When we see people carrying out evil, it feels right to label them as evil people... that is, they are somehow abnormal. But what if that is not true... what if "normal" humans placed in the worst of social situations would do those evil things?
As a science, we walk a fine line in explaining evil without excusing it... just because something is "normal" or unsurprising does not mean that it is acceptable or inevitable. So why have so many "normal" people done so many truly awful things to other humans?
What was the setup, procedure and original result of Milgram’s study of obedience?
What conceptual variables did Milgram test? What was their effect on obedience? For each variable, be specific about how it was operationalized, what percentage of people carried out all 30 shocks (if provided), and be prepared to explain why each variable had the effect it did:
Vulnerability of the victim
Conforming peers
Dissenting peers
The presence of an absolute authority
Dissenting authorities
Social status of the authority figure
Proximity of the authority figure
Explain how he used three different setups to test the effect of the “victim” being emotionally distant vs. emotionally proximal vs. emotionally adjacent (and how that influenced results)
WATCH: The Milgram Experiment (Zimbardo, 2011)
Let's start with a great summary of Milgram's research on destructive obedience - the willingness to "follow orders" and harm another person. The speaker, Phil Zimbardo, is a famous psychologist whose research we'll get to in a bit. My personal takeaway quote: "All evil starts with 15 volts."
Now let's get into a little more detail about how the study was conducted, what Milgram tested, what it suggests about the human capacity for destructive obedience.
READ: Milgram's Study of Destructive Obedience
STUDENTS - The full paper is in the file section of our Canvas course page
Public - You can access the content here
NOTE: There is one error in the linked resource on the variations. The article incorrectly states: “Milgram also conducted a version of the experiment in which he placed a second ‘teacher’ in the room, although this one was a stooge instructed to obey until the end. In this variation all the participants went along with the confederate and shocked up to 450 volts!” Obedience was higher (92%), but not at 100%.
OPTIONAL: TV's 'Game of Death' (CNN, 2010)
So people were willing to harm another person in the name of science... but what about for entertainment? As you watch, try to spot as many similarities that you can between the set up of the stage and the procedure Milgram set up in his lab.
Based on your personal definition, was Milgram's research evil ? Why or why not?
How might pluralistic ignorance lead people to misinterpret the behavior of others and, as a result, hold more extreme attitudes and engage in more extreme behavior?
How did Schroeder and Prentice (1998) demonstrate the effect that pluralistic ignorance had on alcohol consumption.
Explain the concept of pluralistic ignorance and relate it to research findings on drinking behavior.
Zimbardo, in discussing why people are surprised and disturbed by Milgram's results, writes that “…we live with the illusion of moral superiority firmly entrenched in the pluralistic ignorance that comes from not recognizing the set of situational and structural circumstances that empowered others…” (Miller 2013, p. 26).
We will apply this concept to evil behavior soon, but first we need to understand what he’s referring to as pluralistic ignorance.
LOCATE: Schroeder and Prentice’s (1998) article entitled "Exposing Pluralistic Ignorance to Reduce Alcohol Use Among College Students."
READ: Read the intro section that discusses alcohol consumption, the social influences of alcohol consumption and pluralistic ignorance (pgs. 2150-2153).
STUDENTS - The full paper is in the file section of our Canvas course page
PUBLIC - It appears you can request the full text here.
How did Zimbardo demonstrate that the power of the social situation could overwhelm people's disposition? Describe the overall setup, how participants were recruited, how the two groups were dressed, and how people behaved.
How can you apply what you have learned about the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) to explain the automatic temptation to judge the participants in the experiment as either mean or weak people?
What about his methodological approach allows us to conclude that their behavior was not simply evidence of their underlying dispositions? That is, how do we know that the guards were not, as a group, stronger and meaner people than the prisoners?
Why was the study terminated early?
Americans were horrified when photos of prisoners Abu Ghraib, Iraq leaked to the media, in which they appeared to be subject to physical abuse and sexualized humiliation, at the hands of American soldiers smiling for the camera. The military was quick to blame "a few bad apples" but Zimbardo was just as quick to point out that the problem is not isolated to the individuals -- the situation plays a larger role that most might imagine. It's just not the apples, he would say, it's the barrel that allowed it to happen.
WATCH: The Stanford Prison Experiment
What happens when you take "normal" people and put them in a situation where the norms of behavior drift towards cruelty? Phil Zimbardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Study set out to test how average college students would behave in a prison setting. Even he was surprised by what happened, and it is still cited today as an explanation for some of the atrocities we see in the world.
It is important to note that many have criticized Zimbardo (see Files section of Canvas) for mischaracterizing what happened, in that the guards were coached on how to treat the prisoners more than he admits, and some have even gone so far as to call the whole thing a sham. However, it is still worth noting that even if Zimbardo was dishonest about the extent to which the oppressive rules and sadistic behavior developed spontaneously as a function of the social role, that was never the point in my view. The point was that under some circumstances, people will engage in behavior that they would have never predicted from themselves. What if instead of a researcher offering suggestions to guards, it was a powerful authority figure with a weapon giving orders? How cruel would those average humans have been to other humans? The fact that anything cruel happened at the participants' hands is still worth talking about.
We tend to focus on the perpetrator - but this study also showed that "normal" people eventually submitted to the treatment. Why do you think that happened? Would you have allowed people to treat you like that for a research study?
I know... it's disturbing that those OTHER people did those kinds of terrible things, "but I know myself well enough to know I would never do THAT!" Feels good to say, and it makes sense to believe, but the science on human behavior suggests we should all at least acknowledge that the psychological forces of the social situation have more power over disposition than we consciously perceive... which means you MIGHT be wrong about what you would have actually done in that particular situation. Maintain a healthy respect for that possibility when you consider the behavior or others, and then use your understanding to stand up to the pressure if it leads you in the wrong direction. Never forget... "All evil starts with 15v."
After participating in our class meeting or an interactive online presentation you will be able to answer the following questions:
How did the variation of Milgram's of experiment in which he changed the complacency of the victim (the masochist) alter the experimental results?
What was one specific methodological criticism of Milgram’s findings that Orne & Holland (1968) proposed, and how did Sheridan & King (1972) set out to test it?
What was the rate of obedience in Sheridan & King's (1972) study?
Were there any differences in obedience between male and female participants?
How does deindividuation play a role in people's willingness to engage in behavior that contradicts their moral principles and dispositional characteristics?
What is the connection between depersonalization, emotional distance, and evil? How do some of Milgram's methodological variations demonstrate this connection?
How can you reduce the emotional distance between you and a stranger if you needed help?
READ: Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments - "In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram's electric-shock studies showed that people will obey even the most abhorrent of orders. But recently, researchers have begun to question his conclusions—and offer some of their own." (The Atlantic, 2015)
WATCH: Remote Control (Brown, 2013)
This is a game show-like demonstration of what Zimbardo found in his fake prison - feeling powerful and anonymous changes the way people think, feel, and behave. For some reason, that can lead a group of "normal" people to become, as a group, gleefully anti-social. It is not a scientific experiment, but nonetheless seems to be consistent with what we have seen in other situations. Warning: explicit language and content!