Individual Accountability or Social Influence
A Response on Human Behavior from "The Lucifer Effect"
Nov 3, 2009
The psychologist Ervin Staub contended that, “Evil that arises out of ordinary thinking and is committed by ordinary people is the norm, not the exception (p. 485).” This “banality” of evil is a pervasive concept in Philip Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect [Random House Trade, 2008], which discusses the question of how a typical and ordinary individual is capable of committing atrocities and violence against a fellow human being.
It is explained that this is not because one is of an evil nature or has a malevolent disposition, but instead decisions are determined more by the strong situational factors acting on the behavior of an individual at a given time. Some situational forces acting on the behavior of a typical individual are such influences as group pressures and group identity. Particularly, a diffusion of responsibility and the dehumanization of others, are some impacting influences that lead to abusive and corrosive actions against other people or groups.
Social Acceptance
The situational influence enacted and perpetuated by authority may be viewed in the context of the group pressures that promote conformity and obedience. Zimbardo discusses that authority can secure total obedience through the threat of group rejection or through the enticement of group acceptance.
Further, the individual that maintains autonomy and becomes an outsider, instead of conforming to group attitudes, may experience an emotional burden from dissonance stemming from the powerful need to belong. As the book points out, “…autonomy comes at a psychic cost (p. 265).” This seems to be a poignant notion for considering the process or metamorphosis that takes place when one is unable to resist the pressures of a collectively harmful ideology.
Dehumanizing the "Enemy"
The concept of dehumanization is a particularly profound force in the disturbing acts perpetuated by one human being on another. This entails the process by which a one group views another group as less human or less deserving of human dignity. Much political propaganda can stigmatize and segregate a specified group, and in so doing promote the prejudice, racism, and discrimination that prompts evil and harmful behavior.
One example of dehumanization is the derogatory names and remarks that are directed toward a specific group. These “labels” can negatively transform a social perception of a group or individual and lead to cruelty and disdain. Zimbardo provides numerous examples of historical genocides, such as Nazi Germany, that accomplished this moral disengagement and lead to barbaric treatment of different ethnic cultures.
Nazi's were motivated through propaganda films and posters that derogated other ethnicities as being inferior human beings. This is discussed in the text as a form of cognitive conditioning that turns these “others” into “enemies.” This form of propaganda educes fear and hatred in the minds of citizens and soldiers to condition a willingness to defeat this “enemy” at any cost.
The Anonymous Individual
Deindividuation is another force that can impel a typically calm person to enact violence and harm against another. The idea of deindividuation is seen through the use of uniforms or attire that promotes anonymity and therefore provides displaced responsibility for one’s actions. In the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, one technique to impart this anonymity was through the reflective sunglasses worn by the guards. This provided them a shielded identity that masked a personal accountability, as they did not have to make eye contact with the prisoners.
When anonymity is present in conjunction with the opportunity to act aggressively, it can increase the chances that harmful behavior will be induced. This can be seen in many cultures where aggressive behavior may be glorified, or what may be considered a culture of violence where aggressive norms and values play an important role.
The individual has displaced responsibility in the context of strong social influence to conform to aggressive behavior and so is more willing to disregard the consequences. This may relate to the idea of institutional or social permission to act aggressively and one way of promoting this is through providing the means to feel anonymous.
Ordinary Hero's
The forces that influence the typical individual may also be applied in a positive context in examining the banality of heroism, or in other words, the potential for an everyday person to act in a more altruistic and helpful manner. The idea of labels through words and rhetoric is one example where the social influence could cogently begin to alter perceptions in a positive direction to foster more heroic actions as opposed to evil.
Developing a focus on the heroic antecdotes in society and perpetuating these actions could impact the social dynamic. It also becomes relevant for the individual to begin examining what they may truly be capable of when presented with a novel situation where stakes are high.
Self-Restraint
The Lucifer Effect would contend that all people are capable of committing atrocious behavior, but that the individual has the ability to reject the authoritative appeal when there is clear moral aberration. A quote from Albert Bandura may help exemplify that the decision for behavior is a choice though it can be a difficult task to maintain. “Out ability to selectively engage and disengage our moral standards…helps to explain how people can be barbarically cruel in one moment and compassionate the next.” Though environment plays a role in behavior, an individual accountability provides the means to develop a virtuous character and strong ethical framework.
 |
