The Complexity of Psychology’s Surprising Findings

Source: JerzyGorecki/Pixabay

Dr. Glenn Geher recently wrote a Psychology Today post titled, “10 Surprising Psychology Research Findings” (June 14, 2021). It is the latest rendition of a popular topic—what can social science tell us that we didn’t already suspect on our own. Similar articles in recent years have been titled “10 of the Most Surprising Findings,” “21 Mind-Blowing Psychology Findings,” and “Experiments That Will Surprise You.”

Squeezing 10 surprising findings into 900 words is not easy and represents a strength of translational psychology when done well. That strength is to quickly reach a broad audience with interesting, accessible, and usable messages that are based on science and can illustrate the importance of science. As stated by Geher, “behavioral science regularly teaches us something new,” and he selected an interesting and varied set of results to share.

I provide here a few notes to clarify or complicate some of the items in Dr. Geher’s list. Many cognitive and interpersonal biases are driven by the brain’s desire for simplicity. When a popular press piece provides a simple bottom-line message, it might inadvertently feed some of those biases as most readers comfortably adopt it. Learning the fuller story can sometimes be crucial to avoid overgeneralizing or misapplying the results.

Milgram’s Shock Studies

Geher wrote that people are “easily capable of killing” an innocent person under the Milgram-study circumstances, specifically “simply because an authority figure requested that they do so.”

Milgram’s famous electric-shock studies often make the cut for a top list of surprising findings. In the original study, about two thirds of participants obeyed the experimenter in (what they thought was) seriously harming if not killing someone by electrically shocking them. But various evidence suggests that the lethal behavior did not really occur “easily” and did not occur “simply” because of an authority request (although I acknowledge subjectivity in those labels).

The lethal behavior only happened after participants delivered small shocks that grew in intensity little by little (not that this detail excuses the behavior). Many participants hesitated at some point or showed anxiety and even tears as they proceeded, but the experimenter did not easily let the participants quit even if they said they wanted to. Recently discovered records showed that the experimenter sometimes delivered a barrage of pressuring tactics that went well beyond the originally claimed handful of verbal prompts, and there is even evidence that participants who most obeyed may not have believed they were really hurting someone (Perry, 2013).

Yes, unfortunately, many of us appear capable of harmful behavior to at least some degree under the right circumstances (though not all of us). In particular, beware blindly following orders and going along with a crowd. But in the case of Milgram’s research, it was usually a gradual, stressful process that sometimes required a lot of unethical badgering from the authority figure.

Universally Recognized Emotions?

Source: AbsolutVision/Pixabay

Geher wrote that “the way that people express and understand emotional facial expressions varies almost zero percent across all human groups that have ever been studied (Ekman & Friesen, 1986).”

Importantly, Geher noted less than 100 percent consistency. Indeed, even Ekman in those early days acknowledged that some emotions were displayed differently from culture to culture. In other words, we cannot read emotions from faces with 100 percent accuracy. Different people feeling the same emotion might each express it differently in their faces, and the same face can reflect different emotions across people.

But since the 1986 reference, the accuracy rates have dropped even further as research methods have improved. A leading nonverbal-communication researcher, José-Miguel Fernández-Dols (2013), wrote that Ekman’s original assertions “are actually grounded on problematic empirical evidence.” In 2000, the Toronto Star put it well in writing that “many researchers are now occupying the middle ground, agreeing that expressions are somehow connected to the emotions being felt, but at the same time admitting that the connection isn’t as tight as Ekman has argued.” In general, we should be careful in thinking we can read an emotion from someone’s face independent of context or talking to them (Stalder, 2018).

Outgroup Homogeneity Bias

Geher wrote that when we look at people in a group other than our own, “we literally are unable to see variability among them; we literally tend to see them as ‘all the same.’”

I’ve used the “all the same” phrase myself when quickly defining this bias. Most of us do oversimplify members of the outgroup, whether the groups are defined by race, religion, or even college major. The research articles usually state things like how we see “outgroup members as more alike than ingroup members” or how we see outgroup members as more similar to each other than they really are.

Psychology Essential Reads

The Time Cure: Taking Our Leave

Is a Texas Bitcoin Miner Making People Sick?

But these are comparative statements that don’t necessarily mean we see zero variability. Based on the typical measures used, it seems like most of us do see some variability in those other people, just not as much as exists. Either way, the outgroup homogeneity bias does still contribute to intergroup prejudice and racism.

The Cause of Evil

Geher wrote that “evil behavior is much more the result of situational factors than dispositional factors.”

What we know for sure is that most people underestimate situational causes and overly focus on the dispositions of the evildoers, but this does not necessarily mean that situational factors outweigh dispositions. It just means that whatever percent responsibility lies within the situation, most people underestimate it (referred to as the fundamental attribution error; Stalder, 2018).

Source: Goumbik/Pixabay

A boss’s bullying or discriminating behavior, for example, could be caused by 50 percent situation and 50 percent dispositions, but many victimized employees might think it’s more like 110 percent dispositions. If someone has mistreated you, shame on them. If you called them an “evil jerk” in the heat of the moment, you might take some comfort from my point, that there’s something real to your perception, though not 110 percent. But try to acknowledge some role for the situation as well.

In some cases, social psychology has gone out on a limb to say yes, situation beats disposition, such as in Milgram’s obedience studies (Stalder 2018). But I don’t think the field as a whole has been ready to commit to a relative weight for situational versus dispositional causes behind real-life evil. And some well-known social psychologists have conveyed that the main causes are dispositions (e.g., Haidt, 2006).

I suspect the spirit of Geher’s message is that most of us should pay more attention to situational factors. I would agree. To do so can decrease interpersonal aggression, racism, and other intergroup hostilities (Stalder, 2018).

In Sum

It can be challenging to convey psychology findings succinctly when there are complexities in the research, but the bottom lines can indeed be interesting and surprising. Among Geher’s main points that bear repeating, we tend use a broad brush in labeling those other people outside our own group. And yes, good people can sometimes engage in evil behavior because of situational factors (not that evil can ever be excused).