Assignment 1: Paper on “The Banality of Evil” and the Person-Situation Debate
In this paper assignment, you are asked to incorporate two approaches in psychology, personality and social psychology, to explain how people may be held accountable, or not held accountable, for their own actions. Chapter 4 of our textbook discusses the person-situation debate. Part of this debate is scientific and part of the debate is based on a difference of values.
As you know from the readings, social psychologists argued that personality does not do a good job of explaining and predicting people’s behaviors. Instead, it is the specific situation you are in that best explains and predicts your behavior. The personality approach argues that personality does indeed explain and predict behavior. This debate has implications for how we judge whether people are accountable for their actions. Who said what, and who is right?
(1) You will begin by refreshing your memory by re-reading all of Chapter 4 thoroughly. You do not need to read other research to complete this paper and you should not quote from any other source than the textbook or the article (below).
(2) Then read a brief article covering Philip Zimbardo’s book on the psychology of evil, “The Banality of Evil” which is linked here
Since the textbook was written by a leading personality psychologist, it’s only fair that we read something on this issue by a famous social psychologist as well.
(3) In your own words, state the main argument made by the situationist perspective from the textbook. Be sure to discuss the specific correlation coefficient claims made by this perspective.
(4) In your own words, state the main counter-arguments made by Funder in the personality perspective. Be sure to discuss Funder’s claims about which correlations should be studied for personality. Also, explain in specific detail Funder’s claims about the size of the correlations, referring to the BESD.
(5) Now that you have stated the arguments for both sides, reflect on the issues raised in the “Banality of Evil” article. Specifically, discuss Zimbardo’s argument from the article. What is he saying about “evil”? Do you agree? Can people be evil, or only situations? What does that mean? Should the soldiers at Abu Ghraib be punished, or should their leaders be punished, or both, or none? I do not expect everyone in the class will have the same answers, but I do expect everyone in the class to use the arguments from both the situationist and personality perspectives in their answers.
Your paper should be double spaced with indented paragraphs and be at least four pages long. You should NOT quote or plagiarize from any source; I am only interested in your own opinions and understanding of the textbook material and this one article.