Zimbardo Experiment

Zimbardo Experiment

In the history of psychology, the Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the famous psychological studies on human response to captivity. The dramatic and horrifying results of the experiment bring closer the true nature of humanity and the psychology of evil. Ideally, the initial purpose of the research was to understand captivity, but the result of the study has been used to demonstrate the power of an abusive situation and its ability to influence people to do evil. The results of the experiment also showed that virtually anybody who was put in a position of power over others could turn around and act in a tyrannical and abusive way. 

Why did the prison guards in the Zimbardo experiment turn overtly authoritarian?

On August 17, 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment started. Two groups of people were assigned to play the role of the guards with sticks and sunglasses (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). The other group was assigned to play the prisoner and was to be arrested by the Palo Alto police department, forced to wear prison garbs, chains, and transported to the basement of Stanford psychology department. Unfortunately, the experiment did not turn out as expected as several guards became more sadistic forcing the experience to be halted. The guards started humiliating and psychologically abusing the prisoners as the prisoners became submissive and depersonalized with little protest. The behavior of the guards turned authoritarian, raising the obvious question, what could have triggered this reaction? Perhaps, one of the best analogies to explain the behavior of the guards is Milgram’s obedience study. Ideally, according to Milgram (2009), if encouraged by a figure in authority, ordinary people could go to potentially painful and lethal levels with their fellow-citizens. The willingness of humans to obey orders to extreme levels is a fatal flaw that nature has intrinsically placed in people. The study has also been supported by several other tests such as the test by Jerry M burger, the Santa Clara University psychologist, and ABC News. Similarly, in 2005, a research team from Eindhoven University of Technology produced a study akin to Milgram’s obedience test but using robots. The conclusion was the same; human beings are cruel and beastly.

Why do you believe the men who took the role of prisoners became emotionally imbalanced?

While the guards were cruel and tyrannical, some of the prisoners became emotionally imbalanced during the exercise. In fact, as Haney et al. note, one prisoner broke down, began to cry, and would not calm down even after having his chain and cap removed. The psychologists had to bring him to reality by identifying him with his name and explaining that he was only a participant in a mock study.  In an instant, the man calmed down and agreed to leave the prison. Perhaps, the best explanation behind this emotional instability was that people readily conform to the social roles they are assigned to play. Ideally, it is possible for prisoners to feel frustrated, experience emotional, and spiritual starvation, which may have been one of the things that triggered emotional imbalance among the prisoners (Davis, 1991). The oppressive atmosphere is likely to turn insufferable at times leaving prisoners with no correspondence except their emotions. 

Changes to Prevent the Occurrences from happening

Ideally, the guards in the mock experiment did not adhere to any rules on ways and limits they would go with the prisoners. Perhaps, this was one of the reasons, the guards kept on pushing their cruelty towards detainees. The best approach towards this would have design rules in advance about the expected limit that the guards should go when handling prisoners. Additionally, evidence shows that prisoners did not consent when the ‘arrests’ were made. Participants were also not protected psychologically from incidents of humiliation and distress. Ultimately, this should have been considered since the prisoners were only taking part in a mock experiment. 

References

Davis, B. J. (1991). Communist councilman from Harlem: Autobiographical notes written in a Federal penitentiary. New York: International Publishers.

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison. International Joyrnal of Criminology and penology, 1, 69-97.Milgram, S. (2009). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: HarperCollins Publishers