How is This Possible? The Incidence of Childhood Trauma Examined in Light of the Stanford and Milgram Experiments

Why is childhood trauma so common? Two famous sociology experiments from long ago are terrifyingly informative.

Before going into detail, the basic answer is similar to the one given to me by an Iraq war contractor who was a client some years ago, regarding a child who had been executed by "one of our guys" (an American contractor) for no apparent reason. He told me simply, "S**t like that happens over there." America had "withdrawn," when in reality private armies of contractors were operating without much oversight, and the media had moved on.

When conditions are conducive, as above, some individuals too cowardly to act out their sadistic fantasies in the open will behave in a pathological manner. And it's more people than you would think. That explains why most of my clients were abused at a very dependent age, 3-5, in their own home.

I call it "the darkness catalyst."

Sometimes permission to become a monster is given directly, as in these experiments, and sometimes it is indirectly given, by willful ignorance, when the public--and especially therapists--simply do not want to ask relevant questions about abuse. "Things like that don't happen."

The Stanford and Milgram experiments demonstrate what some people are capable of, when given the opportunity to operate out of pure sadism. In these cases, the "darkness" was the authorization of immoral behavior by authority figures. These studies demonstrate how easily we can abandon our moral principles when swayed by those in power. The findings challenge our perception of ethical behavior and personal responsibility while highlighting the complexities of human nature.

Background of the Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment at Stanford University to examine the psychological effects of power dynamics. He recruited 24 healthy male college students and assigned them roles as guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The results were shocking. Within just a few days, some guards began exhibiting extreme authoritarian behaviors, including psychological abuse and intimidation.

The setup mimicked real prison conditions, emphasizing the impact of environment on behavior. Zimbardo found that situational factors could dramatically change how individuals act. For instance, half of the participants assigned to the guard role displayed abusive behaviors, demonstrating that ordinary people can engage in cruelty when given power.

The Ethical Paradox

While the findings from the Stanford Prison Experiment have significantly contributed to our understanding of authority, they raise profound ethical concerns. The study quickly descended into chaos, causing psychological harm to participants. Zimbardo's oversight has faced criticism, as the experiment was terminated after only six days instead of the intended two weeks. Participants reported emotional breakdowns and severe distress.

This raises crucial questions: To what extent should researchers go to pursue knowledge about human behavior? The ethical implications of such experiments continue to spark debates in psychological research today. According to a survey by the American Psychological Association, over 80% of psychologists advocate for clearer ethical guidelines to protect participants' well-being during studies.

The Milgram Experiment: Authority and Obedience

Shortly after the Stanford findings, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a somewhat more disturbing experiment in the early 1960s. The goal was to evaluate how far individuals would go in obeying authority, even when those commands were morally questionable. Participants believed they were administering increasingly severe electric shocks to a 'learner' who was actually an actor.

The results were startling. Around 65% of participants continued to administer shocks even when they believed the learner was in severe distress. This highlighted a disturbing trend: many individuals will follow authority figures' instructions despite their moral reservations. Milgram's research reveals our psychological susceptibility to authority, indicating that societal norms can often pressure us to prioritize obedience over personal ethics.

The Role of Dehumanization

A central theme in both experiments is dehumanization, which affects both victims and perpetrators. In the Stanford study, guards began perceiving prisoners as less than human, which facilitated their abusive actions. Similarly, in Milgram's experiment, participants distanced themselves from the consequences of their actions, often blaming the authority figure for their decisions.

Dehumanization is a critical aspect of understanding authoritarianism in broader contexts—such as war and systemic violence. It raises essential questions about accountability and morality in both individual actions and societal frameworks. For instance, studies show that dehumanizing language can increase support for aggressive policies, reinforcing the need to question the language and attitudes promoted by authority figures.

Implications for Modern Society

The insights gleaned from Zimbardo and Milgram's experiments are more pertinent today than ever. In an age of misinformation and authoritarian leaders who can easily reshape public opinion, understanding the psychology of obedience becomes crucial. The studies act as warnings about the dangers of conformity in unjust systems.

Today, these principles apply to various situations—from workplace hierarchies to social movements. Knowledge of power dynamics allows individuals to resist unjust authority, promoting moral action over blind obedience. In fact, organizations that foster open communication and valuing dissent are often more ethical and innovative.

The Importance of Individual Responsibility

A key lesson from the Stanford and Milgram studies is the importance of personal responsibility. While authority figures hold significant sway, individuals must critically evaluate their own actions and decisions, especially when faced with pressure.

Encouraging social awareness and environments that value questioning authority can lead to more ethical behaviors. Open discussions about moral obligations empower individuals to oppose unjust directives. By emphasizing personal integrity and promoting ethical standards, we can cultivate a healthier society.

Final Thoughts

In the case of childhood traumatization, the darkness catalyst is the tacit permission of societal authority. Thi is perhaps an even greater evil--in these experiments, direct permission was openly given for a victim to be dehumanized and abused. But child abuse happens in the darkness, and the darkness is formed by our own shadows when we turn the other way. Don't be naïve.