As a scientist, my question would be how can you draw such a strong conclusion based on a single poorly designed study?
6
Explanations by psychologists are a popular "opinion fraud" that wastes your time and gets you nowhere. One thing that you may benefit from is: time passing, changes happening without anyone's mumbo-jumbo academic nonsense.
1
" I had a reputation at Stanford. I was one of the most lovable professors there."
I studied psychology at Stanford in the early 1980s. Zimbardo was popular with students -- he's a showman, after all -- but to the faculty, which included some of the world's superstars of research psychology, he was an embarrassment. His prison experiment was -- and continues to be -- considered the equivalent of junk food by academic psychologists. Nothing about it meets the standards of basic, credible research. Yet he's been dining out on it for over 40 years. He is psychology's very own P.T. Barnum.
I studied psychology at Stanford in the early 1980s. Zimbardo was popular with students -- he's a showman, after all -- but to the faculty, which included some of the world's superstars of research psychology, he was an embarrassment. His prison experiment was -- and continues to be -- considered the equivalent of junk food by academic psychologists. Nothing about it meets the standards of basic, credible research. Yet he's been dining out on it for over 40 years. He is psychology's very own P.T. Barnum.
9
@David Smith (NYC): "His prison experiment was -- and continues to be -- considered the equivalent of junk food by academic psychologists."
Please cite a reliable source for that assertion.
"Nothing about it meets the standards of basic, credible research."
Zimbardo video recorded "special events" that occurred during the SPE, and cells were "bugged with audio devices"[1], so you are already wrong. Please expand your point or cite a source that makes your point.
"he's a showman"
"He is psychology's very own P.T. Barnum."
Those are irrelevant ad hominem attacks.
[1] Page 42 in "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" By Philip G. Zimbardo.
NB: They didn't have sufficient funds for continuous recording.
Please cite a reliable source for that assertion.
"Nothing about it meets the standards of basic, credible research."
Zimbardo video recorded "special events" that occurred during the SPE, and cells were "bugged with audio devices"[1], so you are already wrong. Please expand your point or cite a source that makes your point.
"he's a showman"
"He is psychology's very own P.T. Barnum."
Those are irrelevant ad hominem attacks.
[1] Page 42 in "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" By Philip G. Zimbardo.
NB: They didn't have sufficient funds for continuous recording.
This experiment was bogus and no conclusions ought to be drawn from its results. In the real world the violence would have gotten extreme, both from the guards AND from the prisoners. The reality is that while humans are certainly capable of evil, those desires are tempered by a justifiable fear of retaliation.
4
I've come to believe that in a world with such a fluid conception of evil, only acts can be judged.
Every Torturer, dictator or assassin can claim that they did it for love of country, or a girl, or for God.
In the end it's only the act that we need judge, and the rest follows.
Remember The Universal Soldier.
Every Torturer, dictator or assassin can claim that they did it for love of country, or a girl, or for God.
In the end it's only the act that we need judge, and the rest follows.
Remember The Universal Soldier.
3
If Christina hadn't dissuaded him from continuing, Phil would not have terminated the experiment. He would have ended up in jail, or at least fired.
Others can judge whether that would have been a more desirable outcome.
Others can judge whether that would have been a more desirable outcome.
2
Zimbardo and Milgram's experiments were carried out on upper middle class, White individuals - males at Stanford and males/females at Yale. For this reason, I will never accept the generalization that what happened to this group of selective Whites is applicable to every human being. The results cannot be generalized to other populations nor can they be replicated for obvious reasons. I have yet to understand why these studies continue to be deified rather than lambasted for unethical science.
3
Would you care to state those "obvious" reasons for those of us ignorant and ill-informed?
5
The participants were not given the opportunity of "informed consent" which today is deemed critical to a psychological experiment being considered ethical. So that same experiment today would be considered unethical, therefore would not be permitted. Hope that helps...
3
@professor: "... I will never accept the generalization that what happened to this group of selective Whites is applicable to every human being."
Who made such a generalization? Please provide a quote or citation.
@Derek: 'Would you care to state those "obvious" reasons for those of us ignorant and ill-informed?'
Based on the last sentence, "professor" probably believes that it is obvious that, as "unethical science", the experiments cannot be replicated.
Who made such a generalization? Please provide a quote or citation.
@Derek: 'Would you care to state those "obvious" reasons for those of us ignorant and ill-informed?'
Based on the last sentence, "professor" probably believes that it is obvious that, as "unethical science", the experiments cannot be replicated.
2
We all have the capacity for evil. Being aware of that then allows one to chose not to be evil. Denying that capacity sets one up to participate in evil without acknowledging and accepting responsibility for one's actions. I believe it was Thomas Merton who said(paraphrasing), the kindest people are aware of their own capacity for evil.
7
It would be thoughtful of the interviewer and/or the editor to mention that the title of the film is "The Stanford Prison Experiment."
2
As I recall from my college days years ago when we studied Milgram's experiment, he was interested in studying Germans to see how they let the Holocaust happen. This was not long after WWII. He first tried out the test on students here, and was alarmed and surprised at the results. They were easily led by a social structure of authority to inflict what they thought was intense pain or even death on others if told by an experimenter to please proceed. His experiments, Zimbardo's -- and of course the Holocaust and other massacres across the world -- show that it takes a remarkable person to stand up to social structures that promote evil. In Germany, for a prime example, the were far too few Dietrich Bonhoffers.
16
@onlein: "... it takes a remarkable person to stand up to social structures that promote evil. In Germany, for a prime example, the were far too few Dietrich Bonhoffers."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazis. So were the White Rose resisters.[1] Successful resistance from within a totalitarian state is essentially impossible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazis. So were the White Rose resisters.[1] Successful resistance from within a totalitarian state is essentially impossible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose
DR. ZIMBARDO. OF COURSE YOU'RE RIGHT . . .
Given the appropriate ambiance and circumstances, most of us could do what the German Nazi's did or the Turks did to the Armenians before.
This will exist as an unresolved result of Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. Read: brutality most often wins and is passed on to future generations via procreation.
Methinks that this will continue forever and ever. And, if A. I. is truly created, it will probably continue as we will be the gods who created these beings and will contain all of our flaws.
[I used your survey psychology text when I taught on the university level.]
Given the appropriate ambiance and circumstances, most of us could do what the German Nazi's did or the Turks did to the Armenians before.
This will exist as an unresolved result of Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. Read: brutality most often wins and is passed on to future generations via procreation.
Methinks that this will continue forever and ever. And, if A. I. is truly created, it will probably continue as we will be the gods who created these beings and will contain all of our flaws.
[I used your survey psychology text when I taught on the university level.]
3
Methinks it is more cooperating with authority and with the majority than it is innate brutality -- more sociology than genetics -- that determines how prejudiced or violent an individual is. And some social structures are more violent than others. In Nazi Germany, most people went along with structured evil yet they did not continue in such ways after the fall of the ruling class. True, at some point they went along because to rebel meant their death and the end of their families. But before this day-to-day threat, they did vote in the Nazis by a huge majority.
2
"onlein," Yes it is the person(s) interaction with the dominant "Alpha" authority(ies) and the human potential for violence. Given this combination, most are capable of Nazi or Turkish genocide. All over the world for it is part of the human condition.
2
No, the Nazis were never voted in by a "huge majority," or by any majority, while there were still free elections. In 1932 the National Socialist (Nazi) party twice gained pluralities in Reichstag (parliamentary) elections, but their margins were starting to slip by the end of the year, and it was a presidential appointment, not a free election, that allowed Hitler to become chancellor (head of government). See Thomas Childers, _The Nazi Voter_ (1983).
4
Now in his early 80s, Dr Zimbardo still looks so sharp. His Sicilian heritage crops up every now and then in his mannerism especially his hand gestures, and so does his New York accent (south Bronx). http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/stanford-prison-experiment-cr...
3
Petey Tonei,
My neighbor Lorenzo looks just like Philip Zimbardo. He is originally from Cammarata, Sicily. They could be twins.
My neighbor Lorenzo looks just like Philip Zimbardo. He is originally from Cammarata, Sicily. They could be twins.
1
He's a sweet man. I was lucky enough to work for him a bit when I was a student at Stanford. Always a gentleman.
He's worked on so many different aspects of how we change to fit our environment besides this experiment. (His work informed the (often abused) Broken Windows theory of law enforcement for example).
Don't think you're that different than people that do evil: Some people are psychopaths and indeed different from you, sure, but most are sane and just following orders. The minute you decide someone is fundamentally different from you, you are more likely to mistreat them.
He's worked on so many different aspects of how we change to fit our environment besides this experiment. (His work informed the (often abused) Broken Windows theory of law enforcement for example).
Don't think you're that different than people that do evil: Some people are psychopaths and indeed different from you, sure, but most are sane and just following orders. The minute you decide someone is fundamentally different from you, you are more likely to mistreat them.
2
Dr Zimbardo might be on to something. Deep within us must be a seed of unconscious behavior where our reasoning, empathy, compassion qualities are veiled and overtaken. Each time I watch TV, I am horrified to see ads showing pets in shelter, abandoned, abused, left without dignity, these same animals that we otherwise pet and cuddle and declare our love to. https://www.aspca.org
Walk around cities in South Asia, South East Asia and you see strays walking around, being kicked at, beaten, shunned. What is it within us human beings that allows this to happen? What is it within us that we numb ourselves when we see fellow human beings as refugees, starving children, homeless, diseased and we willingly participate, collectively, promoting wars, ethnic genocide, favoring ideology over common humanness?
Walk around cities in South Asia, South East Asia and you see strays walking around, being kicked at, beaten, shunned. What is it within us human beings that allows this to happen? What is it within us that we numb ourselves when we see fellow human beings as refugees, starving children, homeless, diseased and we willingly participate, collectively, promoting wars, ethnic genocide, favoring ideology over common humanness?
21
The Zimbardo prison 'experiment' is not an experiment at all. An experiment requires a control group and must be reproducible. What he did could be called a study, but in no way an experiment. Further, he primed the prison guards towards abuse by emphasizing to them before the study that they could do 'anything you want.' You can find some of the actual footage on youtube. When a psychologist sways his subjects towards a certain behavior, it's not an experiment. It's really not even a study. It's sort of like staging a cock fight. Interesting how he defended those involved in Abu Ghraib. See also his involvement in psy-ops with the CIA and DoD. I, for one, don't have the reverence for the guy that so many do.
12
@RMV: "An experiment requires a control group and must be reproducible."
What would be the "control group"? FYI, the student volunteers were assigned *randomly* to the roles of guard and prisoner.
Aside from the ethical issues, there is no reason the experiment could not reproduced.
"Further, he primed the prison guards towards abuse by emphasizing to them before the study that they could do 'anything you want.'"
False. Zimbardo gave the guards a "brief orientation" in which they were told "no violence against prisoners", among other things.
"Interesting how he defended those involved in Abu Ghraib."
Zimbardo was a defense witness for one of the Abu Ghraib guards, but his sympathies were with the soldier who exposed the abuse at AG.
See Zimbardo's book:
"The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" By Philip G. Zimbardo.
What would be the "control group"? FYI, the student volunteers were assigned *randomly* to the roles of guard and prisoner.
Aside from the ethical issues, there is no reason the experiment could not reproduced.
"Further, he primed the prison guards towards abuse by emphasizing to them before the study that they could do 'anything you want.'"
False. Zimbardo gave the guards a "brief orientation" in which they were told "no violence against prisoners", among other things.
"Interesting how he defended those involved in Abu Ghraib."
Zimbardo was a defense witness for one of the Abu Ghraib guards, but his sympathies were with the soldier who exposed the abuse at AG.
See Zimbardo's book:
"The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" By Philip G. Zimbardo.
15
What Ms. Valdez says is technically correct but , without the insight that comes with knowing the original experiment was to have lasted for much longer and that groups of "prisoners-guards" may then have been replaced or , new aspects added to the experiment. The fact that it almost immediately began to fall apart, shows the real "finding" for Zimbardo and his team was not to be a series of carefully controlled experiments with constant supervision and control groups. Zimbardo and his assistants found that even they were subject to a kind of bias when placed in positions of great and , unquestionable authority and that it was this fact which he , nor anyone else knew about, which they could not control for.
Do the research and you will find that he never imagined things would ever get so mad and out of hand that he would contemplate violence against students.
ALSO REMEMBER: this all took place(as did Milgram's obedience to authority experiments,)before the American Psychological groups responsible for experimental standards had any. There were no rules over human experiments and especially the use of students and/or minors in experiments. I participated in medical experiments(McLean Mass.) where narcotics were given to both "narcotic naive" subjects as well as to specially selected group of drug users, to measure various responses. No one considered what it might have done to anyone's ability to drive a car or ride a bike, later on. It was a different time.
Do the research and you will find that he never imagined things would ever get so mad and out of hand that he would contemplate violence against students.
ALSO REMEMBER: this all took place(as did Milgram's obedience to authority experiments,)before the American Psychological groups responsible for experimental standards had any. There were no rules over human experiments and especially the use of students and/or minors in experiments. I participated in medical experiments(McLean Mass.) where narcotics were given to both "narcotic naive" subjects as well as to specially selected group of drug users, to measure various responses. No one considered what it might have done to anyone's ability to drive a car or ride a bike, later on. It was a different time.
13
Regina Valdez, I could not agree more. Were there even any measurements taken? Were there any variables at all? The whole thing seems to have been done for shock effect, with Dr. Zimbardo more instigator than researcher. And I don't have the slightest idea what it shows that any normal person didn't know already.
But Zimbardo has been dining out on this for over 40 years, so I guess one person got something out of it. Kudos to Dr. Zimbardo for pulling off one of the great hustles in experimental psychology.
But Zimbardo has been dining out on this for over 40 years, so I guess one person got something out of it. Kudos to Dr. Zimbardo for pulling off one of the great hustles in experimental psychology.
1
Zimbardo did another very dubious study in which he parked cars disguised to appear abandoned in NYC and Palo Alto. The NYC car was quickly stripped and vandalized by white middle class passers by while the Palo Alto car was untouched for a week until he himself broke its window with a sledge hammer at which point it was soon vandalized and finally turned over and destroyed. Let's just take the Palo Alto car. During the time of his "experiment" there were at least 5 million cars parked in roughly similar neighborhoods in California. Many of these would be old and beat up but none of these were senselessly vandalized and destroyed. Theft of the radio or the car itself is an entirely different issue and even that was pretty rare in middle class neighborhoods. I've lived in similar neighborhoods for 30 years and never hear of someone senselessly vandalizing a car or turning it over. So why do such interesting things happen so quickly during his very short experiments but not to any other car owners in Palo Alto during their entire lifetimes? Why didn't he ask other researchers at nearby universities to run the same experiment to see if it produced a similar result? It's amazing how little skepticism the media applies to these studies.
13
If you wanted to study how prisoners and guards behave in prisons, why create a mock prison in an elite institution with our most privileged people? Why not just make the short drive up to San Quintin and look at how real guards behave with real prisoners. All of the participants had a big stake in a dramatic outcome. It was more like a class in improv acting than a substantive experiment. Also 1971 was the height of the Vietnam revolt when all power was "fascist" or some other big word. Sure lots of bad things happen in prisions but remember they house more than 2 million of our most violent citizens in a format that is designed to be unpleasant because it's punishment. Also recall there is a huge amount of violence and abuse outside of prisons and where do we put all the perpetrators? In prison of course. If Abu Graib lends support to the Stanford study, then do the hundreds of thousands held in US military prisons over the decades that have not been abused disprove it? This study was the worst kind of self promotional pop sociology.
4
To AP:
In the past 44 years we have learned a lot about research and research design.
The criticism that you make about the Zimbardo studies could be made about the Milgram experiments and others made at that time. Since then we use these early experiments as springboards to better controlled studies with informed consent as part of the protocol. Today, many research institutions have boards that review the type of experiment, how it is to proceed, and if it safer psychologically and physically for the participants.
In the past 44 years we have learned a lot about research and research design.
The criticism that you make about the Zimbardo studies could be made about the Milgram experiments and others made at that time. Since then we use these early experiments as springboards to better controlled studies with informed consent as part of the protocol. Today, many research institutions have boards that review the type of experiment, how it is to proceed, and if it safer psychologically and physically for the participants.
9
AS I recall, the original experiment was not "about prison guards or prisoners". It was to see if and whether there were differences in behavior that were a result of loss of identity or the stripping of identity. Why, were prisoners always buzz cut? Why remove most facial and head hair? (He was relatively naive) Because he couldn't do this, he used stocking caps to imitate this loss of identity and gave prisoners numbers. The guards wore uniforms and reflective glasses to see if this aided in thecreation of a culture of us against them. Apparetnly the movie does not show this aspect of his experiment accurately, but experiments, then, were conducted with a lot of leeway and one of the important things Zimbardo's experiment established was, that experiments needed to be run carefully with authority and a strict adherence to the psychologist's aims. That Zimbardo, et al, began one thing and had to stop before they made a little Attica riot, seems to explain a great deal of what his mucked up experiment DID accomplish: Stricter experimental standards when using people as subjects.
7
Evil is relative and incremental. It grows on you. If you live in an evil society are you evil, Are you evil if you live in and support a society that slaughters innocents with drones? Denies people health care? Imprisons more people than the rest of the world? Let's almost anyone purchase guns and then when citizens are slaughtered in movie theaters, or restaurants, in churches, says it was not the guns it was the bad bad people? Is the USA evil? Are You?
41
And then: If you are evil for living in an evil society, should all members of a society that does or permits bad things be subject to punishment at the hands of those outside of that society?
And if are willing to condemn people for living within certain geographic areas we call nation states, would you be willing to assign people the status of evil for their membership in specific ethnic groups?
Didn't think so. Glad to hear it.
And if are willing to condemn people for living within certain geographic areas we call nation states, would you be willing to assign people the status of evil for their membership in specific ethnic groups?
Didn't think so. Glad to hear it.
Yeah, Fred Emil, even we psychologists got the social angle: group psychology, I believe it's called.
3
Yeah, well...if he ain't evil what's with the evil beard? (Is he selling a template? I'd love to try it.)
2
The interpretation of what his beard means is in the mind of the beholder.
2
The experiment can't be reproduced without, I suppose, violating at least some of the ethical rules that are now in place (except that the subtlety of design very often leads the subtlety of rules). Insofar as scientific methodologies require that an experiment be at least reproducible (and, if it is taken to have significant implications, actually reproduced), interpretation, reinterpretation, and sensationalization of this one experiment is unhelpful.
I hope for an NYT article about this movie that carefully addresses what experiments psychologists and others /have/ been able to do to refine the rather gross lesson that this experiment is supposed to have taught us. That there is some gray in all our behavior and that fun for one person sometimes is another person's hell I can well believe, but for any given person how much and to and from whom would seem to be variable, and who is the person who will tell us where the line is for evil?
I hope for an NYT article about this movie that carefully addresses what experiments psychologists and others /have/ been able to do to refine the rather gross lesson that this experiment is supposed to have taught us. That there is some gray in all our behavior and that fun for one person sometimes is another person's hell I can well believe, but for any given person how much and to and from whom would seem to be variable, and who is the person who will tell us where the line is for evil?
5
The trouble with psychologists -- from Stanley Milgram to Philip Zimbardo -- is they are psychologists. Everything is seen in terms of INDIVIDUALS and their behavior. Yet, in their experiments, both created a new social climate, with its own values and, yes, "morality" of what is important -- where the participants felt entirely justified and rewarded for living up to that new morality. As a sociologist I, of course, have my own set of biases. Still, you might like to look at my books,"Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil" and "Confronting Evil."
6
The suggestion that psychological research done by Psychologists cannot be extrapolated into populations larger than one person is a pretty poor representation of the field and what the fruits of such research have provided. If anything sociology, as a field, is dependent upon the individual to some degree, for its existence; the inverse cannot be stated. The reality is that both fields intermingle and assist one another in a very healthy fashion and I'd rather not read a book written by a Sociologist who does not understand that very rudimentary concept.
1
I have always thought the omission of the fact that only men were involved in this experiment interesting. Of course women are capable of evil, but are they socialized to have behaved the way the men in this study did? I am not sure, especially since the homophobia and military overtones might not have come as easily to them. Similarly, would a woman have even designed this experiment, let alone let it run for six days? Zimbardo takes Auschwitz and Abu Ghraib as his reference points for institutionalized evil in this interview, both military-industrial complex directed by and infused with men exercising power...
32
Excellent point Trixie. I heard a prominent PhD radio psychologist call women the standard bearers of morality. I would say that most women are inherently more ethical and kind. And what keeps society together in large part is men trying to live up to standard's set by women.
Yeah, there were female guards at Abu Ghraib, but they were in the minority.
Yeah, there were female guards at Abu Ghraib, but they were in the minority.
Having had two women bosses who truly were evil, I'd say yes - women are as able and willing to do evil things when able to.
3
This sort of experiment cannot be replicated now, but if you read about the women guards at the Nazi concentration camps, you will find that woman can be just as evil as men.[1] And if you think Nazi inculturation had some influence, you can read about the American women interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[2] And as a last example, you can read about the Renaissance serial-killer and torturer Elizabeth Báthory.[3]
[1] Do a web search for "Ravensbrück trials".
[2] "Guantánamo: An American History" By Jonathan M. Hansen.
[3] See numerous books and web pages.
[1] Do a web search for "Ravensbrück trials".
[2] "Guantánamo: An American History" By Jonathan M. Hansen.
[3] See numerous books and web pages.
11
He has long had a flair for startling people into thinking deeply about our natures. He showed that while I was in his Social Psychology class 55 years ago.
6
Is there an objective standard for "evil" or is it really some kind of social definition or unpopularity contest whereby if enough people seem to think something or someone is "evil" then they are? For example, it's universally accepted that German guards who killed Jewish inmates in concentration camps are evil but I've only occasionally seen where Soviet guards who killed non-Jewish inmates merited the same kind of condemnation, or at least no one is spending millions of dollars hunting them down for justice.
If there is a double standard for evil I would submit there is no standard at all. There are all kinds of opportunistic reasons for having people designated as "evil" that may be challenged by others. "Evil" as a pejorative epithet is commonplace and this diminishes the validity of the term as well.
Each of us has a different picture in our mind when we think of "evil." The evil jerk that clipped one persons rear-view mirror when passing too close may be counterbalanced by the evil idiot who drove too close to the center line. These are admittedly trivial examples but the principle of subjectivity is clear. Whose ox is gored may have a lot to do with what we picture as "evil.
If there is a double standard for evil I would submit there is no standard at all. There are all kinds of opportunistic reasons for having people designated as "evil" that may be challenged by others. "Evil" as a pejorative epithet is commonplace and this diminishes the validity of the term as well.
Each of us has a different picture in our mind when we think of "evil." The evil jerk that clipped one persons rear-view mirror when passing too close may be counterbalanced by the evil idiot who drove too close to the center line. These are admittedly trivial examples but the principle of subjectivity is clear. Whose ox is gored may have a lot to do with what we picture as "evil.
19
All those are white people of European descent.
Biological evolution does not change us within a few generations. Thus we still are who we were and capable in doing what we did - atrocities of unparalleled proportions given the "right" sociological framework. And such acts of violence still flare in the microcosm of war and prison system.