The Psychology of Survival: Deconstructing 'Outlast' on Netflix

The Netflix series "Outlast" has captured the attention of viewers around the world, showcasing a group of individuals as they strive to survive in a remote environment with limited resources. As a psychologist, I find the show a fascinating case study for examining human behavior and decision-making in extreme situations. In this post, I will delve into the psychological concepts underlying the participants' behavior, specifically focusing on the incident where they stole sleeping bags and justified their actions, and the steadfast righteousness displayed by some participants.

Social Identity Theory and In-Group Favoritism (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

When people are placed in situations where they have to form alliances to survive, they often develop a strong sense of social identity. The Social Identity Theory posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into in-groups and out-groups based on shared characteristics, such as goals or values. This categorization leads to in-group favoritism, where individuals are more likely to support and defend members of their own group.

In "Outlast," participants formed alliances based on their perceived shared values and objectives. These alliances may have led them to feel a strong sense of loyalty and protectiveness toward their in-group members. As a result, when faced with the harsh reality of surviving in the wilderness without adequate resources, they may have rationalized stealing sleeping bags as a means of protecting and supporting their in-group.

Moral Disengagement and Cognitive Dissonance (Bandura, 1999; Festinger, 1957)

When faced with the decision to steal sleeping bags, participants likely experienced cognitive dissonance, a psychological state characterized by holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. In this case, the participants knew that stealing was wrong, but they also believed that they needed to protect their in-group.

To resolve this dissonance, the participants may have employed moral disengagement, a psychological process that allows individuals to justify morally questionable actions by reinterpreting the behavior, consequences, or victims involved (Bandura, 1999). By convincing themselves that stealing the sleeping bags was necessary for survival, participants were able to reconcile their conflicting beliefs and minimize feelings of guilt or shame.

The Bystander Effect and Group Dynamics (Latané & Darley, 1968)

Another factor contributing to the participants' behavior in "Outlast" is the bystander effect, which posits that individuals are less likely to intervene in a situation or take responsibility when others are present. This effect can be attributed to two primary factors: diffusion of responsibility, where people believe that someone else will take action, and social influence, where individuals look to others' behavior to determine the appropriate response.

In the context of "Outlast," the bystander effect may have played a role in the decision to steal sleeping bags. Participants who were hesitant about the act might have been swayed by the actions or inaction of others, assuming that if no one else was objecting, then the behavior must be acceptable. This dynamic highlights the powerful influence that group dynamics can have on individual decision-making, particularly in high-stress situations where survival is at stake.

The Role of Righteousness in Survival Situations

Despite the moral disengagement exhibited by some participants, others remained steadfast in their commitment to righteousness, refusing to engage in unethical behavior even when it seemed advantageous. This behavior can be explained through the concept of moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002), which refers to the extent to which moral traits are central to an individual's self-concept. Those with a strong moral identity may prioritize moral values over personal gain, leading them to uphold their ethical principles even in challenging situations.

The Importance of Resilience and Adaptability (Masten, 2001)

While the series showcases various psychological phenomena, it also emphasizes the importance of resilience and adaptability in survival situations. Resilience refers to an individual's ability to adapt to adversity and maintain psychological well-being, while adaptability refers to the capacity to adjust to new or changing circumstances.

Participants who demonstrated resilience and adaptability were better equipped to handle the challenges they faced in "Outlast," such as limited resources, extreme weather conditions, and interpersonal conflicts. These traits allowed them to maintain their psychological and emotional stability, enabling them to make more effective decisions and ultimately increasing their chances of survival.

In a nutshell, "Outlast" serves as a fascinating exploration of human behavior under extreme conditions, illustrating a variety of psychological concepts at play. By understanding these concepts, we can gain valuable insights into how individuals cope, adapt, and make decisions in high-stress situations. As we continue to watch and analyze the participants' experiences, we can reflect on our own psychological tendencies and consider how we might respond in similar circumstances.

References:

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.