Possible Causes for the Early Maltreatment of Inpatients

An examination of history has brought with it a record of maltreatment, misunderstandings and horror stories in the study, research and treatment of abnormal behavior. From early cultural groupings to the modern era, those with debilitating mental illnesses have been shunned and mistreated under the guise of science and research for the betterment of humankind. How could this have occurred? What are the possible causes that led to this maltreatment in the first place?

We must first examine the idea of power differentiation as it relates to human actions. Power can indeed corrupt and lead to mistreatment that is otherwise appalling; however, it is not power alone that leads to this abuse. Abuse only occurs once the subordinates of the powerful are successfully stereotyped, eventually leading to their dehumanization. Once a person or group of people is no longer viewed as human, the reasoning mind begins to make justifications for its abuses.

Maltreatment through Abuse of Power

In a society of class systems and hierarchical roles, it stands to reason that some abuses of power occur in situations of direct management. Social psychology has long found that in researching the relationship between authority and compliance among subordinates, people were willing to simply obey authority even if it meant compromising their own moral code (Zimbardo, 2007). In the infamous Stanford prison experiment, Zimbardo (2007) created a faux prison with divisible roles of prisoner and prison guard for his volunteers. The experiment resulted in a premature shutdown because even the non-physical abuse that began to occur was getting atrociously out of hand (Zimbardo, 2007). Zimbardo (2007) himself (as the prison superintendent) admitted to not being immune to the taste of power, reasoning away any concerns he had during the process. The Stanford prison experiment showed a clear vulnerability inherent in human beings when they are presented with power that “could be” wielded over others.

Is It Simply a Matter of Power?

History is wrought with examples of abuses of power. Powerful people prey on the powerless and take advantage of those less fortunate. Even in current times, we see many examples of third world countries that are plagued by corruption and greed with people warring over who gets to hold the power. Although third world countries are easy to single out, even in countries like America we can see greed and corruption in the toolbox of the powerful. Are these negative outcomes a by-product of the differences in power among people? Evidence gathered by social psychologists, sociologists, political scientists and other critical thinkers suggests that these negative outcomes are highly likely (Overbeck & Park, 2001). Research has discovered that people in positions of power are more likely to stereotype the powerless and distribute any rewards favorably towards those in their own group (Overbeck & Park, 2001). This confirms a link between power and favoritism, with favoritism able to morph into an unfair advantage or division that leads to corruption, but is power alone that direct link, or is something else involved?

The research of Overbeck and Park (2001) goes a long way to discredit the immediate link between power and stereotyping (i.e. not individuating people and, instead, lumping them into a generic shell). Through their study, Overbeck and Park (2001) established that those in high-powered roles – although they felt more powerful and more in control of situations – actually did a better job of indentifying targets (i.e. people with which they’ve dealt) than those in low-powered roles. Overbeck and Park (2001) showed that the effect that power has on social judgment is much more complex than previously acknowledge. It wasn’t until an additional cognitive load (i.e. a task requiring mental expenditure) was introduced that high-powered roles showed signs of diminished individuation (Overbeck & Park, 2001). What does this study tell us? It confirms that despite an assumed link between power and maltreatment, it isn’t power itself that is the cause.

Stereotyping and Dehumanization

If it isn’t the acquisition of power that causes abuse and maltreatment, then what is the main ingredient that allows for this behavior? Although the Overbeck and Park (2001) study showed that power itself doesn’t lead to stereotyping, it is, in fact, this stereotyping that ultimately leads to an abuse of power. When we stereotype a group of people we are removing their individuality from our immediate evaluation of them. This lack of individuation is dehumanization at its very beginning.

Dehumanization is an appalling process of removing a person or group of people from the human race through associating them with something that is other than human. For example, those who are racist against African Americans often relate the black race to apes or monkeys, placing them in a more animalistic category than that of a human being (Haslam, 2006). In our own American history, the Three-Fifths compromise made slaves basically only 3/5th of a person, categorizing them as somewhat less human. Dehumanization allows us to further separate ourselves from that which we consider different or unappealing.

If stereotyping allows us to pave the way for dehumanization, in what ways are we most likely to dehumanize? Haslam (2006) proposes two forms of dehumanization: animalistic (which moves away from human uniqueness) and mechanistic (which moves away from human nature). A person can be dehumanized as animalistic if it is decided that they lack culture, show coarseness, lack self-restraint, show irrationality or act in a childlike manner (Haslam, 2006). A person can be dehumanized as mechanistic if they show inertness, coldness, rigidity, passivity and superficiality (Haslam, 2006). Both categories of dehumanized accomplish the same thing; they remove the subject from the human race making it easier to justify maltreatment against them.

Summary and Conclusion

Power may corrupt and lead to an abuse by authority figures, but power alone isn’t the cause of such maltreatment. Simply being a person’s superior doesn’t naturally lead to their mistreatment. Authoritative power only leads to abuse when subordinates can successfully be dehumanized by first being stereotyped to remove individuality before finally assigning animalistic or mechanics characteristics to the stereotyped group, removing their humanity. If they are no longer considered human, then it is easier for the abuser to justify away their human rights.

In the historical context of abnormal psychology, patients were dehumanized in a variety of ways. In early culture, mental illness was often associated with demon possession or witchcraft setting a foundation for treating the afflicted in a subhuman way (Butcher, Mineka & Hooley, 2010). Even once superstitious thought gave way to science, mental patients were often in no better of a situation. Patients were still viewed as something less than human with their living quarters and treatment akin to the caging of an animal (Butcher, et al., 2010). I would also hypothesize that further exacerbating the poor treatment of mental patients was the pomposity and selfishness of influential people at the time. Whether politicians or socialites, people connected to those afflicted with a mental illness might not have been seeking a cure, but instead simply a place to hide away (i.e. containment rather than cure) their afflicted family member or associate out of embarrassment. With such disassociation, dehumanization and selfishness it’s easy to see how humanity’s vulnerability to power could lead to such maltreatment and abuse.

References

Butcher, J., Mineka, S. & Hooley, J. (2010). Abnormal psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264.

Overbeck, J. & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among the powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 549-565.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford experiment: A lesson in the power of situation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B.6.