes on before you go into a

  • store, you'd probably comply.

  • But what if they ordered you to physically hurt another person? You're probably thinking

  • "No way! I could never do something like that." But there's a good chance you're wrong.

  • In the early 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram began what would become one

  • of social psychology's most famed and chilling experiments.

  • Milgram began his work during the widely publicized trial of World War II Nazi war criminal Adolf

  • Eichmann. Eichmann's defense, along with other Nazis', for sending millions of people to

  • their deaths, was that he was simply following the orders of his superiors. And while that

  • may have been true, it didn't fly in court and Eichmann was ultimately executed for his

  • crimes. But the question got Milgram to thinking, what might the average person be capable of

  • when under orders?

  • So, for his initial experiment, Milgram recruited forty male volunteers using newspaper ads.

  • He built a phony "shock generator" with a scale of thirty switches that could supposedly

  • deliver shocks in increments from 30 volts up to 450 volts, labeled with terms like "slight

  • shock" to "dangerous shock" up to simply "XXX." He then paired each volunteer participant

  • with someone who was also apparently a participant, but was in fact one of Milgram's colleagues,

  • posing as a research subject. He had them draw straws to see who would be the "learner"

  • and who would be the "teacher." The volunteers didn't realize that the draw was fixed so

  • that they'd always be the teacher, while Milgram's buddy would be the learner. So the fake learner

  • was put into a room, strapped to a chair, and wired up with electrodes. The teacher,

  • the person who was being studied, and a researcher who was played by an actor, went into another

  • room with a shock generator that the teacher had no idea was fake.

  • The learner was asked to memorize a list of word pairs, and the participant was told that he'd

  • be testing the learner's recall of those words and should administer an electric shock for

  • every wrong answer, increasing the shock level a little bit each time. From here, the pretend learner

  • purposely gave mainly wrong answers, eliciting shocks from the participant. If a participant

  • hesitated, perhaps swayed by the learner's yelps of pain, the researcher gave orders

  • to make sure he continued. These orders were delivered in a series of four prods.

  • The first was just "Please continue," and if the participant didn't comply, the researcher

  • issued other prods until he did. He'd say "The experiment requires you to continue"

  • and then "It's absolutely essential that you continue" and finally "You have no choice but to continue."

  • Even Milgram was surprised by the first round of experiments. About two-thirds of the participants

  • ended up delivering the maximum 450 volt shock. All of the volunteers continued to at least

  • 300 volts. Over years, Milgram kept conducting this experiment, changing the situation in

  • different ways to see if it had any effect on people's obedience. What he repeatedly

  • found was that obedience was highest when the person giving the orders was nearby and

  • was perceived as an authority figure, especially if they were from a prestigious institution.

  • This was also true if the victim was depersonalized, or placed at a distance such as in another

  • room. Plus, subjects were more likely to comply with the orders if they didn't see anyone

  • else disobeying, if there were no role models of defiance.

  • In the end, Milgram's path-breaking work sheds some seriously harsh light on the enormous

  • power of two of the key cornerstone topics of social psychology: social influence and

  • We all conform to some sort of social norms, like following traffic laws or even obeying

  • the dress codes for different roles and environments. When we know how to act in a certain group

  • or setting, life just seems to go more smoothly. Some of this conformity is non-conscious automatic

  • mimicry, like how you're likely to laugh if you see someone else laughing or nod your

  • head when they're nodding. In this way, group behavior can be contagious.

  • But overall, conformity describes how we adjust our behavior or thinking to follow the behavior

  • or rules of the group we belong to. Social psychologists have always been curious about

  • the degree to which a person might follow or rebel against their group's social norms.

  • During the early 1950s, Polish-American psychologist Solomon Ash expressed the power of conformity

  • through a simple test.

  • In this experiment, the volunteer is told that they're participating in a study on visual

  • perception and is seated at a table with five other people. The experimenter shows the group

  • a picture of a standard line and three comparison lines of various lengths, and then asked the

  • people to say which of the three lines matches the comparison line. It's clear to anyone

  • with any kind of good vision that the second line is the right answer, but the thing is,

  • most, if not all of the other people in the group start choosing the wrong line. The participant

  • doesn't know that those other people are all actors, a common deception used in social-psychological

  • research, and they're intentionally giving the wrong answer. This causes the real participant

  • to struggle with trusting their own eyes or going with the group.

  • In the end most subjects still gave what they knew was the correct answer, but more than

  • a third were essentially just willing to give the wrong answer to mesh with the group. Ash,

  • and subsequent researchers, found that people are more likely to conform to a group if they're

  • made to feel incompetent or insecure and are in a group of three or more people, especially

  • if all those people agree. It also certainly doesn't hurt if the person admires the group

  • because of maybe their status or their attractiveness, and if they feel that others are watching their behavior.

  • We also tend to conform more if we're from a culture that puts particular emphasis on

  • respect for social standards. This might sound a little bit familiar, like, all of high school,

  • fraternities or sororities, the big company you work for, or any other group that you've ever been a part of.

  • The classic experiments of Milgram and Ash showed us that people conform for lots of

  • different reasons, but they both underscored the power of situation in conformity - whether

  • that situation elicits respect for authority, fear of being different, fear of rejection,

  • or simply a desire for approval. This is known as normative social influence, the idea that

  • we comply in order to fuel our need to be liked or belong.

  • But, of course, groups influence our behavior in more ways than just conformity and obedience.

  • For example, we may perform better or worse in front of a group. This is called social

  • facilitation and it's what might, say, help you sprint the last hundred meters of a race

  • if people are cheering you on, but it's also what can make you nervous enough to forget

  • the words to that poetry you were supposed to be slamming in front of a crowd.

  • But that's what can happen in front of a group, what happens when you're actually part of

  • a group? Do you work harder or start slacking? One study found that if you blindfold students,

  • hand them a rope and tell them to pull as hard as they can in a game of tug-of-war,

  • the subjects will put in less work if they think they're part of the team instead of

  • pulling by themselves. About 20% less, it turns out. This tendency to exert less effort

  • when you're not individually accountable is called social loafing. That's pretty good.

  • You can now add the word "loafing" to your scientific vocabulary.

  • But a group's ability to either arouse or lessen our feelings of personal responsibility

  • can make us do more dangerous things than just phone in some group homework assignment.

  • It can also lead to deindividuation, the loss of self-awareness and restraint that can occur

  • in group situations. Being part of a crowd can create a powerful combination of arousal

  • and anonymity; it's part of what fuels riots and lynch mobs and online trolling. The less

  • individual we feel, the more we're at the mercy of the experience of our group, whether

  • it's good or bad.

  • And it should come as no surprise that the attitudes and beliefs we bring to a group

  • grow stronger when we talk with others who share them. This is a process psychologists

  • know as group polarization, and it often translates into a nasty "us" vs "them" dynamic.

  • And you know what is great at polarizing groups? The internet. The internet has made it easier

  • than ever to connect like-minded people and magnify their inclinations. This can of course

  • breed haters, like racists may become more racist in the absence of conflicting viewpoints,

  • but it can, and often does, work for good, promoting education, crowd-sourcing things

  • like fundraising, and organizing people to fight all kinds of worldsuck.

  • And group dynamics can not only affect our personal decisions, they can also influence

  • really big decisions on a larger, even national scale. Groupthink is a term coined by social

  • psychologist Irving Janis, to describe what happens when a group makes bad decisions because

  • they're too caught up in the unique internal logic of their group. When a group gets wrapped

  • up in itself and everyone agrees with each other, no one stops to think about other perspectives.

  • As a result, you get some big and bad ideas, including some enormous historical fiascoes,

  • like the Watergate cover-up and the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Chernobyl nuclear reactor

  • accident. So while two heads may often be better than one, it's important to make sure

  • those heads are still open to different opinions or they could do some really dumb stuff.

  • In the end, it's best to understand ourselves and our decisions as informed simultaneously

  • by both individual and group factors, personality, and situation. And don't get too freaked out

  • about what people are capable of; I mean, just think back to Milgram's experiment. For

  • the two-thirds of us who would shock someone to death in the right circumstance, there's

  • another third who wouldn't, reminding us that while group behavior is powerful, so is individual choice.

  • Today you learned about the power of social influence, conformity, and authority. We looked

  • at the shocking results of the famous Milgram experiment, the concept of automatic mimicry,

  • and how Solomon Ash proved the power of conformity in situation. You also learned how normative

  • social influence sways us, how social facilitation can make or break your performance and how

  • social loafing makes people lazy in a group. And finally, we discussed how harmful deindividuation,

  • group polarization, and groupthink can be.

  • Thank you for watching, especially to all of our Subbable subscribers who make Crash

  • Course possible for themselves, and for everyone else. To find out how you can become a supporter,

  • just go to subbable.com

  • This episode was written by Kathleen Yale, edited by Blake de Pastino, and our consultant

  • is Dr. Ranjit Bhagwat. Our director and editor is Nicholas Jenkins, the script supervisor

  • is Michael Aranda, who is also our sound designer, and the graphics team is Thought Cafe.

If someone in a position of authority told you to like, stop walking on the grass, you

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

社会的影響力。クラッシュコース心理学 #38 (Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38)

  • 414 73
    VoiceTube に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語