Considering Lauren Slater’s View on 20th Century Experiments
Considering Lauren Slater’s View on 20th Century Experiments
The human condition has been the subject of consideration for many centuries and across many cultures. From the ancient studies of philosophy to the more recent fields of psychology, great minds have struggled to better understand humanity. While no single piece of work can explain humanity in its entirety, those well-known experiments Slater (2004) discussed in her book may provide a glimpse at different aspects of man’s true nature. It is through the works of the greatest minds, and subsequently the greatest experiments, that we may begin to see a pattern by which we can predict certain aspects of human behavior. These patterns, however, are often not the picture we as humans hope to have painted of ourselves. What we find instead lends itself to Lord of the Flies more so than Mary Poppins. We are not the gentle souls we like to believe we are. And those things which humans contend are in place to set the species apart from lower animals may not be so obvious when viewed through the social scientist’s lens.
The three experiments discussed below demonstrate that humans are not inherently gentle social creatures. Instead we have found that people are capable of allowing and even causing the death of strangers for such ignoble and disturbing reasons as being able to deny responsibility for having done so. And we find that improper socialization, at least among the nearest of our relatives among other species, will consistently create something very different from the social creatures we like to believe ourselves to be. Instead, we see antisocial traits, aggression and fear. It is as if a critical piece of the developmental puzzle has been surgically removed. But does that mean that eliminating the kinder aspects of humanity - such as the capacity for empathy and emotional connection - creates the more negative ones? Or are those frightening parts of us already there and simply manifest in the absence of their natural counter-balances?
Slater (2004) identified several experiments among those she considered the greatest. Our focus in this paper will be the works of Milgrim, Darley and Latane, and Harlow, each of which underscore in some way humanity’s uncanny ability to demonstrate utter disregard for their own kind. Not an isolated attempt, Milgram’s experiment has been repeated since it was originally published in the 1960’s. It was the effects of the studies on the participants that changed the way in which the work has been replicated. Similarly, Harlow’s work is no longer conducted the same way due to the concern of harm done to participants in the study. So why, if it is so harmful to people to behave in a certain way, would those people continue to do a specific behavior, e.g., harm another person. That is the question that begs asking and the very reason the results of these next three studies have been so chilling when considered in terms of the ability to generalize the results to our friends, our neighbors, and even ourselves. Humanity may have evolved well-past other organisms in our world, but that evolution has either failed to eliminate or perhaps somehow created a disturbing trend of disregard for the welfare of others.
Stanley Milgram’s work attempted to help the world of human science understand the nature of human obedience to authority. He engaged participants in what was purported to be experiments on improving learning through aversive stimuli. The participant was assigned to shock another participant every time a question was answered incorrectly. And with each incorrect answer the voltage was incrementally increased. The participant being shocked was actually a confederate to the experimenter, but the participant did not know that.
The results of his work remain unnerving. He found that over 50% of the people engaged in the obedience study would be willing to allow another person to die if told to do so. And all of the participants were willing to harm another person when instructed. The study outcomes discussed the physical proximity of the authority figure to the participant and found that the farther removed the authority figure, the less likely obedience was to occur. But that is not what is most chilling about Milgram’s work. It would seem that, as long as there is a sense of not being personally responsible, people are willing to go to extremes which might not be otherwise seen in their behavior. His experiment forced people to consider what they would do if they did not have responsibility for their actions. For some of the participants, learning this about themselves was in itself disturbing. It also makes us reconsider the following orders defense used by military members during war crimes investigations. In the military, a service member has to follow orders or they may be fined, punished, imprisoned, or even risk causing someone to die. There may be very real reasons they would be induced to follow orders which they may otherwise feel are not appropriate. Furthermore, service members endure at least some degree of indoctrination about following orders of superiors. In Milgram’s study, the participants were under no threat of punishment, they were told it was voluntary, and still they carried on with the experiment, hurting other people. It surprises me that we can know how easily led people can be if they perceive an authority figure, and how far people are willing to go if they feel no sense of responsibility, but military members are punished for what Milgram demonstrated is human nature. Sadly, one of the things that seems to make us human is that we do not refrain from harming people because we find it inherently wrong, but because we would be held responsible for having done it.
Following on a similar vein is the discussion of the Darley and Latane experiment on helping behavior (Slater, 2004). The story of Kitty Genovese is often used as the epitome of the concept of diffusion of responsibility. It is hard to imagine that people could listen to someone dying, begging for help, and do nothing. Upon hearing that story, people tell themselves they would respond; they would never be the ones to do nothing. Darley and Latane, however, demonstrate that it is very likely that most people will, in fact, do nothing. This again reflects the assumption of responsibility. In Milgram’s experiments, participants were able to clearly identify a specific person on whom they placed responsibility for their actions. In Darley and Latane’s experiments, participants identified general others on whom they placed responsibility for their inaction. Instead of helping, onlookers may do nothing, something the researchers called the bystander apathy effect. Onlookers to an emergency became less and less likely to respond to that emergency if there were other people around. They may assume that someone else will or has already taken action. This was particularly true in their experiments when the people around the participants did not respond to unusual circumstances, as the experimenters found by planting confederates in experimental situations. It would seem that as a function of humanity, people are constantly looking to others to determine how they should behave. As people, we are willing to respond to authority. But in the absence of authority we become like herd animals, waiting on one of the group to lead and the rest following dumbly. The problem, as Darley and Latane found, was that when no one in the herd is willing to lead the group to the right choice, the entire herd will stand steadfast even when doing so is the morally wrong choice. Frequently humans seem unable to make a decision without either a direct set of instructions from a leadership figure or group consensus.
Finally, Henry Harlow’s experiments may begin explaining some of the discoveries of Milgram and Darley and Latane. His work focused on isolation and maternal separation among primates. His studies used rhesus monkeys, and the nature of the experiments as well as the effects it had on these highly functioning mammals has prevented the work from being identically replicated for some time as ethics prevent unnecessary cruelty. I mention this because we frequently think of cruelty in experiments to entail some painful, physical harm; no such harm was done to the monkeys. He simply isolated them from contact with others. As a result, he found that when social creatures (in his experiments, the rhesus monkeys) are not provided social interaction, very different behaviors develop than are normally seen. The monkeys became fearful, isolative, aggressive, or lacked appropriate social skills. He learned in some of his experiments that the need for physical contact rivaled the need for food and water. I think this gives considerable insight into the very definition of humanity. While Milgram and Darley and Latane demonstrated that humans depend heavily on the influence of those around them to determine how to act, Harlow showed us something altogether deeper: not only are our behavior choices directed by others, but our very social and emotional development is heavily associated with our attachments to caregivers. Social and emotional connection to others in our world is such an essential part of our development that without it we may not be able to function later in life with others in different kinds of relationships. Furthermore, manipulating it for the sake of furthering our understanding of socialization and emotional attachment came to be considered to cruel for its permanently destructive outcomes that it was ultimately considered unethical and not repeated. I reiterate that point to underscores the importance of proper socialization for humans from a young age. And it forces us to consider the potential damage to humans which may be done in the absence of that socialization.
In short, social contact and the influence of others on an individual’s behavior are not just about whose responsibility it is to act, or who will be in trouble for a particular action or inaction. Far more importantly than that, it is the basis for people’s emotional and psychological growth and development. And what happens to the un-socialized person who maintains the obedience trait Milgram showed us? The possibilities are too severe to consider. Emotional and psychological growth and development is not just about who is responsible, but about who we are to become as a individuals – and, perhaps ultimately, as a species.
References
Slater, L. (2004). Opening Skinner’s box: Great psychological experiments of the Twentieth Century. New York: Norton & Company.
