The human mind often underestimates the power of situational influences on behavior. Princeton philosopher Gilbert Harman argues that the famous Milgram Experiment exposes a fundamental error in our thinking—we wrongly attribute actions to inherent character traits rather than situational pressures, also known as the fundamental attribution error. This article will shift your understanding of how our cognitive tendencies shapes our perceptions and will highlight a complex web of factors that shape our actions.
First lets get into a little history and science:
The Milgram Experiment
The groundbreaking Milgram experiment, conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, investigated obedience to authority. Stanley Milgram believed that certain character traits would dictate behavior in the face of authority. The assumption was that individuals with stronger moral character, integrity, and empathy would resist orders to inflict harm on others. During the experiment, participants were led to believe that they were assisting in an completely unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a “learner”. These sham or fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.
The study revealed the extent to which people are willing to follow authority figure even when it involves harming others. Unexpectedly all of the subjects fully obeyed the instructions of going up to 300 volts and 65% going up to the full 450 volts (fatal electric shocks).
Various conclusions came about from this work but Gilbert Harman was part of the early few that have addressed it pertaining to our social views of character traits
You are probably now wondering what this has to do with character traits. It is great you ask I will get into that now
Gilbert Harman cites the Milgram experiment in his published work: The Nonexistence of Character Traits
”The Milgram Experiment does not by itself challenge the assumption that subjects of the experiment have robust character traits, it does illustrate the tendency of observers to infer wrongly that actions are due to distinctive robust character traits rather than to aspects of the situation. In other words, it illustrates the way in which observers are subject to a fundamental attribution error”
(Harman, 2004)
The experiment highlights a tendency for observers (people who are judging others’ actions) to make incorrect inferences. Specifically, observers are prone to attribute a person’s actions to their character traits rather than considering the situational factors that might be influencing their behavior.
Fundamental Attribution Error: This is the tendency to overemphasize personal characteristics and ignore situational factors when judging others’ behavior. For instance, if someone cuts you off in traffic, you might think they are a bad driver or an aggressive person, ignoring the possibility that they might be rushing to an emergency. This bias can lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication, as it doesn’t take into account external factors that influence behavior.
Harman is arguing that the Milgram Experiment illustrates this fundamental attribution error. Observers might wrongly conclude that participants’ willingness to administer shocks was due to their personal characteristics (e.g., they are cruel or obedient) rather than understanding that the situational pressure (the authority of the experimenter) played a crucial role in this occurrence. This supports the idea that a person acting compassionately or viciously can be induced by the addition of external pressure and does not support the notion that these are dispositional causes.
Harman suggests that the focus on dispositional factors causes people to significantly undermine the role that situational factors plays in a persons behaviors.
Distributive Causality
Dr. Robert Sapolsky Stanford Neuroscientist introduces the concept of Distributive Causality, emphasizing that our actions are influenced by a vast network of factors over time. This means that our behavior cannot be traced back to a single cause, but rather to a complex web of influences.
Dr. Sapolsky highlights the example of a person’s behavior being shaped by their neuron activity, hormone levels, past experiences, cultural background, and even evolutionary history, which all ultimately play a part in someone’s day to day decision-making.
Another interesting example Dr. Sapolsky introduced is how low blood glucose affects the frontal cortex in a manner that increases impulsivity. This illustrates just how much external factors goes into someone’s actions. As an observer it is implausible to consider all of these external factors when understanding someone’s behavior. Distributed causality involves considering numerous subtle influences that contribute to our actions, making it challenging to pinpoint a single cause.
As opposed to concentrated causality, understanding distributive causality should change how we view blame and punishment. Dr. Sapolsky advocates for a more compassionate approach, focusing on understanding and mitigating the root causes of harmful behavior rather than simple punitive measures.
What Next?
Understanding that our behavior is influenced by a complex web of factors can lead to meaningful changes in our personal interactions and social relationships. Here are some key areas where this insight can be applied:
- Empathy and Compassion: Recognizing the situational factors affecting others’ behavior can help us respond with empathy rather than judgment. This shift can improve our relationships and foster a more supportive community.
- Conflict Resolution: In personal disputes, considering the external pressures on each person can lead to more effective and compassionate solutions. Understanding the root causes of behavior helps in addressing the underlying issues rather than just the symptoms.
- Support Networks: We can create stronger support networks by acknowledging the various factors that influence our friends’ and family members’ actions. Offering help that addresses these diverse influences can lead to more meaningful support.
- Effective Communication: By understanding that people’s behavior is shaped by a multitude of factors, we can communicate more effectively. This means listening actively and considering the context behind someone’s actions or words, leading to better mutual understanding.
- Personal Growth: Reflecting on how situational factors influence our own behavior can lead to personal growth. By recognizing these influences, we can make more informed decisions and develop healthier habits.
By applying these insights to our everyday interactions, we can build a more understanding and compassionate society. This perspective shift from judging character traits to understanding situational influences can transform how we relate to and support each other.