Derren Brown: The Experiments- The Gameshow What is the experiment?

Brown’s second instalment in his series of ‘experiments’ was designed to show us how being anonymous in a crowd can, in his words, “turn perfectly nice people into internet bullies, or rioters, or hooligans”. To demonstrate, audience members were led to believe they were participating in a new interactive game show in which the fate of an unwitting member of the public was placed in their hands. The ‘target’ was a young man who was out for a drink with some friends.  Along with various actors, the man’s friends were in on the plan and were in contact with the studio via hidden earpieces.

Throughout the show, the audience were presented with a choice between two scenarios (one positive and one negative) for the man. The severity of the negative outcomes increased throughout the episode, and ranged from being mistakenly charged for an extra round of drinks, to being kidnapped by a ‘gang of thugs’.  The audience chose the scenario with a negative outcome each time, and for Brown, this was evidence of the moral depravity that inevitably follows anonymity in crowds.

Evaluation of the experiment

It is worth briefly noting several methodological problems with the study. These include the fact that it was not actually an experiment (as claimed by the title) since no independent variable was manipulated (there was not a sample making equivalent decisions alone or without masks), the ‘bad’ choice was always presented to the audience second, the audience understood that the consequences of their actions weren’t ‘real’, and Brown, who offered the audience the choices, is renowned for his skill in influencing people’s decision-making processes.

Brown stated during the episode and in an interview on his website that ‘deindividuation’ within crowds causes people to lose their identities and consequently behave in inevitably anti-social ways. Over thirty years of empirical work from the social identity tradition has discredited these claims. This research has shown that rather than a loss of identity within crowds, there is a shift from personal to social levels of identification.

The audience acted in terms of their collective identity as audience members in at least two ways. First, the very object of being in a game show audience is by definition to be entertained. Each time the audience were faced with a choice, they picked what was clearly the most entertaining option, and the selection that would prolong their involvement in the event. Second, the menacing masks that audience members wore were hardly neutral cues; in fact the very same masks were later worn by the ‘group of thugs’ who attempted the kidnap in the final scene. This is reminiscent of a famous study by Johnson and Downing (1979), who noted that when people were given robes resembling those of the Ku Klux Klan they displayed more anti-social behavior than control participants. However, when participants were given nurses’ uniforms they displayed significantly less anti-social behavior than controls.

By Jenna Nicholas and Nicole Kuruppuarachchi

Do video games increase violence and aggression?

Video games have often been associated with increasing violence and aggression in teens although there has been no scientific evidence proving the theory. 

Adam Lanza

One example is the Sandy Hook Massacre where 20 year old Adam Lanza killed 15 people at a Colorado high school in 1999.  Prior to the shooting Lanza often retreated to his bedroom with the windows sealed with black bin-liners and played video games.  One of the video games recovered was a school shooting game where the player must carry out a classroom killing as well as other violent video games such as Call of Duty.  However, Lanza had an obsession with mass murders as well as suffering from Asperger’s Disorder, along with “significant social impairments” and “extreme anxiety,” before showing signs of OCD – all of which he refused to get treatment for.  Although it appears there may be a link, the prosecutor concluded that there was no clear indication as to why he carried out the killing.

Anders Behring Breivik

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Another example is Anders Behring Breivik, who in 2011, carried out two attacks in Norway killing a total of 77 people.  The first attack was a car bomb near a Government building that killed a total of 8 lives and injured 209.  The second attack occurred at a summer camp in the island of Utøya where Anders, dressed as a police officer, opened fire and killed 69 people.  In court Anders stated that he used Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as a training simulation, whilst using World of Warcraft as a cover for his extended period of isolation.

These two cases do show that video games are associated with increased violence and aggression; however the individual must already be showing signs of mental instability.

  

How to tell if someone is lying

A pair of flaming trousers (or a growing nose, à la Pinocchio) isn’t the only sign that a person is spewing falsehoods. Here, five experts teach you how to smoke out a fibber.

A Person’s Demeanor or Voice Radically Changes

As an investigator, I first try to assess how someone normally speaks. To do that, I begin an interview by asking questions that I know the answers to, like “What’s your full name?” or “Where do you live?” Some folks are naturally animated and talk fast; others are more subdued. Once I know which type of talker a person is, I start asking him questions that I don’t know the answer to. If his manner shifts abruptly—going from calm to agitated or lively to mellow—chances are he’s not telling the truth.

Gregg McCrary is a retired FBI criminal profiler and a crime analyst in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

A Person Avoids Saying “I”

In my research, I’ve discovered that when people fib about themselves, they tend to use I and me less often than people who are being truthful. Instead, they’ll speak about themselves in the third person (“This is a girl who loves to ski”) or even truncate their language (“Really into listening to jazz”)—anything to give themselves psychological distance from the lie.

Jeffrey Hancock is an associate professor of communication at Cornell University who studies online lying.

A Person Has an Answer for Everything

Ask most people what they were doing last week and they’ll have to pause and think about it. That’s even more true of teenagers, who generally don’t have the capacity to tell an elaborate story on the fly. So when I call a child into my office and he seems totally rehearsed—there’s zero hesitation before he answers a question—well, that’s a dead giveaway.

Julia Chung has been an educator for 16 years, first as a high school teacher in Los Angeles

A Person Fidgets and Fusses for No Reason

If someone keeps performing a random physical action that seems unnecessary—cleaning her glasses excessively, retying her shoelaces, or dusting off the (clean) table in front of her—she may be lying. The guilt and anxiety make her restless. That can be particularly true if she is lying to somebody she loves. When a person fibs to a traffic cop, she won’t necessarily fidget a lot. But if she is deceiving her husband, she won’t be able to sit still.

Barbara Mitchell has been a relationship therapist in New York City for 34 years.

Taken from: http://www.realsimple.com/work-life/life-strategies/how-to-tell-someone-lying/fidgets-no-reason