The
Stanford Prison Experiment is a docudrama about a well publicized research
project conducted at Stanford University by psychologist Philip Zimbardo
attempting to show that the environment in prison shapes guards’ and prisoners’
behavior more than their dispositions or past experiences. The film, directed by Kyle Patrick
Alvarez with script written by Tim Talbott, is based on Zimbardo’s 2007 book, The Lucifer Effect. Zimbardo saw this research as a
follow-up to a study in the previous decade by another psychologist, Stanley
Milgram, who showed that subjects would comply with an authority figure even to
the point of increasing shocks to other subjects to lethal levels when
instructed to do so by the research observer. (The person pressing the button was unaware he/she was not actually delivering a shock.) The point in both studies was that
authority figures and the institutional environment wield a considerable degree
of influence over an individual’s behavior.
Undergraduate students at Stanford were
recruited for a psychological study of the effects of the prison environment on
prisoners and guards and paid $15 a day for their participation. They were only superficially screened
for psychological problems, criminal background, or medical problems. Nine students and one alternate were
randomly assigned to be guards, and the same number for the prisoners.
To test his hypothesis of inherent
characteristics of the participants determining behavior, Zimbardo instructed
the guards to foster disorientation, depersonalization, and loss of
identity. This was done by having
them arrested in their homes, strip searched, put in dresses and stocking caps,
given numbers for their names, and chains put around one of their ankles—all
done in order to make the prisoners feel powerless. To reinforce this, guards were put in standard khaki garb,
given mirrored sunglasses to avoid eye contact with the prisoners and wooden
batons. They were instructed not
to hit or harm the prisoners in any way.
The experiment was conducted in a building on
campus, with offices converted into cells and using the hall for dining. The prisoners were to stay in
their cells day and night for the duration, except when they were eating, and
then they couldn’t talk to one another.
Early on, within a day or so, the guards—who
were told they would be observed by research staff at all times—began using
abusive tactics, including hitting and psychological torture. Even when this was brought to
Zimbardo’s attention, he frequently chose not to intervene or he would make
promises to the prisoners that he had no intention of keeping. Any act of rebellion on the part of the
prisoners was met with harsh punishment, such as taking away their beds and
giving them a bucket for toileting but not allowing it to be emptied.
In a short amount of time, some of the
prisoners started to fall apart, and ask to leave the study. It was determined later that not only
had 1/3 of the guards resorted to sadistic behaviors, Zimbardo acknowledged
that even he had lost his objectivity.
When an observer who came on the scene toward the end of the first week,
deemed the experiment as unethical, Zimbardo was convinced to end the research
on the sixth of the planned 14 days.
In retrospect, Zimbardo concluded that his
expectation that the study would prove that, under certain conditions, even
good people might behave badly was met.
He subsequently testified as an expert witness in the court martial of
one of the Abu Ghraib guards that the man’s behavior was a function of the
system, as opposed to his being a “bad apple”, as the government claimed.
Criticisms of the Zimbardo study include a
small sample size, a biased selection of the participants (all white middle
class young men), and my own thought that the research staff and guards acting as if the “prisoners” had actually
committed and been convicted of crimes, invalidates the study. Additionally, no personality measures
were administered or background information of the participants was
obtained. Without this
information, the conclusion that it was the environment that brought out
sadistic behavior is weak.
To me, this is a horrific film to watch; the
cruelty and unjustified behavior on the part of the guards made me take a number
of breaks during the screening (I watched it at home via a link). This made me question why the film was
made at all; it’s an example of what not
to do when people have power over others.
There is a well-known, accepted principle in psychology that to improve
people’s behavior it’s more effective to model good leadership than to show
poor/bad/evil modeling.
Unfortunately, there is no explanation of the
study results at the end of the film by Dr. Philip Zimbardo. I doubt the general public will be able
to come away with a clear understanding of the rationale of the work or
Zimbardo’s interpretation of it.
This would have greatly enhanced the film, and provide give an
illuminating picture of the Abu Graib phenomenon that would be helpful.
As far as the film, the actors do a fine job in depicting the characters in the study. Billy Crudup is especially noteworthy as Zibardo.
Viewer beware.
No comments:
Post a Comment