Why do ordinary people commit acts of cruelty? Is it a matter of character, context, or command? Over the past century, psychologists have attempted to answer this question by placing individuals in situations that test their capacity for empathy, morality, and violence. The results are chilling, not because they reveal monstrous individuals, but because they expose the fragile boundaries of human decency under pressure.
This article explores key psychological experiments that looked into individual behavior and cruelty—each offering unsettling but necessary truths about obedience, authority, and moral disintegration.
1. The Milgram Obedience Experiments (1961)
Cruelty through Compliance
One of the most iconic and disturbing investigations into individual cruelty was conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale University. Participants were told they were part of a study on learning and memory. They were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a “learner” every time the person gave a wrong answer. In reality, the learner was an actor, and the shocks were fake. But the participant didn’t know that.
What shocked the world was how far people were willing to go. Over 65% of participants administered what they believed to be potentially lethal shocks—simply because a man in a lab coat told them to.
Milgram’s conclusion was unsettling: people are not monsters, but they are frighteningly obedient. When placed in a structured environment and asked to follow orders, many will choose compliance over conscience—even when it means harming another human being.
2. The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Cruelty by Role Adoption
Though it involved groups, at its heart the Stanford Prison Experiment was also about how individuals assume roles and what that does to their moral compass. Participants were randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison. Within days, those playing guards began acting with disturbing authoritarianism and cruelty—harassing, humiliating, and psychologically torturing the “prisoners.”
While it’s often interpreted as proof that “power corrupts,” later analysis reveals that these individuals were actively encouraged by the experiment’s leader, Philip Zimbardo, to take on dominant, even tyrannical roles. What the study may more accurately show is how fragile personal morality can become when submerged in role-play and institutional expectation.
3. The Monster Study (1939)
Cruelty in the Name of Science
In a lesser-known but equally haunting experiment, speech pathologist Wendell Johnson and his team set out to study stuttering in children. At an Iowa orphanage, they took a group of orphans and labeled half as stutterers—even though they were not. These children were told their speech was poor, criticized harshly, and subjected to ridicule.
The results? Some of the children developed long-term speech problems and severe emotional trauma. The study was later condemned for the emotional cruelty inflicted on innocent children, and it remains a stark reminder of how science can become a mask for unethical treatment.
4. The Bystander Effect (1968)
Cruelty by Inaction
John Darley and Bibb Latané’s research wasn’t about overt cruelty, but about the kind of cruelty that stems from inaction. After the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese, reportedly witnessed by numerous people who did nothing, the researchers tested how likely individuals were to help in an emergency depending on how many others were present.
The more people present, the less likely any one person was to help.
This taught us a crucial truth: cruelty is not always active. Sometimes it is the failure to act, to speak, or to intervenethat does the most damage. It reflects the subtle, silent forms of cruelty we all must take responsibility for.
5. Albert Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment (1961)
Learning Cruelty through Observation
Bandura’s famous experiment showed children a video of adults beating up a large inflatable “Bobo doll.” When the children were later left alone with the doll, those who saw the aggressive behavior were significantly more likely to imitate it—hitting, kicking, even using weapons.
What’s important here is that cruelty can be learned, absorbed through watching others—especially authority figures or role models. This reinforces the critical role of environment, modeling, and media in shaping the behaviors and boundaries of developing individuals.
6. Deindividuation and the Anonymity Factor
Cruelty When No One’s Watching
In a lesser-known series of experiments, researchers like Philip Zimbardo and Albert Bandura examined how anonymity impacts behavior. Participants who were made anonymous—through masks, uniforms, or being placed in a crowd—were more likely to act aggressively or unethically.
These findings suggest that when we are stripped of personal identity and accountability, we become more capable of acting cruelly, whether through verbal abuse, cyberbullying, or physical violence. This helps explain everything from riot behavior to online trolling.
Why Do These Experiments Matter?
They matter because they remind us of an uncomfortable truth: cruelty is not reserved for “bad people.” It lives in the grey areas of social influence, obedience, anonymity, and emotional disconnection. These studies, despite their ethical controversies, hold a mirror to our capacity for harm—not to condemn us, but to teach us.
When individuals harm others in real life—whether in domestic relationships, schools, workplaces, or war zones—it’s rarely because they wake up wanting to be cruel. Often, it is because they feel pressured, isolated, powerless, or justified by a system that subtly rewards their behavior.
Final Reflections: How Do We Break the Pattern?
The antidote to cruelty is not just kindness, but consciousness. We must become aware of the forces that shape our choices—authority, conformity, fear, and disconnection—and actively question them. We must cultivate empathy not as an instinct, but as a practice. We must teach responsibility, not just rules. And perhaps most importantly, we must hold space for critical conversations about power and pain—conversations that these experiments, for all their flaws, began.
Understanding cruelty is not about losing hope in humanity. It’s about protecting our humanity—one choice, one boundary, and one courageous act at a time.
— Linda C J Turner
Trauma Therapist | Neuroscience & Emotional Intelligence Practitioner | Advocate for Women’s Empowerment
