There’s a psychological reason behind the fact that those in power sometimes act towards others with a sense of entitlement and disrespect. A 2003 study published in the journal Psychological Review put students into groups of three to write a short paper together. Two students were instructed to write the paper, while the other was told to evaluate the paper and determine how much each student would be paid. In the middle of their work, a researcher brought in a plate of five cookies. Although generally the last cookie was never eaten, the “boss” almost always ate the fourth cookie — and ate it sloppily, mouth open.

“When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, they are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests,” psychologist Dacher Keltner, one of the study’s leaders, wrote in an article for UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center.

A famous 1961 study by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram tested (rather alarmingly) how far people would go to obey authority figures when asked to harm others, and the intense internal conflict between personal morals and the obligation to obey authority figures.

Milgram wanted to conduct the experiment to provide insight into how Nazi war criminals could have perpetuated unspeakable acts during the Holocaust. To do so, he tested a pair of participants, one deemed the “teacher” and the other deemed the “learner.” The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner (who was supposedly sitting in another room, but in reality was not being shocked) each time they got questions wrong. Milgram instead played recordings which made it sound like the learner was in pain, and if the “teacher” subject expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter prodded him to go on. During the first experiment, 65 percent of participants administered a painful, final 450-volt shock (labeled “XXX”), although many were visibly stressed and uncomfortable about doing so.

While the study has commonly been seen as a warning of blind obedience to authority, Scientific American recently revisited it, arguing that the results were more suggestive of deep moral conflict.

“Human moral nature includes a propensity to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow kin and group members, plus an inclination to be xenophobic, cruel and evil to tribal others,” journalist Michael Shermer wrote. “The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within.”

Recently, some commenters have called Milgram’s methodology into question, and one critic noted that records of the experiment performed at Yale suggested that 60 percent of participants actually disobeyed orders to administer the highest-dosage shock.

A famous Stanford experiment from the late 1960s tested preschool children’s ability to resist the lure of instant gratification — and it yielded some powerful insights about willpower and self-discipline. In the experiment, four-year-olds were put in a room by themselves with a marshmallow on a plate in front of them, and told that they could either eat the treat now, or if they waited until the researcher returned 15 minutes later, they could have two marshmallows.

While most of the children said they’d wait, they often struggled to resist and then gave in, eating the treat before the researcher returned, TIME reports. The children who did manage to hold off for the full 15 minutes generally used avoidance tactics, like turning away or covering their eyes. The implications of the children’s behavior were significant: Those who were able to delay gratification were much less likely to be obese, or to have drug addiction or behavioral problems by the time they were teenagers, and were more successful later in life.

Research from the University of the Basque Country published in the Spanish Journal of Psychology found that despite changing attitudes towards interpersonal relationships, women feel significantly more guilt than men. This did not simply reflect higher levels of this emotion in women but a lack of it in men.

Lead author Itziar Etxebarria explained:

«Our initial hypothesis was that feelings of guilt are more intense among females, not only among adolescents but also among young and adult women, and they also show the highest scores for interpersonal sensitivity.»

The study was based on data from an equal number of male and female subjects across the age range: 156 teenagers, 96 young people and 108 adults.

Participants were asked to identify situations in which they felt most guilt. They also completed interpersonal sensitivity tests — the Davis Empathetic Concern Scale, and a questionnaire on Interpersonal Guilt, developed specifically for this research.

Researchers found that intensity of habitual guilt was significantly higher for women in all three age groups but particularly in those between 40-50 years. They also identified gender differences in interpersonal sensitivity, although the disparity was less marked in that age group. Generally, levels of interpersonal sensitivity in men (especially those aged between 25-33) was found to be «comparatively low». Researchers suggest this could have detrimental effects on relationships and social functioning, for example inability to feel empathy for others and failure to take responsibility.

In a previous study, researchers analysed two manifestations of guilt, empathy and anxiety-aggression. They found the latter type more prevalent in subjects who were governed by strict expectations of behaviour as a consequence of their upbringing.

Itziar Etxebarria said:

«It seems obvious that this component will be more intense among women, and especially in older women.»

The researchers conclude that this may explain the significant differences in intensity of habitual guilt in women aged 40-50 despite convergence with male interpersonal sensitivity scores.

Itziar Etxebarria concluded:

«Educational practices and a whole range of socialising agents must be used to reduce the trend towards anxious-aggressive guilt among women and to strengthen interpersonal sensitivity among men.»

Arguably the most famous experiment in the history of psychology, the 1971 Stanford prison study put a microscope on how social situations can affect human behavior. The researchers, led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psych building and selected 24 undergraduates (who had no criminal record and were deemed psychologically healthy) to act as prisoners and guards. Researchers then observed the prisoners (who had to stay in the cells 24 hours a day) and guards (who shared eight-hour shifts) using hidden cameras.

The experiment, which was scheduled to last for two weeks, had to be cut short after just six days due to the guards’ abusive behavior — in some cases they even inflicted psychological torture — and the extreme emotional stress and anxiety exhibited by the prisoners.

“The guards escalated their aggression against the prisoners, stripping them naked, putting bags over their heads, and then finally had them engage in increasingly humiliating sexual activities,” Zimbardo told American Scientist. “After six days I had to end it because it was out of control — I couldn’t really go to sleep at night without worrying what the guards could do to the prisoners.”

We’re told over and over again that men want sex more than women. It’s such a common societal belief, it’s been ingrained within our culture, way of thinking, and even psychological research (that has shown just that). But what if that entire belief system is wrong? What if women want sex just as much as men, but simply respond to prompts regarding casual sex very differently?

Women, unlike men, have two very real fears connected to sex — being judged by society (or their friends or family) for engaging in casual sex, and, fear of physical harm from an encounter with a stranger. Men have neither of these worries. So any study of women’s sexual behavior would have to work to take these fears into account.

Baranowksi & Hecht (2015) managed to design a study that did just that, by coming up with an elaborate cover story that helped allay these fears in women participants. Previous studies found most men but no women would take up the opportunity for casual sex with a stranger when approached on a college campus. This study, however, found something more surprising — all of the men and nearly all of the women chose to meet up for a date or sex with at least one partner. With the right set of circumstances, women’s and men’s drives for casual sex look a lot alike.