Authoritarian Sociopathy: Toward a Renegade Psychological Experiment, Part 5
by Davi Barker
Police Brutality: An Experimental View
This is the fifth draft of the design for a renegade psychological experiment on police brutality.
All the previous experiments have provided us a superb profile of those in power. We have seen that those given authority are more likely to lie, cheat and steal with impunity, while also being harsher in their judgments of others for doing these same things. We have seen that they feel less compassion for the suffering of others.
What’s perhaps most disturbing is that this research shows that the problem is not that sociopaths are drawn to positions of power, but that these sociopathic tendencies can be fostered in any otherwise psychologically healthy people by giving them authority. In other words, human nature is neither good nor evil, but essentially adaptive. If you place an otherwise good person in a role that incentivizes evil they will adapt to their new circumstances.
These experiments also provide a profile of the obedient. Those who deeply internalize “obedience to authority” as a core personality trait become capable of the worst forms of torture and murder, and tolerant of the worst forms of abuse. They’ll even chastise those who disobey or resist authority through horizontal discipline.
What the previous research does not provide is a profile of the disobedient. All of these experiments have been studies of what people are willing to do to others, or willing to endure others doing to them. What hasn’t been studied is what people are willing to passively witness, and when people are willing to intervene. This is potentially more important data, because when atrocities are committed by militarized societies the perpetrators are usually a minority of the population, and the victims are usually a minority of the population. The passive witnesses are the majority, and thereby the most capable of meaningful intervention. If Edmund Burke was right, we need a psychological profile of good men (and women) who do something.
The purpose of this experiment is to begin to create a psychological profile of those willing to intervene against corrupt authority.
Hypotheses
Given the opportunity, a significant portion of the general population will not intervene in a clear incident unprovoked police brutality.
There will be a statistically significant difference between the percentage of people who will intervene in an incident of police brutality, and people who will intervene in an identical incident of brutality by someone in civilian clothes.
Demographic information can be discovered which correlates with higher rates of intervention in an incident of police brutality.
Methods and Procedures
We will rent a meeting room in a shopping mall, or any space commonly used for consumer surveys, and present ourselves as soliciting feedback on a new movie trailer. A “surveyor” in unremarkable clothes and holding a clipboard will offer individuals from the general population some small reward, as in a $10 gift card, if they agree to watch the trailer and participate in a questionnaire. This is what’s known as a “convenience sample” or “opportunity sample” which is not a perfect random sample, but is considered valid enough to suggest further research. To show a statistical significance we will need at least 100 subjects.
The “surveyor” will lead the subject down a hall to a waiting room. This hall must have a fully visible surveillance camera, and the “surveyor” should make some gesture it to bring attention to it. In the hallway there should also be a prop of some kind that will be easily recognizable to the subject later, as in a distinctly patterned carpet, or an unusual plant.
In the waiting room there will be a seating area from which the subject can see the door back to the hallway, and a door to a back room, both labeled “exit.” The subject can also see a television screen displaying surveillance footage of the hallway they just came from, but no sound. The memorable prop should be in the shot for continuity.
While in the waiting room the “surveyor” will provide the subject with a clipboard and ask them to fill out a short questionnaire while they retreat to the back room purportedly to set up the trailer. The questionnaire will ask for all relevant demographic data: age, sex, ethnicity, income, education, political affiliation, etc. It will also contain questions about movies. How often do they go to the movies? What genre of film do they enjoy? What movies have they seen recently? etc. Embedded in the list of movie questions must be the question, “Do you consent to viewing video depictions of violence?” Obviously those who do not consent will be eliminated from the subject pool.
When the “surveyor” returns for the clip board he will also thank what appears to be a previous participant, but is actually a confederate of the experiment. The “surveyor” asks the subject to wait just a few more minutes as he sets up the movie trailer. Once the “surveyor” returns to the back room, the confederate exits toward the hallway, leaving the subject alone in the waiting room.
When the confederate exits the room they will appear in the hallway on the surveillance screen in the waiting room, reinforcing the continuity between the two. At some point after they have left the scene the surveillance footage will switch from a live feed to a prerecorded incident of unprovoked assault in the same hallway. The audio of the assault will be played from the hallway, to create the illusion that the attack is right outside.
The brutality will begin with shouting, escalate to shoving, then a beating which could reasonably result in serious injury, until finally the assailant will drag the victim off camera. Half of the subjects, selected at random, will see a video in which the assailant is wearing a police uniform, and the other half will see the exact same scene except the assailant is wearing civilian clothes. Professional stunt actors should be hired to do the choreography of this scene so there is as little disparity in the performance as possible.
If the subject opens the door to the hallway that will be counted as an intervention. If the participant either takes the exit toward the back room, or stays in the waiting room until the end of the footage that will be counted as not intervening. Regardless of the outcome, once the participant has made their choice the illusion will be revealed and the entire scope and purpose of the experiment will be disclosed.
The “surveyor” will reveal himself as the experimenter to conduct an exit interview. All subjects will be asked to complete an emotional survey describing how they felt, and what they were thinking during the experience. They will be asked what motivated them to make the choice they did. Subjects who intervened will be asked what they intended to do once they entered the hallway. Were they going to yell at the assailant? Would they physically intervene? Or record the incident? Subjects who took the other exit will be asked where they were going. Were they searching for an exit, or seeking help from the “surveyor”?
Ethical Concerns
Perhaps more important than the experiment itself will be working with scientists, ethicists, and activists to draft our own ethical guidelines for scientific experimentation. This is unprecedented as far as I know, and after this project is finished I hope it can have far reaching influence on civil disobedience, demonstrations, and future experiments outside the legacy power structures. But having these guidelines is crucial before we finalize the design and begin conducting the experiment. If you have any ethical concerns about the design that are not addressed in this section, please contact me so I can improve the design.
Preventing physical harm:
When I first proposed involving subjects in a staged incident of police brutality there was concern that it could put the confederates of the experiment at risk of injury if the subject decided to intervene physically. The illusion created by the prerecorded surveillance footage, and the use of the door as the measure of intervention was devised as a way to protect everyone from physical harm. If the subject charges into the hallway ready to engage the assailant physically they will quickly realize that they are alone in the hallway, but they will also be visible from the surveillance camera, so the experimenters can assess the subject’s emotional state before entering.
Preventing forced witness:
There was concern that it may be unethical to put a subject into a situations where they are forced to witness potentially traumatic brutality, even on a surveillance screen. To mitigate this risk the level of brutality in the footage should not exceed what may reasonably be seen in mainstream news. Further, to witness or to intervene should not be their only options. The exit sign above the door to the back room was added to create a third option, so the subjection could decide to avoid the incident completely.
Reconciling trauma:
There is concern that in spite of the violent footage waiver in the questionnaire, and the other precautions, a subject may still find the experience traumatic, or emotionally distressing, especially if they have a personal history of physical abuse. To remedy this unfortunate result, if it occurs, someone will be on hand to offer private exit counselling after completion of the experiment. If subjects take this offer, these sessions will not be considered part of the exit interview, and will not be part of any analysis, or public record. In addition, every subject will be given the contact information of local counselling services, in case they experience distress after leaving, or even days later.
Unavoidable deception:
There is concern that it may be unethical to deceive subjects, both by leading them to believe they are there to preview a new movie trailer, and by creating the illusion of the assault. Subjects will be fully informed of the scope and purpose of the experiment afterward, however, there is no way to avoid deceiving the subjects without invalidating the results. We acknowledge this concern, but regard it as an acceptable risk given the potential value of the study.
Weaknesses
Sample Quality:
A convenience sample from a shopping mall is not a perfect random sample of the general population. It will be weighted by socioeconomic status, age, and lifestyle factors that make one likely to be in a shopping mall, or wherever the experiment is performed. It is difficult to describe conclusively the relationship between a convenience sample and the general population.
Victim association:
Any apparent demographic or lifestyle information that can be gleaned from the appearance of the victim could impact the decision to intervene. Clothing could be chosen, or video quality manipulated to obscure these details. Also, future studies should include variations where the victim and assailant are of variable race, gender, creed, sexual orientation, age etc.
Risk assessment:
A police uniform does not only indicate authority, is also indicates weaponry. The civilian assailant should be similarly armed, but that still may not resolve this experimental weakness. A civilian weapon may be less obvious, and communicates a different risk. Disparity in rates of intervention may be influenced by a disparity in the perceived risk. The exit interview should be crafted to account for this as much as possible. In addition, a third variable could be added in which the assailant is dressed and armed identical to the police assailant, with the exception of being clearly identified as private security, and not a government officer, as in with a “security” cap. This would require that another 50 subjects be tested.
Subject Isolation:
Subjects may be reluctant to intervene if they are alone, which does not reflect the typical real world incident of police brutality. This may bias the data toward nonintervention. Future studies could include variations that studied group dynamics. However, even though this may not accurately reflect a typical incident of police brutality, it may still accurately reflect a reaction to authority. It has been suggested that those who disobey corrupt authority, as in a whistleblower, often make that decision in isolation, not in a group.
Contrived Scenario:
If the subject discovers, or even suspects that this is a contrived scenario that would invalidate the data. If they know that they are being observed, even believing it to be part of a consumer survey that may bias the data toward intervention. Further, if the performances of the actors, or the oddities of layout cause them to suspect a set up, they may doubt the reality of the footage. Any flaw in the illusion of the assault is a weakness in the experiment.
In the final post: data analysis methods and conclusion
