Decode the Mind: Do People Act Cruelly Because They Are ‘Just Following Orders’?
“The Banality of Evil” by Chloe (1st Class Degree in Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford & Master’s in Clinical Forensic Psychology, King’s)
Can people act cruelly without actually being cruel? Hannah Ardent (a philosopher and political theorist), was a German Jew who narrowly escaped Nazi Germany. She posed this question when reporting on Eichmann’s war crime trial. Eichmann was responsible for transporting millions of people to work at concentration camps. However, despite this heinous act, Eichmann himself claimed no responsibility for his actions. He displayed neither resentment towards those trying him nor remorse for his actions. He purported that he was just doing his job and following orders. Ardent believed that Eichmann was an ordinary man, trying to pursue his career within the Nazi party. Eichmann was thought to be performing evil acts, without evil intentions. Could this be possible? The implications of this are astounding: we all have the potential to act in evil ways, even if we are not inherently evil.
Milgram’s studies in the 1960s further supported the notion that humans may have the potential to act evil under the influence of orders or authority. Milgram’s paradigm involved a ‘Teacher’ and a ‘Learner’. The Teacher was required to administer shocks to a ‘Learner’ if they failed to answer a question correctly. The shocks increased in voltage in 15V increments. The Teacher was not actually administering real shocks, although believed that they were. As the Teacher became more reluctant, and the Learner protested more (to the extent that they were screaming out in pain), the ‘Experimenter’ prompted the Teacher to continue. When the authority of the Experimenter was undermined, for example by the Experimenter’s arguing or the location changing from a university to a run-down office, the Teachers were less obedient. Almost all participants believed they were hurting other people, and yet they were still willing to administer painful volts. The level of this voltage, and in turn the pain it inflicts, increased in line with a stronger perception of authority.
Zimbardo believed that any ordinary person can behave in evil ways under the right conditions: ‘The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.’ Zimbardo was responsible for the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971). Arguably one of the most famous psychological studies, the Stanford Prison Experiment involved assigning participants the role of either prisoner or guard in a mock prison design. Participants were given uniforms, prisoners were referred to by number rather than name and they had limited privacy. Zimbardo’s objective was to observe the interactions within and between the two groups. However, after only 6 days, the study was prematurely ended due to the extreme abuse of the guards. The unique mock prison setting was one that society somewhat regard as approved for evil through power differentials. As such, Zimbardo suggested that ordinary people can act in cruel ways because they conform unthinkingly to the roles prescribed by authority. While Zimbardo did not suggest that the cruel acts were as a result of ‘just following orders’, he believed that that guards may have believed they were ‘just doing their job’ as a result of the situational factors that instilled a power differential. This sentiment echoes that of Eichmann regarding his role in the Holocaust.
However, some guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment did not act brutally at all. In fact, those who did were quite initiative and creative. So, perhaps evil does not occur as a mindless response to instructions or authority. But what else could influence evil? The BBC explored this in the BBC Prison Study, replicating Zimbardo’s prison experiment but improving on the methodological design. Participants in this study did not automatically conform to their assigned role; they were not blindly obedient such that they committed evil acts. Prisoners were able to challenge the authority of the Guards, and even conspire to create a new hierarchy. The authors concluded that participants only act in terms of group membership to the extent that they actively identified with the group. This would suggest that people do not unthinkingly commit evil acts, but that they do so in line with their grout identification.
Perhaps a willingness to follow authority blindly might then depend on identifying with the authority and believing it is right. This is contrary to the banality of evil hypothesis – we do not blindly follow orders, we follow orders if we identify with the authority. Evil may flourish because people actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as good.
Would you like to learn more from Chloe? Are you applying for Psychology at university?
Chloe mentors students in their application for Psychology via MU’s sister tuition division, U2 Tuition, and hosts some of MU’s Decode the Mind: Psychology masterclasses. Get in touch if you are interested to learn more!
