The span of the numbers in the experiment with Elaine were kind of amazing, and seem to me like they could easily be interpreted to lead to the conclusion that most people are quite amoral, which is a bit distressing. Specifically, the amazing part is the dramatic swing from 18% helping to 91% helping on the basis of discovering that “Elaine’s values and interests are very similar to the subject’s… while in the low-empathy condition, they are very different”.
The effect of the similarity manipulation in the easy escape condition appears to be huge.
One way to reconcile my surprise is to imagine that the value differences the experimenters showed the subjects are really dramatic, like to the extent that “low empathy Elaine” is some kind of Baby-eating monster who is dissimiliar to most people and who many would feel moral righteous in helping to punish. That would explain the results in a way that would be moderately comforting, in the sense that the 18% helping rate might not simply show that only about 18% of the study population is what I would think of as “basically moral”. If low empathy Elaine was a monster then some fraction of the 82% could reasonably have been the sort of people who also tend to enact personally costly punishment to maintain a moral order. If that was coming through in the study as a confound, that would be kind of comforting :-)
On the other hand, if “low empathy Elaine” just likes a different genre of music, has different dietary practices, and has the opposite tendencies from the subject on an introversion/extroversion scale then I find myself kind of horrified by the results of the low empathy condition… if low empathy Elaine is still a basically good person who is “just different” but not bad then it seems to indicate that something like 82% of the study population were assholes who wouldn’t help someone in distress if the distressed person is even a small distance outside their monkeysphere.
Help distinguishing between these interpretations would be appreciated.
The following is from the Batson, et al. (1981) paper.
After the subject finished reading the detailed instructions, the experimenter handed her a copy of the personal values and interest questionnaire administered at the screening session, explaining that this copy had been filled out be Elaine and would provide information about her that might be of help in forming an impression. Elaine’s questionnaire was prepared in advance so that it reflected values and interests that were either very similar or very dissimilar to those the subject had expressed on her questionnaire. In the similar-victim condition, Elaine’s responses to six items that had only two possible answers (e.g., “If you had a choice, would you prefer living in a rural or an
urban setting?”) were identical to those the subject had given; her responses to the other eight items were similar
but not identical (e.g., “What is your favorite magazine?” Answers: Cosmopolitan for the subject, Seventeen for Elaine; Time for the subject, Newsweek for Elaine). In the dissimilar-victim condition, Elaine’s responses to the six two-answer items were the opposite of those the subject had given, and her responses to the other eight were clearly different (e.g., Cosmopolitan for the subject, Newsweek for Elaine).
I think this is pretty easily distinguished, though. In Milgram, the subject was in a position to prevent the “victim”’s extreme pain and possible death, at no cost to the subject. In Batson, the subject is in a position to prevent the “victim” from receiving shocks by volunteering to receive those shocks themselves. (Yes, the victim does claim to be unusually averse to shocks, but there’s no real reason for the subject to believe that claim.) I see “help someone by hurting yourself in equal measure” as being a very different ethical proposition from “help someone at no cost to yourself”.
Well, the Milgram experiment already tells us that no more than 35% of people are basically moral, and that’s in a case of life or death. In the Batson experiment the stakes are lower.
Before I learned about the Milgram experiment I thought of people as being moral or immoral. I don’t think that way anymore.
The span of the numbers in the experiment with Elaine were kind of amazing, and seem to me like they could easily be interpreted to lead to the conclusion that most people are quite amoral, which is a bit distressing. Specifically, the amazing part is the dramatic swing from 18% helping to 91% helping on the basis of discovering that “Elaine’s values and interests are very similar to the subject’s… while in the low-empathy condition, they are very different”.
The effect of the similarity manipulation in the easy escape condition appears to be huge.
One way to reconcile my surprise is to imagine that the value differences the experimenters showed the subjects are really dramatic, like to the extent that “low empathy Elaine” is some kind of Baby-eating monster who is dissimiliar to most people and who many would feel moral righteous in helping to punish. That would explain the results in a way that would be moderately comforting, in the sense that the 18% helping rate might not simply show that only about 18% of the study population is what I would think of as “basically moral”. If low empathy Elaine was a monster then some fraction of the 82% could reasonably have been the sort of people who also tend to enact personally costly punishment to maintain a moral order. If that was coming through in the study as a confound, that would be kind of comforting :-)
On the other hand, if “low empathy Elaine” just likes a different genre of music, has different dietary practices, and has the opposite tendencies from the subject on an introversion/extroversion scale then I find myself kind of horrified by the results of the low empathy condition… if low empathy Elaine is still a basically good person who is “just different” but not bad then it seems to indicate that something like 82% of the study population were assholes who wouldn’t help someone in distress if the distressed person is even a small distance outside their monkeysphere.
Help distinguishing between these interpretations would be appreciated.
The following is from the Batson, et al. (1981) paper.
I’ll email the paper to anyone who PMs me.
Magazines and where she lived produced that difference? Oh my stars. I’m surprised this experiment doesn’t get cited as much as Milgram.
I think this is pretty easily distinguished, though. In Milgram, the subject was in a position to prevent the “victim”’s extreme pain and possible death, at no cost to the subject. In Batson, the subject is in a position to prevent the “victim” from receiving shocks by volunteering to receive those shocks themselves. (Yes, the victim does claim to be unusually averse to shocks, but there’s no real reason for the subject to believe that claim.) I see “help someone by hurting yourself in equal measure” as being a very different ethical proposition from “help someone at no cost to yourself”.
Those details are pretty much exactly the sort I was looking for. Legwork very much appreciated.
Well, the Milgram experiment already tells us that no more than 35% of people are basically moral, and that’s in a case of life or death. In the Batson experiment the stakes are lower.
Before I learned about the Milgram experiment I thought of people as being moral or immoral. I don’t think that way anymore.