Psychology can help us decipher the evil that men do

The image of wild-eyed, axe-wielding psychopaths is not always accurate, writes Justin Thomas

The findings from experimental psychology suggest that on some level, most of us are capable of inflicting harm on innocent victims, and a key factor in this seems to be a kind of unquestioning obedieShow more

On July 22, 1209, Arnaud Amalric, a Cistercian Abbot, sanctioned the killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

This was the first act of the Albigensian crusade, an attempt to rid the French provinces of heresy. When faced with the problem of differentiating heretics from Catholics in the town of Béziers, Abbot Amalric is reported to have said: “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”, which translates to: “Kill them all. For the Lord knows his own.”

Such an indiscriminate and disproportionate response can only be described as evil. Some might even call it psychopathic. But what are the psychological forces behind such brazenly callous actions? From the mass kidnapping of schoolgirls in Nigeria to the seemingly genocidal bombardment of innocent unarmed civilians in Gaza, what makes humans so good at being bad?

The findings from experimental psychology suggest that on some level, most of us are capable of inflicting harm on innocent victims, and a key factor in this seems to be a kind of unquestioning obedience to authority. The now famous obedience experiments conducted by Professor Stanley Milgram in the 1960s found that most people would obey an authority figure who instructed them to administer what they believed to be extremely painful electric shocks to a remote victim.

After the experiment – as is also often the case at war crimes tribunals – many of the participants comforted themselves with the classic mantra of absolution: “I was just following orders.”

Ultimately, Milgram concluded this: “Often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.”

This idea is echoed by another giant of social psychology, Professor Philip Zimbardo. In his book The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo argues that we are often seduced into performing cruel and immoral acts by situational factors.

For Zimbardo it is the systems within which we live and work that can occasionally have a corrupting influence, creating situations that are conducive to acts of cruelty. Zimbardo was an expert witness at the trial of several of the US soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

This highlighting of systemic and situational contributions is not to excuse or exonerate those guilty of immoral or illegal actions. However, if we hope to reduce, prevent and protect ourselves from future acts of evil, then this is almost certainly where our efforts must be focused.

There are, of course, some people for whom performing cruel and immoral acts comes easy – and some may even enjoy it. The classic “psychopath”, for instance, has been characterised as lacking empathy, guilt or a moral conscience.

But Hollywood stereotypes of wild-eyed, axe-wielding psychopaths aside, psychologists have discovered a group of people who routinely cheat, charm and manipulate to get what they want. These seemingly amoral individuals display characteristics reminiscent of cold blooded psychopaths, but without any of the violent criminality.

They tend to be high functioning individuals, more given to legal forms of evil than violent impulsivity. They have been called the “successfully sinister”, an allusion to the lofty status they often enjoy thanks to their subtle blend of charm, dishonesty and calculated ruthlessness.

Psychologists Paul Babiak and Robert Hare describe in their book, Snakes in Suits, these “corporate psychopaths” as individuals who flourish in fast-paced, dynamic organisational settings. Always striving for leadership positions, these well-dressed and often charming individuals can be ruthless in the extreme, exploiting organisational weaknesses, and promoting interpersonal discord without a second thought, if it will help further their own ends.

What if one of these high-functioning psychopaths made it all the way to the top and became the leader of a nation? Would we then see the development of systems that facilitate cruelty on a massive scale?

Unfortunately, psychopath-spotting is notoriously difficult and not particularly useful. Understanding the situational factors implicated in acts of cruelty, however, is far more helpful. Such an understanding is vital to promoting peaceful societies and sustaining them.

Justin Thomas is an associate professor of psychology at Zayed University and author of Psychological Well- Being in the Gulf States

On Twitter: @jaytee156