It's unfortunate that most of it is entirely discredited because it was unethical. It teaches us a lot about people in power.
Of course, it was bad science since Zimbardo inserted himself into the experiment as the "prison warden" ruining his objectivity, but it shouldn't be discounted. I actually attended one of his talks where he talked about Milgram's study (also unfairly discredited due to being called unethical), his study, as well as his new project that's supposed to (hopefully) stop the bystander effect.
It's difficult to study unethical behavior without creating a scenario where people are given the opportunity to be unethical. I did think Milgram's study was fascinating (and ultimately hurt no individuals directly), showing just how far people will go when simply told to do something.
To get more on the less "darker" side of such experiments, I remember a study I encountered in my Social Psychology class (unable to find a link searching Google), where students were on the way to class and stopped for directions.
The students were selected beforehand for the distance of their destination, which was always across campus. They were also selected for their major - those with a seminary/religious major intended for pastoral professions were picked, as well as non-seminary majors as a form of control group. The students were stopped and asked for help with directions by a seemingly confused person. The students were observed for the attention they paid to the requester, the amount of help they provided and their overall demeanor.
Regardless of major or any other factor, the prime determiner of whether someone stopped and was helpful was how late they were. If the student perceived they had time to spare, they would be helpful. If the student perceived they did not have time, they would not stop - even if it meant ignoring someone requesting help to be on time for a class where the seminary student would ostensibly be learning about how to always help others.
Which I think illustrates the point - people are much more likely to be helpful and selfless if the cost to themselves is relatively low. People are more likely to be callous and indifferent if the cost to them is high.
Of course, coupled with the above studies on authority, it takes another turn... people will do more for someone they have assigned a value to, whether that be sentiment, authority or other importance. Similarly, as can be seen in cases from bullying to genocide, when people devalue a person - either from social status, appearance, ethnic background or any other reason - they are much more likely to treat them terribly.
Moral of the story?
If you want to do good in the world, make the people you are trying to help as human as possible to those who you are seeking assistance from, make yourself seem a position of authority and worth and make it as easy as possible for others to give the support you need.
And if you want/need people to do insanely inhuman things to others, set yourself up to be an Uber authority on all things, make the targets you are going for seem inhuman by lumping them into a faceless group with stereotypes and branding and then make it seem like inaction against this group carries a high price, either in terms of the danger this group poses to the punishment to be given out by you and your authority (arguably, try to do both).
And, last but not least, people can be easily controlled wih the above examples, but one should not forget that individuals do these types of things to their own ways of thinkng on a regular basis, so individual responsibility must be maintained, lest a "just following orders" defense is allowed for the most heinous atrocities.
Retour en haut
