Introduction
In contemporary society, the causes of various phenomena that have baffled the thinkers of the past have become the subject of psychological experimentation to determine their causation.
Such was the nature of the Stanford Prison experiment spearheaded by renowned psychologist Philip Zimbardo, which attempted to address important questions regarding human responses to extraordinary circumstances.
This research aimed to understand how a hostile environment, such as a prison, can impact individuals in positions of power and those subject to their rule.
The experiment demonstrated two essential factors of human nature. First, it affirmed the view of SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. That is, most individuals will usually succumb to SOCIAL INFLUENCES, which will dictate their behavior.
Secondly, how the social situation construed by the individual can form the groundwork for the surfacing of INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES.
Psychological Realism & Findings
It should be noted; that the Stanford research team went to great lengths to increase the experiments’ PSYCHOLOGICAL REALISM.
For example, the research team enlisted the aid of the local police department and other experts.
The results of the experiment were mind-boggling. It exposed the fundamental flaws of human nature. Flaws, which make ordinary individuals susceptible to behaviors that thread the line between unethical and criminal.
The disreputable behavior of the mock -guards that took part in the experiment superficially seems foreign to normal individuals.
However, upon closer evaluation, it becomes evident that many of their observable personality flaws are disturbingly innate in many of us.
Personality Psychology Perspective
PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGISTS will insist that the tyrannical actions of the mock -guards were the sole expression of their own personalities, divorced from any social influences.
The contribution of the participants’ individual differences to the study’s outcome is unreasonable to dismiss.
However, when analyzing the situation within this context, it is important not to yield to FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERRORS.
Factors In The Studies’ Outcome
Three possible factors -collectively or individually – may have contributed to the dictatorial behavior of the mock -guards. First, their behavior was the result of a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.
This was particularly evident in the guard’s testimony that the inmates had named “John Wayne.”
He expressed in an interview that at the onset of research, he concluded that the “experiment was put together to prove a [specific] point about prisons being a cruel and inhuman place.”
This, in turn, prompted him to act accordingly to help bring about those results.
Secondly, a different case can be made about the conduct of ‘John Wayne’ and those individuals who participated in similar behavior.
It could be argued that their extremist behavior was not the by-product of the environment but the surfacing of disturbing personality traits for which the environment served as an outlet.
Taking into account the previous factors mentioned above, the third perspective emphasizes the power of the social situation as the determining factor to account for the radical behavior of the mock -guards.
Behaviorist Approach To Rehabilitation
The general rehabilitation approach taken by correctional institutions sometimes echoes the concepts put forth by BEHAVIORISTS.
It is sometimes deemed necessary to break the individual emotionally to bring about CONFORMITY and obedience in the prison population.
Through dehumanization, intimidation, and the use of positive and negative reinforcements (OPERANT CONDITIONING), the guards are able to bring the inmate population into submission and compliance.
Social Learning Theory
This process consequently lowers the SELF-ESTEEM of the individuals, making them more prone to subjugation.
Within this context, the ideas conveyed by the SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY also come into play.
By observing the treatment of the prisoners by the guards -which could be good or bad- the rest of the prison population learns how to behave to avoid punishment (e.g., going to the hole) or to receive special privileges.
This process, while shattering the unity of those that are subjugated, ultimately strengthens the bonds between those that are in charge.
When group members are endowed with similar powers and responsibilities, GROUP COHESION bestows validity on questionable behaviors.
It provides positive reinforcements -a sense of security and duty- which ultimately heightens the group’s self-esteem.
This effect was demonstrated in the experiment by the unity of the mock -guards, who banded together under the banner of authority.
The adverse effect was evident upon the inmates. Disillusioned by their environment, the study participants no longer considered themselves subjects in an experiment but as guards and prisoners.
Social Psychology Perspective
This phenomenon further strengthened the position of Social Psychology that the individual’s subjective perception and interpretation of reality (CONSTRUALS) trumps the environment’s objectivity.
Under social pressures to perform certain acts, it is reasonable to speculate that most individuals will experience COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
However, usually, the power of the situation triumphs against reason and personal beliefs, forcing the individual to submit to authority or to conform to the behavior of the majority.
Often, when confronted with deeds that are contrary to their beliefs, individuals will protest indirectly. This includes not partaking in cruel acts that their peers are engaged in.
Instead, they choose to conform to the old proverb “I see, hear, and do no evil”; or to avoid the situation entirely.
Within a group setting, the self-censorship of individuals can be attributed to several factors.
Primarily, it usually results from fear of being ostracized and the reluctance to direct towards oneself the anger of group members with conflicting views.
Conclusion
Philip Zimbardo outlines the following lessons to be taken from this study. The causes of evil behavior do not come from personal motives, ambitions, or even personality.
Instead, he suggests that malevolent behavior within a cohesive group stems from the presumption of unacceptability.
Accordingly, when individuals justify to themselves that they are simply performing a role or executing their duty, they make themselves vulnerable to negative social influences.
Consequently, this flaw in cognition is manifested by individual actions, which can be unethical. Or worse, be criminal, homicidal, or even genocidal.
The Stanford Prison Experiment successfully demonstrated that under the surface of diverse human demeanor, universal traits make most individuals susceptible to similar actions.
These behaviors, which at times could be evil in nature, can manifest if the proper DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS are found in the milieu.
The study further portrays the power of social situations as a contributing factor to the causes of extremist behavior.
Lastly, Zimbardo’s research proved that the adage ‘power corrupts’ is undeterred by time and space.
It’s a grim reminder of the dark side of human nature that is ever lying in wake to rise to the surface.
Free Meditation eBook
