Looking at George Floyd’s death through the rearview mirror of science

The murder of George Floyd has sparked outrage and indignation throughout the United States, and in nations worldwide. Unfortunately, the story of police brutality is not new. We’ve seen this before. A Black man is murdered at the hands of the police, who are put on paid administrative leave while an “investigation” takes place, then they’re allowed to return to duty. It’s not right. It’s not just. While different ideas are tossed around about how to change the system, one thing is clear, this cycle needs to end.

As more details emerge from Floyd’s death, the more difficult it is to grasp. The latest being that two of the officers involved, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane were rookies, only on their third and fourth shifts of being police officers, respectively. News articles reporting on statements from their lawyers claim that these officers repeatedly asked Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck for over 8 minutes, if they should stop and roll Floyd over. Keung specifically expressed his concern that they couldn’t find a pulse on Floyd, and was worried he was suffering from delirium. Chauvin repeatedly shot down any concerns for Floyd and continued to restrain him.

While we continue to call on police officers, and the entire population, to be active bystanders by standing up and intervening in violence, it is important to take a step back and evaluate what may have prevented these two officers from successfully intervening. To that end, there is plenty of credible research about bystanders, obedience to authority, and power that can help us make sense of recent events. Most famously, the Stanford Prison Experiment: completed in 1973 by Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues to evaluate if the reports of brutality within American prisons were due to the callous nature of prison guards, or due to underlying systemic factors. Zimbardo created a mock prison and randomly assigned male volunteers to play the roles of either prison guard or prisoner. In an effort to keep the experiment as realistic as possible, “prisoners” were arrested at their own home, and taken to the mock prison, which was set up with barred doors and bare walls. They were strip searched, fingerprinted and given a prison uniform upon arrival. “Prison guards” were given khaki uniforms, handcuffs, sunglasses and other accessories typical of prison guards.

Within hours of the experiment starting, both participant groups assumed their roles. The guards began harassing prisoners in a brutal manner, giving them petty tasks and generally dehumanizing them. The prisoners also adapted behavior, like rule following and telling on other prisoners to the guards. Over the next few days, behaviors of both groups continued to cultivate, with the prisoners becoming more dependent and submissive, and the guards becoming increasingly aggressive.

The effect of this study on its participants was so dramatic that the 14-day study was stopped on the 6th day out of concern for the escalating hostility and aggression, along with the threat of physical or mental injury.

Putting aside the ethical issues raised by this study, the findings are relevant to understand the behaviors of the officers involved in George Floyd’s murder. First, people will conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially to fit strongly stereotyped roles, even if they’re not reflective of personal tendencies. Second, the social roles people portray contribute to and shape their behaviors and attitudes. Much like the participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment, officers Lane and Kueng quickly conformed to stereotypical police behavior.

Each of the participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment was screened beforehand, which also gives way to the conclusion that ordinary people, even those with good intentions, can transform into ruthless oppressors, under the given circumstances and in a position of power. Zimbardo and another researcher played the roles of prison superintendent and warden. When occasional disputes between prisoners and guards arose, the superintendent and warden overlooked the incidents, giving the guards the illusion of approval. If this sounds familiar it is because it fits the narrative of documented, repeated and chronic use of excessive force and violence by police against Black men and women across the U.S. without reprimand.

The Stanford Prison Experiment and other studies tell us about the conditions under which abuses of power and destructive behaviors flourish. It is up to us to use this knowledge wisely to end abusive practices and attitudes that destroy individuals, families, and communities. Looking at George Floyd’s death through the rearview mirror of science we see two rookie cops, who unsuccessfully tried to help Floyd, gave up on their attempts, not because they’re bad people, but rather because they were following orders from their superior and trying to assume their new role as police officers. Make no mistake, this doesn’t excuse their behavior, but understanding how and why this happened is crucial in order to rebuild the system and create real, lasting change.

The research to prevent violence is plentiful. We call on lawmakers, elected officials, and police chiefs to increasingly rely on this knowledge to develop policies, practices, and procedures designed to prevent violence. We call on parents, educators, and community members to be active in the conversation. Seek the knowledge, discuss it with others and connect with experts on how to end this destructive cycle.