Book SummaryThe Lucifer Effect, by Philip Zimbardo

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of The Lucifer Effect

The world is full of evil—every day, people inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on one another. Our history, too, is bloody: We don’t need to look far into the past to find genocides, murderous wars of conquest, and systematic torture. It’s difficult to imagine what kind of individual could willingly participate in evil like this. Surely, no one we know could ever murder or torture an innocent person, right?

The Lucifer Effect was written by Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist famous for running the notorious 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, in which undergraduate students acted as prisoners and guards in a mock prison and quickly...

The Lucifer Effect Summary The Nature of Human Evil: Two Opposing Theories

Zimbardo defines evil as any intentional harm done to innocent people. Most people assume that if someone does something truly evil—on the level of murder, torture, or rape—there must be something uniquely twisted about them. They’re an “evil person,” and it would be difficult or impossible to rehabilitate them. (We’ll call this the “theory of fixed morals,” as it implies that each individual’s moral compass is relatively fixed and slow or impossible to change.)

Zimbardo offers an opposing theory: He argues that any one of us could commit the worst evil imaginable if we found ourselves in the wrong situation. (We’ll call this the “theory of circumstantial morals” because it implies that each individual’s moral compass can change rapidly in response to new circumstances.)

In other words, Zimbardo argues that evildoers are ordinary people who find themselves in situations that cause them to disengage their normal sense of morality. Interviews have confirmed that many people who do great evil—terrorists, torturers, those who facilitate genocide—are otherwise psychologically healthy and rational. They’re just like any of us.

**The Knobe Effect: Situational Biases Toward Each...

The Lucifer Effect Summary Circumstantial Variables That Can Corrupt Morality

If Zimbardo’s theory of circumstantial morals is true and the wrong situation can turn anyone evil, then what circumstances determine whether we do good or evil? In this section, we’ll discuss three main situational variables that can transform any upstanding citizen into a cold-blooded killer.

Zimbardo illustrates these circumstantial variables with a case study: his famous Stanford Prison Experiment. We’ll use this same example to help explain them.

Variable #1: Identity Cues

One type of situational variable that can cause a drastic shift in morals is the identity cue. Zimbardo explains that identity cues are aspects of the environment that we draw on when shaping our self-image and determining how to act. These can include specific locations, clothing and other props, and the expectations of others.

We typically assume that our personal identities are fixed, but to a certain degree, it’s normal to adapt our identity to specific circumstances. Zimbardo states that we all take on roles, or temporary identities, in various areas of life. For example, at work, we take on the role of “employee,” and act a certain way that we wouldn’t at home. However, in extreme cases,...

The Lucifer Effect Summary Powerful Institutions Are at Fault

If the people who do evil are largely at the mercy of circumstances outside of their control, who is ultimately to blame for the evil in the world? Zimbardo argues that we should blame the institutions in power that establish specific circumstances. In his eyes, to effectively curb evil, we have to change the systems that give rise to the situations that encourage it.

According to Zimbardo, these institutions gain power by influencing enough people to accept their ideology—a belief system centered around a highest value that must be achieved by any means necessary. These institutions attempt to perpetuate their ideology and stay in power by relentlessly pursuing their highest value, creating the circumstances conducive to great evil in the process.

For example, Zimbardo extensively criticizes the Bush administration for its role in creating the circumstances that gave rise to the American torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war at the Abu Ghraib prison. He claims that the Bush administration used the War on Terror and the ideology of “national...

The Lucifer Effect Summary How Can We Resist Circumstantial Influence?

Now that we’ve fully explained Zimbardo’s view of how circumstances and institutions contribute to human evil, we’ll conclude by discussing his tips for navigating this evil-filled world.

On the bright side, Zimbardo notes that not only does everyone have the potential to do something unspeakably evil, everyone has the potential to do something remarkably noble, too.

(Shortform note: Some point out a contradiction in Zimbardo’s argument here: If circumstances are largely responsible for whether or not you do something evil, they should also be responsible for whether or not you do something heroic. By this logic, whether or not you behave heroically is out of your control, and these “tips” won’t help.)

Follow these three tips to increase your odds of becoming a hero yourself.

Tip #1: Overcompensate When Tightening Your Morals

Zimbardo explains that most people have a self-serving bias—we understand how circumstances impact human behavior, but we assume that we’re too clever and self-aware to make the same mistakes. Overconfidence leaves us vulnerable to circumstantial influence—instead, **tighten your morals more than you feel is necessary to prevent yourself from...

Shortform Exercise: Try Out the Theory of Circumstantial Morals

Zimbardo’s theory of circumstantial morals is very different from the way most of us judge the behavior of others. See what it’s like to intentionally apply this perspective to the people in your life.

Think back to the last time you resented someone for hurting you. What circumstantial factors could have influenced them to do you harm? (For example, if one of your co-workers ate your lunch out of the break room fridge, consider that anonymity and depersonalization may be making it easier for them to steal—no one knows they took the lunch (anonymity), and since they don’t know whose lunch it is, they’re not thinking about the person who owns it (depersonalization).)

Shortform Exercise: Articulate Your Opinion of Human Morality

As a final reflection, figure out exactly what you believe about the human capacity for evil.

Before reading, how did you explain the human evil in the world? Did you believe humans to be mostly good, mostly evil, or somewhere in between? Why?