Do Not Trust Yourself: How Ordinary People Can Easily Turn Cruel
The groundbreaking experiments of Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo reveal the disturbing capacity of ordinary people to commit acts of cruelty.
I
n the mid-20th century, Stanley Milgram, professor of social psychology at Yale University, and Philip Zimbardo, professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted scientific research on obedience to authority. Today, in the digital age, the results of these experiments underscore the importance of media literacy, while online cyberbullying highlights the consequences of unregulated authority in global society.
Unmasking obedience to authority
In 1961, Stanley Milgram set out to unravel the role of obedience to authority in shaping human behavior. Inspired by his observation of Nazi Germany and the actions of Adolf Eichmann, Milgram hypothesized that ordinary people may commit crimes and carry out cruel acts when instructed by an authority figure. His experiment was his way of trying to figure the truth behind his suspicions.
The Milgram Experiment revealed the disturbing ability of people to obey authority, even if it results in harming others. It highlighted the importance of ethical considerations and the potential consequences of unquestioning obedience in real-life situations, such as wartime atrocities.
There were three key roles in the experiment: the experimenter, who acted as an authority figure and guided the participants while wearing a lab coat to symbolize expertise and authority; the teacher, who was made to believe that s/he was participating in a study investigating the effects of punishment on learning; and the student, performed by an actor in a separate room, who was hooked up to electrodes.
The teacher’s role was to read a series of word pairs to the student and then test the student’s memory by presenting a word and asking for the corresponding pair. If the student answered incorrectly, the teacher had to administer an electric shock, increasing the voltage with each incorrect answer. The strength of the shocks ranged from a mild 15 volts to a severe 450 volts, each accompanied by recorded cries of pain from the student, who suffered no actual shocks.
To maintain the facade of the experiment, the experimenter repeatedly urged the teacher to continue, even if they exhibited reluctance, using a series of prompts such as “Please continue” or “The experiment requires that you continue.” Furthermore, for each subsequent incorrect response, the teacher was obligated to incrementally raise the voltage. An “authority figure” was also present alongside the teacher, distinguished solely by their attire—a lab coat.
The most startling result of the Milgram Experiment was that 65% of the teachers administered the highest voltage of 450 volts despite the student’s obvious discomfort. Over time, participants began to perceive the experiment as a separate entity, detached from reality. The thought of its artificial origin seemed unimportant to them. Moreover, the majority of participants began to devalue the students in their perception, calling them “worthless” and “worthy of punishment.” Although a few individuals affirmed that they had recognized the ethical shortcomings of the experiment from the beginning, this did not deter most from continuing to participate.
The impact of authority on behavior
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment to explore how an authoritarian environment such as a prison can affect people’s psychological stability. The experiment involved creating a real-life prison environment with “wardens” and “prisoners.”
In the experiment, researchers randomly assigned 24 mentally stable male volunteers to the roles of “guard” and “prisoner.” The study took place in a simulated prison environment carefully constructed in the basement of Stanford University’s Jordan Hall. This prison simulation was very similar to an actual correctional facility, complete with cells, uniforms, and even an area for solitary confinement.
During the experiment, the guards were not given specific instructions for their behavior, but were encouraged to control the prisoners. The researchers provided them with uniforms, sunglasses, and batons. The prisoners, on the other hand, were picked up at their homes, stripped of their personal belongings, given identification numbers, and subjected to a degrading intake process.
Zimbardo and his team meticulously observed the interactions between the guards and the prisoners during the planned two-week duration of the experiment. Over the first five days of the experiment, the behavior of the guards became brutal. Psychologist Christina Maslach visited the site on the 6th day, and she was upset at how participants were behaving, which pushed Zimbardo to end the experiment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment offer deep insights into the power of situational and role-based influences on human behavior. These studies vividly illustrate how ordinary people can adopt cruel and authoritarian roles when they assume positions of power and authority in controlled environments. The ramifications of these experiments extend beyond the laboratory setting into the real world, such as government policy, educational institutions, and political propaganda.
As we fast-forward to the digital age, we find the lessons of these experiments echoing in contemporary contexts. Misinformation and blind loyalty to supposed online authorities have become a widespread problem in the digital age. Misinformation promoted by powerful personalities or experts in many disciplines thrives on online platforms. Individuals may unquestioningly accept and spread misleading content online from seemingly authoritative sources, just as participants in the Milgram experiment obeyed the authority figure in the lab coat.
Authority, misinformation, and cyberbullying
As platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X (former Twitter) continue to surge in popularity, people are under immense pressure to conform to prevailing narratives, driven by incessant and diverse trends that quickly go viral and equally quickly disappear. Just as the participants in Milgram’s research felt pressured to conform to the actions of others, online users may engage in behaviors they would normally disapprove of to gain social approval and a sense of authority in their online groups.
This adaptability to viral trends highlights the influence of real or perceived authority figures on online behavior. Obedience to online authority figures and compliance with falsehoods have significant effects influencing public discourse, decision-making, and even elections.
Cyberbullying has also become a part of our lives with online social platforms. Similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, social media platforms provide anonymity that encourages a sense of detachment from lived reality and thus from oneself, making cyberbullying and similar actions easier. This artificial sense of anonymity reduces personal responsibility and can easily lead people into harmful interactions which they would not engage in if the interaction were face-to-face.
When various anonymous individuals in online communities gain a large number of followers, they can begin to see themselves as authority figures and leaders of their followers. This power dynamic and perception of artificial authority can create scenarios where individuals abuse and misuse their power. In some distressing cases, they may even rally their followers to participate in coordinated harassment and cancellation campaigns, amplifying the harm inflicted.
In online communities, characterized by echo chambers, individuals often develop an “us versus them” mentality and perceive those who are not part of their group as enemies. This division can give rise to animosity, hostility, and the dehumanization of those with contrasting perspectives, akin to the tensions and loss of individuality often observed in prison settings. Just as guards and prisoners adopted different roles and behaviors depending on their assigned group, online echo chambers can drive individuals to extreme positions and behaviors, undermining empathy and understanding.
The groundbreaking experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo illuminated the profound influence of authority on human behavior, revealing the disturbing capacity of ordinary people to commit cruel acts when directed by authority figures. As we move into the digital age, these insights from the past take on new meaning.
