Friday, November 18, 2016

Are Polite People More Violent and Destructive?

Kenneth Worthy Ph.D.
June 23, 2014

In a previous post I discussed Stanley Milgram’s famous obedience experiments and what they say about the conditions that lead people to make destructive, harmful choices. It turns out they’re the same conditions that most of us experience in everyday life when it comes to making choices more or less damaging to the environment—and they prompt us to take the more destructive path.

Now a new study using a variation of Milgram’s experiments shows that people with more agreeable, conscientious personalities are more likely to make harmful choices.1 In these new obedience experiments, people with more social graces were the ones who complied with the experimenter’s wishes and delivered electric shocks they believed could harm an innocent person. By contrast, people with more contrarian, less agreeable personalities were more likely to refuse to hurt other people when told to do so.


The experimenters dug deeper to find out what other personality traits and political characteristics might help identify the people who would choose the more benign, caring path when put under social pressure to conform with harmful behavior. It turns out that people holding left-wing political views were less willing to comply with demands to inflict suffering. A third group was also more likely to go against the grain and refuse destructive orders—women who had previously participated in rebellious political activism such as strikes or occupying a factory.

If we are to bequeath a healthier planet to future generations, we’re going to have to break out of the routine behaviors set up by our contemporary economy and culture—the destructive patterns and complacency that have led to rampant consumption, political inertia, and their consequences—global climate chaos, vast numbers of species going extinct, and poisoned landscapes and seascapes.

But every day, most of us comply with social norms by driving, eating meat, or buying products like shampoos with palm oil—contributing to deforestation and the needless death of orangutans and many other creatures. Often, we do these things in full knowledge of the harms to animals and the environment.

To change these patterns, we need more contrarians willing to set examples by going against societal norms. And we need to give them some leeway and respect.

These will be the people who refuse to buy a car and instead insist on using public transit and car-sharing programs, even as friends complain about the inconvenience. These will be the people telling friends and family to expect fewer, more customized holiday gifts to cut back on the material excesses of the season. They’ll be the people taking more local vacations and encouraging friends to do the same. They’ll be the ones advocating, at the risk of seeming impolite, for the suffering and environmental devastation associated with factory-farmed meat. They’ll rub some people the wrong way and they may make some enemies, but they’ll be at the forefront of the move toward a more just and less degraded world.

To be clear, many such people can be described as conscientious, and their willingness to swim upstream and cause a little friction is a boon to a society much in need of positive change.

The irony is that a personality disposition normally seen as antisocial—disagreeableness—may actually be linked to “prosocial” behavior. This connection seems to arise from a willingness to sacrifice one’s popularity a bit to act in a moral and just way toward other people, animals, or the environment at large. Popularity, in the end, may be more a sign of social graces and perhaps a desire to fit in than any kind of moral superiority.

Of course, none of this excuses rudeness that arises out of arrogance or lack of consideration for others. And the planet certainly needs agreeable people too to join the cause of protecting the planet and moving toward more sustainable lifestyles. But can we give a break to others who might ruffle some feathers while trying to do the right thing?


What Studies of Groups Can’t Tell About Your Eco-choices

Kenneth Worthy Ph.D.
July 6, 2014


In this post, I’d like to talk a bit more about interpreting such results, because I think that lay people and social scientists understand them quite differently. A question pops up in people’s minds, I’ve noticed, when they hear of such findings:

I’m a fairly agreeable person, so does that mean I’m more destructive? No, that’s not what this study says. Psychological findings such as these do not talk about the behaviors of any particular person. They talk about entire groups of people with shared qualities such as agreeableness. And different people in the group have other characteristics, some of which are not shared with others in the group—they’re all unique individuals. Personality traits have complex relationships with behavior, and that of agreeableness with destructiveness is no exception. The point of doing such studies is to begin to identify and explore that relationship. In fact most findings about groups of people with shared traits can never report anything close to an absolute connection between that trait and a particular behavior: many people who are agreeable will not be more destructive than the average person.

When psychologists say, for instance, that agreeable people are more willing to inflict harm, they’re referring to the individual predilections of an entire group seen collectively, as statistically measurable when compared to the wider population, not what one individual person will do in a particular circumstance.

People are not statistics! But that doesn’t mean that statistics are irrelevant when studying behavior. The study showed that on the whole more agreeable and conscientious people were more willing to inflict harm, so we should explore the relationship between agreeableness and destruction further.


One of the keys to getting out of our society’s destructive pattern is to be more tolerant of people going against the grain—people who are less agreeable! Give them more respect, space, and opportunity to do their thing because they may be forging a path to a “new normal” that’s healthier for people and the environment both. But just as not all agreeable people are more destructive, not all disagreeable people are at the forefront of the environmental revolution (nor are all people at the forefront of the environmental revolution disagreeable—a new path takes a lot of working together). The key is to recognize when being contrary to social norms (and perhaps social etiquette) is done in the service of the planet.

No comments:

Post a Comment