As I mentioned in my previous post Philip Zimbardo went to the same High School as Stanley Milgram. And they were actually good friends. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study was conducted 10 years after the Milgram studies so it becomes clear that Milgram had quite an influence on Zimbardo’s work. This is why I wanted to present Zimbardo as well. Nowadays Zimbardo is one of the best known psychologists. The best introduction book for psychology in German is literally known as Zimbardo because he is one of the main authors of the book. Zimbardo is the son of a Sizilian immigrant family and was raised in New York City. Before I start to write about the prison study, I would like to describe the rest of his research and fields of interest. Zimbardo is the founder of a shyness clinic which is now situated in Palo Alto, California. According to him, shyness can be treaten by social exercise, just like muscles can be trained.
Another interesting fact is the HIP, the Heroic imagination Project. It deals with heroism and how everybody can be a hero and everyday’s life. I think the term heroism is typically American but the idea behind that nevertheless is important. It is all about act in favor of humanity, to encourage prosocial behaviour, to stand up for his ideals. This is necessary for a society trying to live in a democracy in the times of globalisation and climate change and confronting many other challenges.
Stanford Prison Study
Zimbardo’s work shows that he supports humanism. Social fitness can be achieved by everyone as well as he can be capable of heroistic acts, and aggressive prison guards may be just poor victims of a greater force. And so Zimbardo was in the defense for the Abu Ghraib prison guard Ivan Frederick in 2004 who was acused in court martial for abusing prisoners. Combining his knowledge of decades of research together with this special case was the source of his book “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil“. To criticise Zimbardo you can state that he underestimates the influence of the invididual character. Zimbardo tries to show that we depend more on the situation than on our individuality.
It all started with the Stanford prison study in 1971. He chose 24 male volunteering participants of different social classes, but mostly they were white and middle-class. The selection of 24 out of 75 responding people was done to get the mentally most stable ones. It is criticised that the whole selection process caused a bias in the study. A very fundamental and not avoidable fact is that not everybody would voluntarily participate in such a study. Researchers from the Western Kentucky university showed that people volunteering for a study including the words “prison life” showed significantly more abusive behaviour than people volunteering for a similar study without these words. Hence people actually working as prison guards also have this disposition of abusive behaviour. I think that this makes completely sense because there they have the possibility to legitimise their behaviour.
The location for the study was the psychology department of Stanford university, set up to look like a prison. The participants being the prisoners were arrested at their homes and brought to the mock prison while the participants being the guards were equipped with wooden clubs, sunglasses and uniform. Everything was tried to be simulated as realistic as possible. Throughout the study everything was filmed by cameras.
I don’t want to go into much detail of what happened but after only six days of planned two weeks it had to be cancelled by Zimbardo because it caused many problems among the participants. First the groups prisoners and guards showed strong cohesiveness so that on the second day the prisoners started a riot against the guards. Then the guards developed rather unethical techniques to split the group of prisoners successfully.
After all you could name this study a version of the Milgram studies involving more people and social interaction. However the guards were not given very clear instructions like the teachers received in the Milgram studies. It is often criticised that the guards merely did what was expected from them. There exists the picture that guards are abusive towards prisoners so the participants in the role of the guards played this role. It is very questionable that this study has shown that guards like Ivan Frederick are no guilty for what they have done.
Maybe the combination of predisposition and environment has to be analysed, like it was done with the MAOA gene (predisposition) and experienced maltreatment during childhood (environment) and its consequences on aggressive behaviour. But there is another question I ask myself when reading about the Stanford prison study. Is the prison, as it exists today, a good method against violence? I have to admit that I don’t know nothin about today’s prisons but just the idea to punish people by putting them into cells seems very old-fashioned to me. Isn’t there another way to deal with this problem?

