Internal properties constrain behavior across a wide variety of contexts: traits, virtues . In psychology, emphasis on temperament, personality, heritable tendencies to respond in characteristic ways Behavior is driven by both salient features of environment (conscious) and implicit, often unrecognized ones. e.g., tendency to help depends on mood effects (finding $) Globalism (character traits, virtues): . Consistency – character and personality traits are reliably manifested in trait-relevant behavior across a diversity of trait-relevant eliciting conditions that may vary widely in their conduciveness to the manifestation of the trait in question; . Stability – traits are manifested in similar conditions over time. Evaluative integration. Honest people also kind etc 1. trans-situational correlations 2. social influences 3. mood effects 4. fundamental attribution error. Morally significant behavior is affected by features of the immediate situation which: 1. are not in themselves of moral significance. 2. Are not of great motivational significance. 3. Are not well known either to laypeople or to the philosophical literature. 4. Are numerous 5. Do not form a coherent class from the point of view of folk psychology Milgram Darley & Batson Zimbardo Asch Diffusion of responsibility McDonalds case The Milgram Experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted in the early 1960s by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. The experiments began just 3 months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, and were designed to answer the question: Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? . Subjects were recruited for the Yale study through newspaper ads and by direct mail. The experiments took place in two rooms in the basement of a university building. The experiment was advertised as lasting one hour, for which the respondents would be paid $4.50 whether they completed the task or not. The participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees. The role of the experimenter was played by a very stern biology teacher dressed in a white technician’s coat. Participants arrived to meet the experimenter, as well as another “volunteer” for the experiment. This “volunteer” was in fact an actor trained to play the part. The true volunteer and the other “volunteer” were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning. A slip of paper was then give to each of them. The true volunteer was led to believe that one slip said “Learner” and the other said “Teacher”, and that both participants had been given the slip randomly. In fact, both slips said “Teacher”, but the actor claimed to have the slip that said “Learner”, thus guaranteeing that the participant was the “Teacher”. At this point, the newly-appointed Teacher and Learner were separated into different rooms where they could communicate verbally but not see each other. (In one version of the experiment, the Learner was sure to mention casually to the Teacher that he had a heart condition.) . To begin, the Teacher was given a sample 45-volt shock from an electro-shock generator by the Experimenter. The reason for this was to demonstrate to the Teacher the nature of the shock that the Learner would supposedly receive during the experiment each time he gave a wrong answer. .The shock generator that the Teacher was told to operate had 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each switch was labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. .Each switch also had a rating, ranging from Slight shock to Danger: Severe shock. The final two switches being labeled XXX. The subjects of the experiment (ie. the “Teachers”) believed that for each wrong answer, the Learner would receive actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the Learner was separated from the Teacher, the Learner set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. .The Teacher was then given a list of word pairs, which he was to teach to the Learner. The Teacher began by reading the list of words pairs to the Learner. The Teacher would then read the first word of each pair, and then read four possible answers. The Learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the Learner was correct, the Teacher would proceed to the next word pair. If the answer was incorrect, the learner would receive a shock, with the voltage increasing with each wrong answer. .At 75 volts the learner would begin to grunt with pain. At 120 he would start to shout that the shocks were becoming painful. At 150 he would cry out that he had enough of the experiment. His protestations would turn to agonised screams at 270 volts. .At 300 he would shout in desperation that he would no longer provide answers (the experimenter would inform the teacher that no answer was a wrong answer). Beyond 315 volts the learner was silent. At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the Learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the Learner. If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order: . Please continue. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no other choice – you must go on. .If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. Before the experiment was conducted, Milgram polled 14 Yale senior psychology majors as to what the results would be. All respondents believed that only a sadistic few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to give the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues, and found that they believed very few subjects would go beyond a very strong shock. Implication: fundamental attribution error? . In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65% (26 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment’s final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable doing so. .Everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, with some even saying that they would return the cheque for the money they were paid. .No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level. .Similar experiments all around the world produced similar results. Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". JPSP, 1973, 27, 100-108. 40 Subjects: Princeton Theological Seminary students Instructed they would be giving a talk in another building on campus . Half on the Good Samaritan Parable . Half on jobs available "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him.“ Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." Varied how much time subjects had to walk across campus . High hurry, medium, no hurry On the way, they encountered a man slumped on the ground in need of medical aid, who coughed twice as they passed 40 subjects, 16 offered help, 24 did not . Low hurry group: 65% offered help . Medium hurry group: 45% . High hurry: 10% . Content of talk did not have significant effect on helping! 70+ occurrences in 30 states . Caller identifies himself as a police officer, tells floor supervisor to take an employee (or customer) to back room to interrogate about suspected theft, caller demands escalate to strip search, spanking, even sex acts . 2004 Mt Washington, Kentucky case, 3 ½ hour false arrest .