[MUSIC] Welcome to the first video of the fifth week of our course on unethical decision making. In this video, we will demonstrate the power of what psychologist's call, strong situations. In this session, you will understand what a strong situation is, and you will get an overview of some classic studies from social psychologies. These studies demonstrate the power of situations over individual intentions and character. Some situations are so powerful that they illicit a specific behavior in many people independently of their intentions, level of moral development, values, or reasoning. Typically, these situations are characterized by pressure. In this video we will look at four types of pressure. Authority pressure, peer pressure, role pressure, and time pressure. What you see here is probably the most cruel, ruthless and dangerous species on this planet, killed millions of people so far. And, you'll see some sharks peacefully gliding their way. There are many reasons people kill other people. One, is because they are told to do this. Soldiers, usually do not seek personal revenge or so. In most case they do not even know their victims. They just follow their orders. This picture here has been taken at Auschwitz, a German concentration camp during the Second World War, in which many people were executed. Those who performed these acts of crime were later asked, how could you have done this? And many responded, I received my orders, and I felt I was caught in the system from which I could not escape. Stanley Milgram, whose parents were Holocaust survivors, took such responses very, very seriously. And he asked an important question, is bad people do bad things really the full story? To what extent do external pressures contribute to what happen? Would one see a similar pattern of behavior, if one sets up a similar situation and put normal people in it. Of course, Milgram of them could not set up a concentration camp just to answer these questions. But he set up an experimental environment in which he isolated and manipulated one important factor, he studied the effect of authority pressure on obedience. Participants were told that the experiment is about learning. In particular, about the effect of punishment on learning performance. The participant was assigned to the role of the teacher and seated in front of a shock generator with a task to administer an electric shock to the learner for every wrong response. The learner was, in fact, an actor seated in a nearby room. The leftmost button on the shock generator was labeled 15 volts. This shock should be given for the first mistake. For the next mistake, 30 volts should be given, and so on, in 15volt increments up to 450 volts. How many teachers would continue to the maximum? Milgram asked colleagues and psychiatrists before the experiment what they predicted. Their estimates were in the order of 1%. In fact, 26 of the 40 participants in Milgram's study, which is 65% went all the way up to 450 volts. Indeed, they continued to administer these shocks even a long time after the learner stopped crying. I mean it was silence in the other room, but the experimenter explained that no answer counted as a wrong answer and that the procedure requires that the teacher should go on with the shocks. And 65% went to the very end. This experiment has been replicated many times and in many variations. My shortest comment on all these results, they are shocking. Milgram, the man who shocked the world, as Thomas Blass entitled his book, demonstrated that normal people are likely to administer fatal shocks. One just needs to ask them in some specific context and to insist that they do it. After such bad news, you may want to see a rather funny application. And I'm sure you will have a great laugh. Pressure may not only come from above from some authority, it may also be imposed by our peers. Solomon Asch brought participants in a situation in which they should, one after the other, state whether a given line equals the length of line A, B, or C. The correct answer was quite obvious, but before participant could say it, several others, who were actually actors for the experiment gave the same wrong answer. Now, who would you trust? Your own judgment, or the others'? And, even if you're 100% confident that you are right, would you dare to say what you think? Note that deviating from the others can be dangerous. It may lead to social exclusion. In his first study, Ash found that 75% of his participants gave an incorrect answer on at least one of the trials. The conclusion from many replications, with many variations, is that people often yield to peer pressure and conform to the majority. Even against their own convictions. For the fun part, I invite you to watch this short video here. We are all individuals, right? But at the same time we are in many roles. We have a certain function in our job, a role, within our family, coach of a soccer club, what have you. Roles come with expectations, and expectations may translate into pressure. Often, self-imposed pressure. Remember what we said about frames, if you're put into a specific role, you are likely to look at the world and to behave accordingly. More precisely, consistent with the stereotype that you have for this role. Philip Zimbardo studied, in the 1970s, what happens if one puts people into different roles. This research made it into the text books of social psychology as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Instead of summarizing this research in my own words, I'd like to ask you to watch this short video in which presented himself. To illiterate how time pressure can impact people's behavior, I would now like to present you a study conducted by Dolly and Benson. The participants were seminary students for religious studies so, ongoing priests. They were told to deliver a speech about the good Samaritan. For those who do not know this parable it is from the New Testimony and Jesus Christ used it to explain that it does not count, who you are, but what you do. Here's the story in a nutshell. A man has been robbed, needed help. The priest came. Didn't help. Then an aristocrat came. Didn't help. And finally, a Samaritan came. The Samarits was the lowest class at that time, outcasts. This person helped, and Jesus made it clear that the Samaritan but not the priest and not the aristocrat will be rewarded after death. The participants in this experiment had one hour to prepare their speech on this parable. And then they were asked to go to the church at the other side of the street to give it. Now, on their way, a person broke down on the street and asked for help. So the participants remember the ongoing priests found themselves in exactly the situation for which they had prepared their speech. How many helped? 65%. Not all but the majority. In another condition, the researchers interrupted the participants after 30 minutes and said, sorry, we had to change our schedule, take your legs and run, you must give the speech right now. These participants receive the same treatment as their peers. The same men broke down in front of them. But they were running to give their speech about the good Samaritan. How many behaved as this Samaritan did in the parabola? What do you think? 10%. Time pressure focuses our attention and may remove some dimensions, here ethical dimensions, from our [INAUDIBLE] screen. And may hence increase the risk of unethical behavior. So, to conclude, a strong situation exerts pressure such that most people will behave in a similar way. Beware of situations characterized by authority pressure, peer pressure, role pressure, time pressure. These pressures can overpower ethical considerations or make us blind to them. [MUSIC]