Week 2 - Stanford Prison Experiment

Question 1

How did the work of Walter Mischel and David Rosenhan influence Zimbardo’s thinking about the SPE?

Answer 1

Walter Mischel
Zimbardo was inspired by social psychology studies by Walter Mischel, most famous for studies related challenging the notion that stable personality traits are reliable in indicating someones behaviour. The interplay between situational and dispositional factors are nuanced contributors of behaviour.

David Rosenhan
Famous for being part of a study that challenged clinical diagnosis of mental illness, infiltrating psychiatric wards under the pretence of schizophrenia however was not released without intervention after displaying normal behaviour.

Question 2

What aspects of prison environments did Zimbardo try to emulate?

Answer 2

Social exclusion, limited availability to see visiting family and friends, loss of autonomy, dehumanisation through ragged revealing clothing, given numerical name to remove personal identity, locked in barred cell at night.

Question 3

Was Zimbardo’s decision to play the role of Prison Superintendent a mistake? Does it completely invalidate the study?

Answer 3

Although it may have influenced the results given that the participants likely succumbed too a desirability bias, it did not invalidate the studies focus on how a hostile environment with distinct power dynamics encourages militant, aggressive behaviour.

Question 4

Why did Zimbardo screen potential participants for personality defects and criminal/anti- social behaviour before the study began, and with hindsight, was this a good idea?

Answer 4

The screening process was performed to try and reduce anomalies in the data, ie those with uncommonly high levels of aggression. However, in ding so, the venerability of the findings may have been affected reducing its ecological validity.

Question 5

Zimbardo describes how the guards became almost drunk on ‘the pathology of power’ – how did this manifest itself during the study?

Answer 5

Participant guards showed increased levels of aggression, employing tactics in destructing the individual autonomy of the participant prisoners. The humiliation of the prisoners by exposing them in revealing garments, verbally humiliating them by shouting belittling remarks, and confiscating privileges such as visitors.

Question 6

Similarly, Zimbardo talks about the prisoners succumbing to ‘pathological prisoner syndrome’ – what was this like and why do you think it happened?

Answer 6

1. Deindividuation: When individuals are placed in a uniform or a role that strips them of their individuality, they may become more susceptible to conforming to the expectations of that role. In the case of the prisoners, being assigned a number instead of their name and being subjected to uniformity could have contributed to a loss of identity and sense of self.
   
   2. Powerlessness: The prisoners in the Stanford prison experiment were subjected to the authority of the guards, who held significant power over them. This power dynamic likely contributed to feelings of powerlessness and submissiveness among the prisoners, leading to the development of pathological prisoner syndrome.
   3. Social Identity Theory: According to social identity theory, individuals derive part of their identity from the groups to which they belong. In the simulated prison environment, the prisoners may have started to identify strongly with their role as prisoners, leading them to adopt the behaviors associated with that role.
   4. Situational Pressures: The oppressive and degrading conditions of the simulated prison environment may have created significant stress and pressure on the prisoners, leading to psychological distress and the development of pathological prisoner syndrome.

Question 7

What does Zimbardo say about the role of power, anonymity and time within the study?

Answer 7

Power - the power dynamics facilitated the extreme behaviours exhibited by both the prisoners and the guards. Prisoners where held in an environment in which they felt powerless, and so their behaviour conformed to that of helplessness. The guards were given total control over the prisoner leading to behaviours that were oppressive and abusive. after a while, social constructs were developed which resulted in an abusive environment which was also structured, giving the impression to both the guards and prisoners that they were doing as instructed.
Anonymity - anonymity provided the guards protection against any ethical concerns. It is well documented that social environments validate behaviour. Good behaviour is rewarded within a fair social hierarchy, and poor behaviour is condemned, and so given the impression no body will find out, people are more likely to do poor acts than good if no recognition, observation or implied judgement can / is given out. In the context of the study, anonymity meant that more extreme behaviour was shown, and power dynamics were further perpetuated. Prisoners felt hopeless without a sense of identity to ground their existence, and guards were fuelled by it, giving them opportunity to do as they please and not be subject to concerns that their normal personality keeps up in order to thrive in their day-to-day social environment.
Time - The increasing extreme behaviour from both prisoners and guards showed that time had a strong influence on the participants, as the social hierarchy was more established the powerlessness of the prisoners and authority of the guards increased day-by-day.

Question 8

How has the study been critiqued in relation to ecological validity and experimenter effects?

Answer 8

Criticism of the study include:

1. Zimbardo including himself into the study as the super intendant, may have influenced the participants to show a stronger willingness to perform, exacerbate more extreme behaviour and present themselves in a manor in which that may not have done if the chief researcher was not present.
   1. Additionally, as the super intendant was Zimbardo, and remained idle despite guards behaving abusively toward prisoners, it may have signalled to the guards that their behaviour was acceptable and therefore permitted. They were in a social hierarchy themselves, overseen by the super intendant, and if they did not punish a behaviour, then it must be okay.
2. Although efforts were taken to depict the environment to that of a prison, it was still obvious that it was a university building, and so an element of pretend was in order, contributing to falsifying behaviour, and creating a pseudo persona to fit the pseudo environment

Question 9

What can we conclude, in relation to the SPE, when we consider Reicher and Haslam’s write- up of the BBC Prison Study?

Answer 9

1. Role of Leadership and Shared Identity:
   Reicher and Haslam’s study emphasized the importance of leadership and the formation of a shared identity within the group. Unlike the SPE, where the guards quickly embraced their roles of authority and power, the BBC Prison Study showed that leadership could be contested and negotiated within the group. Participants in the BBC study actively resisted oppressive leadership and worked together to establish a sense of shared identity, challenging the notion that individuals will inevitably conform to assigned roles.
2. Dynamic Nature of Social Roles:
   The BBC Prison Study highlighted the dynamic nature of social roles and power dynamics within groups. Unlike the rigid roles observed in the SPE, where guards and prisoners quickly fell into established roles, participants in the BBC study constantly negotiated and redefined their roles based on changing circumstances and group dynamics. This suggests that social behavior is not determined solely by assigned roles but is influenced by the interactions and relationships within the group.
3. Contextual Factors:
   Reicher and Haslam’s study emphasized the importance of contextual factors in shaping behavior within simulated prison environments. They argued that the oppressive behavior observed in the SPE was not inevitable but was influenced by specific situational factors, such as leadership styles and group dynamics. By manipulating these contextual factors, the researchers were able to create a more collaborative and egalitarian environment in the BBC study, challenging the deterministic view of human behavior presented in the SPE.

Question 10

How did Zimbardo use the SPE to make sense of the abuse reported to have taken place at Abu Ghraib?

Answer 10

1. Deindividuation and Dehumanization:
   Zimbardo proposed that the abuse at Abu Ghraib could be understood through the lens of deindividuation and dehumanization, concepts that were central to the SPE. In both cases, the perpetrators (guards at the SPE and military personnel at Abu Ghraib) were able to engage in abusive behavior because they viewed the victims (prisoners) as less than human. This dehumanization allowed the perpetrators to justify their actions and distance themselves from the moral implications of their behavior.
2. Role of Authority and Power:
   Zimbardo highlighted the role of authority and power dynamics in both situations. At Abu Ghraib, military personnel were given authority over the prisoners, similar to the guards in the SPE who were given power over the prisoners. This authority, coupled with the lack of oversight and accountability, created an environment where abusive behavior was more likely to occur. Zimbardo argued that the hierarchical structure of the military and the prison system contributed to the abuse by reinforcing the power differential between perpetrators and victims.
3. Situational Influences:
   Zimbardo emphasized the influence of situational factors on behavior in both the SPE and Abu Ghraib. In both cases, the oppressive environment and the normalization of abusive behavior contributed to the escalation of violence and cruelty. Zimbardo argued that the situational pressures faced by the guards at Abu Ghraib, such as stress, fear, and the need to maintain control over the prisoners, were similar to those faced by the guards in the SPE, leading to similar outcomes.

Question 11

What do you make of Zimbardo’s claims that we need to understand how situations can make ordinary people behave in evil ways?

Answer 11

1. Situationism vs. Dispositionism:

Zimbardo’s perspective contrasts with dispositions, which attributes behavior solely to individual traits or characteristics. Instead, Zimbardo argues for situationism, which emphasises the role of external circumstances in shaping behavior. By acknowledging the impact of situational factors, Zimbardo challenges the notion that individuals are inherently good or evil and underscores the importance of examining the context in which behavior occurs.

2. Social Psychology Perspective:

Zimbardo’s claims align with principles of social psychology, which emphasise the influence of social situations, norms, and roles on individual behavior. Social psychologists argue that human behavior is often influenced by social context, group dynamics, and situational pressures. Understanding these factors can help explain why seemingly ordinary individuals may engage in behaviors that are harmful or morally reprehensible under certain circumstances.

3. Implications for Prevention and Intervention:

Zimbardo’s assertion has important implications for preventing and addressing harmful behavior. By recognizing the role of situational factors, interventions can be developed to modify environments and mitigate the risk of destructive behavior. This might involve implementing ethical guidelines, promoting empathy and perspective-taking, or creating systems of accountability to prevent abuses of power.

4. Ethical Considerations:

Zimbardo’s claims also raise ethical considerations regarding the responsibility of individuals and institutions in creating and perpetuating harmful situations. Understanding how situational factors can influence behavior highlights the importance of ethical leadership, organizational culture, and social norms in fostering environments that promote prosocial behavior and prevent harm.