The fake prison experiment

The formidable message of the prison experiment conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in August 1971 is this: The power of the social context in which a human being finds himself at a given moment is often dominant over his ability to oppose it.

This means that if tomorrow your neighbor, whom you know to be honest, jumpy and human-loving, ends up running a prison or is just a guard in it, his behavior — determined by the context — will be unimaginable a priori. This is exactly what many Americans have had to say about their fellow citizens who are temporarily on guard duty at the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prison.

But before we delve into the explanations of the impact of context on individual behavior, let’s look at what the Stanford prison experiment was all about …

PRELIMINARIES. CHOICE OF SUBJECTS

The experiment was scheduled to run for two weeks. The place where the prison was set up was the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department. The reason why Zimbardo decided to carry out this experiment was to understand the psychology of detention.

The choice of the subjects of the experiment was made through an advertisement in the local newspapers in which $ 15 was promised for participating in a study on life in prison. Out of the approximately 100 people who responded to the message from the newspapers, 24 students were selected — following psychological assessments and interviews — 24 students. Following the selection, only individuals who were as close to the average in terms of psychological profile, without a criminal record, without mental problems were accepted. Of the 24, 18 actually participated in the experiment, 9 as guards, 9 as detainees.

ARREST AND PRISON

To make the experiment seem as credible as possible, the 9 randomly assigned students were taken prisoner at the Stanford makeshift prison by police — who agreed to work with Zimbardo — on charges of theft and armed robbery.

After being taken to “prison”, the prisoners were undressed, searched and sprayed with deworming spray, as is the case with real prisoners. They were given a long shirt, underwear was forbidden, a chain was tied around their right ankle and they were given a unique identification number — all to create the discomfort that prisoners usually feel when arrested. Prisoners were forbidden to use their real name, and the rule was to present only the identification number received. They were put on a kind of transparent plastic helmet, which had the role of eliminating the personality traits that, as a rule, the hairstyle highlights. The prison was organized into three cells, each with 3 prisoners.

The guards did not receive any special training on what it means to be a guard, being free to act as they wished for the success of the mission, but they were forbidden to hit the “detainees”. A set of 17 rules was established to be memorized by each detainee, who will be questioned on this topic from time to time.

FIRST NIGHT

At 2:30 p.m. the prisoners were brutally awakened to make the call. Its role was, on the one hand, to familiarize prisoners with the identification number received, but it was also a good opportunity to exercise the power of guards over prisoners. On the first night, some of the prisoners did not take things seriously, joking in some places, still aware that everything is a game. Also, some of the guards have treated things with detachment for the time being, but not for long … Soon, amid the accumulation of fatigue and the lowering of the stress resistance threshold, there will be signs of revolt from the prisoners to whom the guards will respond. with punishments, such as floats.

FIRST REVOLT AND CONSEQUENCES

On Monday morning (the experiment began on Sunday), some of the detainees (a cell) barricaded themselves and did not want to leave their room, in response to the behavior considered unfriendly by the night guards. After a quick analysis of the situation, the guards decided to use force and restore order in prison: they used a fire extinguisher to move the three away from the door and enter the barricaded cell.

Following this event, the guards decided that they should establish privileges for those who behave well, granting additional rights to start for three detainees in one of the cells, the least involved in the riot. Subsequently, for no apparent reason, “underprivileged” prisoners are moved to the “good” cell, creating confusion among prisoners.

With the revolt, obvious antagonisms between the participants in the experiment strengthened, the guards regarded the prisoners as problematic beings who hindered their activity, and the prisoners, already suffering various punishments, began to behave in a contemptuous manner and hate towards them. of guards. One effect of the revolt was that the guards imposed even stricter control of the usual activities of the detainees, establishing it as a privilege, including going to the toilet; after 10 p.m. some prisoners had to use a bucket inside the cell for their needs.

FIRST RELEASE OF A PRISONER

Less than 36 hours after the start of the experiment, a prisoner entered a state of acute emotional instability (uncontrolled crying, disorganized thinking, exaggerated anger), which eventually led to his “release.” It is interesting to note that the organizers of the experiment, who watched everything that was happening in prison through the cameras and microphones installed in the cells, had also entered the role of prison authorities so well that in the first instance they treated him. the “prisoner” who could no longer bear the environment like a pretender, who sought to get out of prison by lying, as a real prisoner would try.

THE PRIEST’S VISIT

In response to an earlier favor given by Zimbardo, a priest with experience in prison visits Stanford to talk to the prisoners and get an idea of ​​how well they have performed. Surprisingly, the priest — although he knew very well that everything was an experiment that would end in a few days — completely forgot that prison is a fictitious one, reaching — following discussions with prisoners — to promise involvement and support for their release. Remarkable is the following aspect: one of the prisoners is not absorbed by the script, by the power of the context, describing the situation lucidly, as just an experiment … This fact will be detailed in the concluding part of the article.

INFORMANT

After the “prisoner” left, who snapped emotionally, Zimbardo dedicated himself to introducing another young man, a friend, under the pretext of replacing the “released” one, who was to be an informant and help with details about the mood and plans of the detainees; the decision was also made due to the fact that there were indications that the prisoners were planning an escape. However, the “spy” failed to maintain his detachment from the group in which he was introduced, becoming overwhelmed by the power of the situation, empathizing with the prisoners and refusing the role of informant.

TYPES OF GUARDIANS

A first category of guards formed during the experiment was that of “honest” guards, who obeyed the rules and performed the tasks rigorously, but without being inventive, without acting to worsen the lives of the prisoners.

The second category is that of “humane” guards, who did not punish prisoners, “endured” small ironies or acts of disobedience, and, moreover, did little favors to prisoners.

The third category is that of the guards who enjoyed the exercise of the power they held, who were imaginative in creating new rules for the purpose of humiliation and to the discomfort of the prisoners.

SIXTH DAY — END OF EXPERIMENT

On the fifth night, some of the parents, called by the priest who had recently visited the prison, called Zimbardo asking him to help them contact a lawyer to release their sons. On the other hand, Christina Raslash, Zimbardo’s friend and psychology graduate, visiting the prison, was horrified by the suffering that the detainees had to endure and demanded an end to the experiment, showing that the experiment had radically changed from what it had set out to do. the effects of the prison environment are profound on the subjects involved.

At this point, according to his own testimony, Zimbardo realized that the situation had degenerated and that he and the team leading the experiment had lost touch with reality, absorbed by the context of the prison. The forces of the deliberately created context had profoundly transformed the way those involved in the experiment interacted, with most treating this fiction as if it were pure reality. Therefore, he decided to end the experiment after only 6 days, although it was planned to last 14.

conclusions

THE OVERCOMING FORCE OF THE CONTEXT

Although at the beginning of the experiment there were no noticeable differences between the group of guards and that of the prisoners, after less than a week the two groups were completely different. The forces of the special context in which they were placed generated these differences. Probably understanding this would lead to fundamental changes in society, where, as a rule, it is believed that individuals are the culprits, sinners, irrational, that the fault lies exclusively with them, and the influence of the environment is ignored.

At the end of World War II, psychologists wondered how it was possible for “normal” individuals before the war to later become cold-blooded criminals. Subsequent experiments have shown that it is human nature, its relentless failure before authority, the formidable force of the context on the individual.

DOES PUNISHMENT still make sense if we are all powerless in the face of contextual forces?

It must be said, first of all, that only those involved in extraordinary circumstances can truly understand how the human being transforms under situational forces. Otherwise, for occasional critics, like most journalists today, the rules of good and evil are clear. But the mechanisms of human behavior are more complex than many of us can understand based on our knowledge of reading newspapers or watching television.

The fact that situational forces are often overwhelming does not mean that those who give in to them and commit horrible acts must be forgiven. To do so would be to agree that we are irrational beings, incapable of the slightest control over our lives. On the other hand, there are, like the above-mentioned detainee who did not “enter the role”, individuals who remain lucid and do not allow themselves to be overwhelmed by circumstances. These individuals, even if few in percentage terms, are the ones who give the true measure of human dignity. The fact that they exist indicates to us that, in principle, we can all be “candidates” for the title of wise beings and that, in bad contexts, we could resist the temptation to act like brutes.

ARE WE BAD OR GOOD FROM NATURE?

We are accustomed to hearing and ultimately believing that we human beings are good by nature. Of course, there are some dries, but WE are good. What the prison experiment shows, and it is not the only experiment of its kind, is that most of us undergo major transformations in certain contexts that favor behaviors that are normally considered aberrant. What we imagine we would do in a given situation, such as the atrocities in Iraq or Afghanistan, may not match what we become after we get to the battlefield.

But those who act aberrantly have their justifications for what they do. Thus, a Nazi official in charge of scheduling trains to the gas chambers in the concentration camps is all the more satisfied with how efficient his planning is. During the interrogation, he did not feel guilty in any way, because he did not decide that those people should die, but the system, he only fulfilled his duties with dedication, which, isn’t it ?, cannot be considered a murder. Is he a criminal? At least he didn’t understand why he thought so.

WHAT ROLE CAN PRISONS HAVE IN THE EDUCATION OF REAL PRISONERS?

At the end of the experiment, although there were theoretically two groups, it could be said that there was no cohesion with regard to the prisoners. Those who tried to oppose the guards were looked upon with contempt and indignation by others because they saw them as a danger to their peace. Access to privileges, however small, creates competition between prisoners that also destroys any friendship. How could real prisons be a place of correction? In fact, these are brutal places that reveal the worst in the human being, that accustom the individual to violence and aggression and that make him forget the normalcy of the majority. There have been many theoretical or practical attempts to change the modern prison system, but to date there is no satisfactory system. Although it is a common idea among specialists that the current prison system is inefficient, a system to replace it has not yet been designed.

THE SYSTEM OR THE INDIVIDUAL?

From our point of view, this point, although not a direct result of the prison experiment, is a fundamental one. You have probably asked yourself or at least heard the following question: how is it possible that in Romania so many politicians are corrupt, disinterested in the public interest or, who knows, maybe unable to bring about change, even if they wanted to? Or: how is it possible that the police or the magistrates are so corrupt? The blame is usually on individuals, but we believe that the main problem is the system as a whole. The way the system is organized, the relationship between norms and habits within the system, legislative “leaks”, the relationship between superiors and inferiors — are just some of the aspects that define a system and can give clues about the likely behaviors of individuals within it. .

Policemen are corrupt — in our opinion — because they can be so, because those they know in the system are also corrupt, because joining the police coincides with an initiation into corruption, because the strong forces of the context are those who — obliges them to comply with the rules already in place in the system, because the probability of being caught is very low, given the fact that there is no effective authority to act to regulate the system and remove the corrupt.

Think of a doctor: once he becomes a resident, he notices how the doctors around him get rich from day to day, not showing any embarrassment in taking bribes. Undoubtedly, even in those who have promised to be role models, internal conflicts will arise over the behavior to be followed. No matter what his salary, he will not be able to afford what corrupt doctors can afford. He will slowly get used to the environment, he will notice that those who take bribes do not suffer anything, he will eventually accept the first money as a thank you for the treatment administered, he will justify his deed by not asking, but the patient insisted , and finally it will fit into the logic of a degraded system, in which life is measured in the number of banknotes.

Conclude with a quote from Hannah Arendt, Einchmann’s work in Jerusalem. A report on the banality of evil, on the behavior of Adolf Eichmann, tried for crimes against humanity, as he contributed to the orchestration of the genocide of European Jews: From the point of view of our legal institutions and moral standards of judgment, this normality was far more terrifying than all the atrocities combined, because it implies that this type of murderer, who he is in fact hostis generis humani (the enemy of all mankind, nn.), commits crimes in circumstances that make it almost impossible for him to know or feel that he is doing something wrong. “