by: patricia cartwright
Zimbardo’s original research question sought to investigate the psychological effects linked with the different social roles (i.e., of a prisoner and a prison guard). Zimbardo hypothesized that immersion into a powerful social situation is primarily responsible for socially problematic behaviors that occur in prisons or context similar environments. The SPE is frequently cited as evidence of the barbaric impulses that people harbor and can be readily induced to when exposed to powerful social pressures and structures, appropriate social circumstances, and ideology (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007; Haney & Zimbardo, 2009). Although the frequent interpretation of the SPE’s results find that the power of the social context can triumph the morality of good people, it would seem that this study yielded more new questions than it answered about how circumstances shape behavior.
Findings
Staub (1993) found people with sadistic tendencies often self-select to join groups such as Nazi perpetrators, suggesting that selective volunteering may have influenced the SPE’s results (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Given Zimbardo’s recruitment methods that advertised “a psychological study of prison life” was available for interested parties, men with certain personality traits (i.e., high levels of aggression, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance) may have been more drawn to the study than others, opening up the possibility for self-selection bias (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Although Zimbardo believed that his participants were sufficiently screened to ensure they were “psychologically normal,” research shows that when individuals have the opportunity to self-select, they are likely to be aware of the permitted behaviors and expectations and thereby engage in mutual reinforcement of abusive behaviors (Staub, 1999; Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). This is true for both prisoners and guards since the prison yard environment requires individuals be threatening and controlling in order to survive and thrive (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007).
Zimbardo’s SPE findings concluded that the power of a situation has the ability to dramatically transform good people in evil ways. Given the experimental nature of the study, the setting of focus, and the ethics required for studies during at the time, this was a reasonable conclusion to draw in 1971. However, when looking at the study in hindsight, the flaws of the study question the validity of the findings. For instance, the study’s prison guards were given little instruction on their expected roles aside from being restricted from inflicting physical violence upon the prisoners. In most prisons and correctional facilities, guards undergo a lengthy and extensive training protocol. Additionally, although Zimbardo argued for a situationism explanation for prison guard behavior, the findings seem to point more toward a person-situation interaction, given the SPE was not a strictly defined situation and due to the potential influence of preexisting tendencies for aggression, abusive behaviors, and authoritarianism (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Moreover, the demand characteristics of the experiment were also likely to have shaped participant behavior. Zimbardo provided minimal instruction, which allowed the guards to use their preexisting knowledge about prison guard behavior to define their roles. Furthermore, the strong situation that the prison guards were subjected to may have reinforced these roles and transformed individuals to play the roles that were expected and encouraged of them. Lastly, Zimbardo’s active participation and influence in the study as the prison superintendent may further limit the validity of the SPE results.
The Take Away Message
As an unadulterated, ethical and empirical venture, the experiment failed. However, it is important to consider the ethics in place for experiments in 1971. While the SPE’s findings may not be completely generalizable to prison settings today, Zimbardo’s findings greatly contributed to the literature concerning the power of social contexts. As a whole, the Stanford Prison environment was highly manipulated and left the guards and prisoners to carry out their roles based on how they were presented which limits the study’s generalizability. It did, however, produce findings that shed light on the power of social pressures and structures on human behavior. The SPE appears to have demonstrated the interaction of the prison guard’s personality traits and pathological circumstances best explain their maltreatment of the prisoners, rather than the situation alone (Haney & Zimbardo, 2009). For instance, only a third of the prison guards exhibited behavior that was consistent with oppression and abuse, suggesting that our behaviors tend to conform to preconceived expectations or stereotypes but that not all people conform to the expected behavioral norms of a strong situation.
“…the larger social context beyond the walls of the prison affects group identification and behavior within it.” (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007, p.612) |
In extant literature, the SPE is frequently cited as evidence to explain the power of social situations to motivate others toward sadistic behavior. Unfortunately, given the ambiguous and unethical experimental conditions of the SPE, it would be difficult to replicate the study’s findings. Moreover, time changes the context of prison life and social concerns hampering our ability to determine whether the views of prison life from 1971 are still applicable in more recent years (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Nevertheless, the results of the SPE can be used, in part, to explicate and interpret the abusive behavior of American military guards at the Abu Ghraib Prison (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Although the SPE may not completely generalize to modern day dilemmas such as police brutality or the treatment of Iraqi detainees in military prisons, I think it offers a partial explanation. For instance, when behavioral norms and expectations reinforce abusive behavior of prison guards, it is more likely to occur, particularly when individuals already possess pathological traits and are grouped together to intensify and normalize each other’s behaviors (Haritos-Fatouros, 1988). In the Abu Ghraib Prison circumstances, service members’ treatment of detainees seemed to have been reinforced by leadership and the culture they were immersed in. In other words, when service members perceive their actions as fitting in with the oppressive values and message their society conveys such as Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim sentiments, they see themselves as heroes or “just doing their job” instead of tyrants. Moreover, considering the living conditions of service members working at the Abu Ghraib Prison, a service member may have used the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees as an outlet for relieving some of their anxieties, rage, and helplessness. Thus, it appears that the influence of one’s culture and a person-situation interaction approach best explains the abusive behavior of the military guards at the Abu Ghraib Prison.
- Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 603-614.
- Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2009). Persistent dispositionalism in interactionist clothing: Fundamental attribution error in explaining prison abuse. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 807-814. doi:10.1177/0146167208322864
- Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: A learning model for obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1107-1120.
- Staub, E. (1993). The psychology of bystanders, perpetrators and heroic helpers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 315-341.
- Staub, E. (1999). The roots of evil: Social conditions, culture, personality, and basic human needs. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 3, 179-192.