Unit 04

Why Would a "Normal" Person do Something Evil?

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?

04-A: Destructive Obedience

• 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)

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.

04-B: Pluralistic Ignorance

• 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.

04-C: Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Study

• 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.

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.

Closing Thoughts...

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."

If you're interested in learning more...

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)