Cultic
Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 1,
2009, pp. 77-83
The Lucifer Effect:
Understanding How Good People Turn
Evil
Philip Zimbardo
New York: Random House. 2006, 2008.
ISBN-10: 0812974441; ISBN-13:
978-0812974447 (paperback), $18.00
($12.24 Amazon.com). 576 pages.
How well do we
really know anyone? How well do we
really know ourselves? Are those who
commit atrocities people with
serious character defects or
psychopathology, or are they
ordinary people responding to an
extraordinary situation? How many
times, in the course of our ordinary
lives, have we been surprised to
learn about the actions of someone
we thought we knew well? The
Lucifer Effect provides some
possible explanations for this
phenomenon, as well as for those of
us who have been involved in cultic
groups or other situations in which
we were, in retrospect, baffled by
our own actions, which contradicted
our previous notions of our
identities. The author, eminent
social psychologist Philip Zimbardo,
elaborates in-depth on a lifetime he
has dedicated, as a professor at
Stanford University, to research and
exploration of these issues.
In chapter 1,
Zimbardo sets the stage for what is
to come by providing us with an
overview of how psychologists and
others have addressed the question,
“What makes people go wrong?” (p. 5)
or, to put it more boldly, What
makes people engage in evil acts? In
using the word “evil,” Zimbardo
ventures into territory that has
been considered taboo and
controversial by many psychologists.
He defines the word: “Evil consists
in intentionally behaving in ways
that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize
or destroy innocent others—or using
one’s authority and systemic power
to encourage or permit others to do
so on your behalf” (p. 5).
As is evident
from this definition, the study of
evil is the study of particular
behaviors and motivations. As such,
it could be argued that such a study
is within the legitimate province of
psychology, although some may be
disturbed by this.
Zimbardo begins
by pointing out that the predominant
paradigm in our culture for
explaining human behavior is known
as the dispositional model, a model
that focuses on inner individual
personality traits and deviance.
Although he acknowledges that such
factors can and do contribute to
human behavior, he maintains that an
alternate, equally important model
that our society tends to minimize
and overlook is the situationist
perspective, the contribution of
external factors pertinent to the
situation that contribute to
behaviors human beings engage in.
The systemic
model goes a step beyond that view
and examines the system that made
the situation possible. Zimbardo
maintains that people in our culture
tend to overestimate the
contribution of internal personality
factors and underestimate the
contribution of situational and
systemic factors. He uses the
analogy of bad apples (individuals),
bad barrels (situations) and bad
barrel makers (systems). All too
often when we are analyzing
situations in which atrocities
occur, our cultural bias is to focus
on the belief that the atrocities
were committed by the “bad apples,”
ignoring the barrels and barrel
makers. The purpose of this book is
an attempt to remedy this bias by
providing evidence from a large body
of social psychology research to
support the often-overlooked
contribution of external factors to
explain human behavior.
Zimbardo has
been criticized in some reviews
(Donnellan, Fraley & Krueger, 2007;
Mastroianni, 2007) for putting too
much emphasis on the situation.
However, a careful reading of The
Lucifer Effect reveals that, as
he points out in his response to
this criticism (Zimbardo, 2007), he
does not intend to deny that
individual characteristics play a
role; rather, he wishes to convey to
the reader the overlooked
situational and systemic
contributions. Given that an
abundance of literature already
exists that focuses on individual
pathology as explanation, Zimbardo
chose to make the situational and
systemic perspectives the focus of
The Lucifer Effect. This is a
focus that those of us who are
studying cults or who have been
members of cults can certainly
appreciate. People commonly exhibit
the propensity to blame the victims
(Singer and Lalich, 1995), seeking
out putative pathology, character
flaws, and familial dysfunction to
attempt to explain why people enter
cults, which enables them to, in
essence, declare “not me.” Zimbardo
challenges readers to consider that
each of us could be capable of
unthinkable acts, given certain
situations.
Chapters 2
through 11 contain an in-depth
account of Zimbardo’s famous
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE).
Although most readers of this
journal are undoubtedly familiar
with the SPE, the account presented
here provides a number of details
that were not possible to include in
the more concise scientific
publications. This account
courageously describes the highly
personal experience of how the
author transitioned from the role of
psychological scientist to prison
superintendent during the course of
the experiment. He also describes in
detail how ordinary students with no
pre-existing pathology took on the
roles of prisoners and guards, and
engaged in actions their personality
traits would not have predicted.
Ultimately, an outsider (Zimbardo’s
future wife, psychologist Christina
Maslach) who arrived late on the
scene became the catalyst to the
researchers’ ultimate decision to
put an end to the experiment after
only six days, when she spoke up and
brought Zimbardo to the realization
that the experiment had spun out of
control and was harming people.
One point made
in these chapters is how one’s
taking on a certain role, when that
is a role the person is strongly
identified with, can influence that
individual to behave in
uncharacteristic ways. In the field
of cultic studies, this role
identification has been referred to
as taking on the cult personality
(Hassan, 1990; 2000); Zimbardo’s
account provides insight into this
phenomenon from a social psychology
perspective. Zimbardo points out
that when people take on roles, it
is easier for them to behave in ways
that contradict a more positive
self-image they might possess.
Chapters 12 and
13 provide an analysis of the social
dynamics of power, conformity, and
obedience, including an in-depth
analysis of the Milgram experiment.
(In the Milgram experiment, subjects
were made to believe that they were
administering a progressively severe
series of electric shocks to people
as part of a study that was alleged
to be about learning and memory. The
study was actually about obedience
to authority, and the results were
that a high percentage of subjects
went all the way to the highest
level of shock, obeying the
researcher’s orders to continue.)
These chapters provide insight into
social-influence processes that can
apply to cults. Such processes
provide an alternative and perhaps
more parsimonious explanation than
the more complicated theories some
cult experts have presented that
focus on individual pathology
induced by cults, such as the use of
hypnotic and other mind-control
techniques that allegedly result in
dissociative disorders believed to
be common among ex-cultists (Hassan,
2000; Lalich & Tobias, 2006). The
two views need not be mutually
exclusive, but social-influence
processes carried to an extreme may
suffice as an explanation in some if
not most cases, and may be a less
pathologizing alternative. Zimbardo
notes:
I will argue that the most dramatic
instances of directed behavior
change and “mind control” are not
the consequence of exotic forms of
influence, such as hypnosis,
psychotropic drugs, or
“brainwashing,” but rather the
systematic manipulation of the most
mundane aspects of human nature over
time in confining settings. (p. 259)
Zimbardo
challenges the criminal justice
system to consider the role
situational forces play in criminal
behavior, rather than making the
usual assumptions of individual
motivation and personality factors.
He expands upon this in chapter 14,
in his in-depth analysis of the
recent revelation of egregious
human-rights abuses, including the
torture of prisoners that occurred
at the United States military prison
in Iraq, Abu Ghraib. He also reveals
some striking parallels between the
SPE and what occurred at Abu Ghraib.
As with the participants in the SPE,
he provides evidence that the
parties involved in the Abu Ghraib
abuses were not initially “bad
apples,” and that their backgrounds
and the results of psychological
tests for individual pathology were
unremarkable.
In addition to
examining the situational forces
present at Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo puts
the system that made this possible
on trial in chapter 15. Although he
does not completely absolve the
parties directly involved of
responsibility, he takes the
position that mitigation is
warranted and that the entire chain
of command should be held
responsible. This is the section of
the book that appears to have
generated the most controversy and
criticism (Donnellan et al., 2007;
Mastroianni, 2007) for not putting
enough emphasis on individual
personality factors. Although
Zimbardo undoubtedly has placed more
emphasis on discussing situational
and systemic factors, we need to
take into account the context and
purpose of The Lucifer Effect,
which he outlined in the opening
chapter, as previously described.
The concluding
chapters discuss the more positive
side to human nature, heroism.
Zimbardo begins what will hopefully
be an ongoing dialogue we can all
engage in about how undesirable
situational forces might be
resisted. This is a very new area,
in which much less empirical
evidence exists, so at this stage
the discussion is exploratory and
tentative. Zimbardo presents “A
Ten-step Program to Resist Unwanted
Influences” (p. 451). The list is
not meant to be definitive, but,
rather, a way to begin to examine
possibilities of how such influences
might be resisted. The main
criticism I have of this chapter is
regarding his proposal for a
“reverse-Milgram” experiment to
induce people to engage in acts of
altruism:
Our goal is to create a setting in
which people will comply with
demands that intensify over time
to do good. The participants
would be guided gradually to behave
in ever-more-altruistic ways, slowly
but surely moving further than they
could have imagined toward
ever-more-positive, prosocial
actions. Instead of the paradigm
arranged to facilitate a slow
descent into evil, we could
substitute a paradigm for slow
assent into goodness. (pp. 448-449)
What
immediately came to mind when I read
this passage was that this is
precisely what people involved in
cults are doing. Most people in
cults sincerely believe that they
are helping people; and even when
they are aware that they are
manipulating people, they maintain
that the ends justify the means, and
that they are doing it for a good
purpose. I have no doubt that if
most people involved in cults were
shown this statement, they would
readily agree that this is what they
are doing. The heavenly deception of
the Unification Church (Hassan,
1990) is a prime example of this.
While to his credit Zimbardo
qualifies this as “doing good
without any supporting ideology” (p.
449), what might be considered
ideology could be a highly
subjective matter. It is doubtful
that people who are in cults would
describe what they are promoting as
ideology-based because, from their
perspective, they are simply telling
the “Truth”. The question arises of
who would get the privilege of
defining what constitutes doing
good, and that is what makes me
uncomfortable with this proposition.
Anyone who has studied cults can
provide examples of members who,
while sincerely believing they are
acting altruistically and doing
good, have sacrificed themselves and
their families in ways that in
retrospect they decided were not
helpful.
Zimbardo
concludes The Lucifer Effect
by presenting real-life examples of
individuals who have been able to
resist the forces of social
influence and become heroes. One
example he gives is Deborah Layton’s
courageous actions in speaking out
about the People’s Temple. Further
study of people who have managed to
resist the forces of undesirable
social influence would undoubtedly
make a valuable contribution and
perhaps provide us with insights
into how we all might be better
equipped to resist such influence,
an important topic for future
research.
On the whole,
The Lucifer Effect is a book
that is well worth the read and
ought to be on the bookshelf of
every professional who studies or
deals with people involved in cultic
groups, as an excellent resource for
challenging the tendency most of us
have as human beings to minimize the
power of the situation. There are
times that even we as cult experts
need to be reminded of this.
References
Donnellan, M. B.;
Fraley, R. C.; & Kreuger, R. F.
(2007, June/July). Not so
situational. Observer, 20(6),
5.
Hassan, S.
(1990). Combatting cult mind
control, 2nd Edition.
Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Hassan, S.
(2000). Releasing the Bonds:
Empowering people to think for
themselves. Danbury, CT: Freedom
of Mind Press.
Lalich, J. &
Tobias, M. (2006). Take back your
life: Recovering from cults and
abusive relationships. Berkeley,
CA: Baytree Publishing.
Mastroianni,
G. R. (2007). Zimbardo’s Apple.
Analysis of social issues and public
policy, 7, 251-254.
Singer, M. T.
& Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our
midst: The hidden menace in our
everyday lives. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Zimbardo
(2007, September). Person X
Situation X System Dynamics.
Observer, 20(8), 6. An extended
version of this response is
available at http://www.lucifereffect.com
|
