Everyday Evil, Part 2: The Stanford Prison Study

In 1971 Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most famous studies in psychological history. The Stanford Prison Study is so well known that many of you have probably heard about it. The link is to the home site of the SPS. The YouTube clip shows some of the original footage from the study. For more details about the SPS, Zimbardo recently published his treatise on the experiment, The Lucifer Effect. Wikipedia is also available.

For the uninitiated, the basic history of the SPS is as follows. Zimbardo, wanting to study the effects of prison on both guards and prisoners, created a prison in one of the Stanford University buildings. He screened male volunteer participants and excused any with signs of psychopathology. He was left with a group of normal, well-adjusted participants. Average Joes. He then randomly assigned the participants to either the guard or prisoner group. The guards where contacted and oriented. The prisoners were tracked down, arrested (what a way to start a study!), booked, and placed in the prison.

So far, so good.

The SPS is famous because the experiment was never completed. The observations of the prisoners and the guards was to last for two weeks. But the study was terminated after six days. The reason for this was that the guards had become so sadistic in their treatment of the prisoners that, due to ethical and safety concerns, the study was terminated. In short, after six days the SPS became its own little hell on earth.

What is so troubling about the SPS is that, with the flip of a coin, the moral destinies of the guards and prisoners were set into motion. Tails, you become a compliant prisoner. Heads, a sadistic overlord. Moral luck captured in the laboratory.

Why did the guards become sadistic? I have not yet read The Lucifer Effect, so my analysis may be redundant with Zimbardo's, but a few things seem clear:

1. Power Differentials
2. In-Group versus Out-Group psychology
3. Group Conformity

The point is, in situations where we see these dynamics emerge normal and generally good people can end up doing some pretty atrocious things. Why, exactly, are humans vulnerable to these pressures? In my next post I'll offer some speculations on this question, but for today just note that we ARE vulnerable to these pressures.

It should also be noted that Zimbardo served as an expert witness in the Abu Ghraib trial of US serviceman Ivan Fredrick. Obviously, the events at Abu Ghraib are eerily similar to the SPS. And this brings us back to the issue of everyday evil.

When we look at Abu Ghraib we often fall into making the fundamental attribution error (see post #1 in this series). We tend to see some "bad" soldiers running amuck. Perhaps. But the SPS suggests that good people can do sadistic things, uncharacteristic things, when systemic pressures are brought to bear. As Zimbardo has argued, it might not be a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. It might, rather, be a few bad barrels creating those bad apples.

Again, this is not to say situations determine our actions or that we should not hold people accountable for their actions. My purpose is simply to use the SPS as a moral warning. Good people can do bad things if they are not attentive to situational pressures. In short, the possibility for evil is closer than we think.

It can be, literally, just a coin flip away.