Psychology: The Zimbardo Prison Experiment  

Psychology: The Zimbardo Prison Experiment  

            The Zimbardo Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 at Stanford in a simulated prison life in order to investigate how quickly people conformed to the roles of guard and prisoner. This experiment highlighted that the brutality behavior observed among many American prison guards had more to do with the prison environment and not their personality, as many had thought. The experiment also served as an insight into the nature of human beings when subjected to various environments and given specific roles.

I would have ended the experiment on the onset of the hunger strike from prisoner 416, who deferred to boycotting food for a prolonged period of time as a protest to the pain and humiliation. The experiment featured a classic role play of correctional officers and inmates whereby the guards adopted the typical personalities and behaviors of real guards. The inmates, on the other hand, adopted the typical inmate’s role of being submissive and docile. The brutality of the experiment began to affect the psychological well-being of prisoner 416 to the point that he began to lose his identity and view himself as a prisoner, which could affect their psychology permanently (BBC, 19:45). The rebellion from the prisoner would probably spread to the other inmates which would lead to a full rebellion which could be potentially catastrophic. Furthermore, in my own opinion, the experiment should not have been carried out due to its unethical nature and the prison environment especially for the inmates.

In my own opinion, the students who played the role of inmates would later develop psychological issues after the experiment, especially due to the degree of the simulated environment they were subjected to. For instance, students participating as inmates might have developed symptoms of inferiority complex syndrome and or feelings of such due to the humiliating experiences they were subjected to. The experience of having their clothes stripped and the humiliation that followed could develop feelings of being inferior, especially towards the students who took the role of the guards and to the general public due to the infringement of their privacy and the mockery. Prisoner 8612, for instance, developed severe distress due to the experiences he went through during the experiment (BBC, 11:46). According to McLeod (2008), many inmates claimed to be assertive types normally, something that fully disappeared once the experiment kicked off. In addition, anger and resentment towards the coordinator of the experiment post experiment could be a possible psychological aftermath of the experiment. The prisoners could have sought an exit from their psychological breakdown due to the experiment. Prisoner 819, for instance, developed resentment toward the authorities and demanded to be released. Nevertheless, the experiment could have initiated feelings of depression as the inmates were recovering from the horrible conditions they were subjected to. The hostile environment, constant policing, altered sleeping patterns, and rigorous activities during the night could have altered the psychological well-being of the inmates, resulting in depression. Finally, inmates could have struggled with identity crises and loss of self-worth. This could have especially stemmed from the realization of how they had been used as pawns in an experiment and the constant referral using their prison numbers instead of real names. The students playing the guards’ role could have developed psychological issues, although different from the inmates. For instance, guilt and remorse could be a possible aftermath effect of the experiment as the guards came to terms with the seriousness of the humiliating experiences they had put their colleagues through. McLeod (2008) quotes one of the guards acknowledging feeling angry after the experiment. Prolonged guilt and remorse can potentially develop into an inferiority complex as they try to cope with the realization of their actions. In addition, placing the students in a domineering role over the other students could have developed sadistic personalities in the guards. The pleasure of exerting their power and dominance over the inmates and observing them follow orders could develop an inhumane and sadistic personality in the guards.

The details of the experiment had a profound impact on my perception of Christian teachings, especially on the moral code developed by the particular religion. By highlighting the details of some teachings and perceptions long held by the religion in a practical sense, the experiment helped me have an open-minded approach toward Christian teachings and values. For instance, the experiment highlighted the inherently evil nature of human beings, a teaching long held by Christians. The Christian doctrine teaches that all human beings are inherently sinful by nature and born sinful, hence the need for a savior from the sinful nature. Through the experiment, it is clearly visible that given the right circumstances, power, freedom from responsibility of actions, and under a conducive environment, human beings are capable of turning into an evil being, and nobody is inherently righteous. The participants for the experiment, especially the guards, were picked from the normal student population, most of whom confessed to being good people. But on the onset of being given power over other individuals and having no responsibility whatsoever for their actions, the guards turned into typical and brutal beings, taking the character of real prison guards. For instance, John Wayne, one of the participants, confessed that power corrupted him and revealed his hidden sadistic nature (BBC 22:00). According to McLeod (2008), many prison guards confessed they did not know that this side of them existed or that they were capable of doing such brutal things to fellow human beings for fun despite having been confirmed mentally stable and psychologically alright just before the experiment started. The sudden unleashing of their evil side, therefore, seems to have stemmed from an inherent nature. In addition, the experiment magnified my perception of the Christian teaching on the nature of morality especially regarding objective morality. To me the experiment developed the argument surrounding objective morality and the nature of the same. Objective morality argues that right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the circumstance and the context. This view is held by the Christian doctrine that morals are universal. Based on the context of the experiment, subjective morality would be a good excuse for the nature of the experiences the inmates were made to go through. However, the lack of well-informed consent by participants and the level of humiliation and distress experienced by those who acted as prisoners speaks for the universality of what is right or wrong regardless of the context. Despite the humiliating conditions of the prison being for the purpose of the experiment, this did not justify the brutality of the environment. Wrongdoing was treated as wrongdoing regardless of the context of the event or the personal values and perceptions held by the perpetrators. This argues for the position of universal morality, which is synonymous with the Christian doctrine.

The experiment is loaded with a lot of life lessons especially regarding the nature of the interactions of different people in different contexts. The most outstanding life lesson is that if pushed to their limits, human beings are capable of reacting in a disastrous manner, either to harm themselves or to harm their oppressors. From the details of the experiment, various characters playing the role of the inmates were unable to cope with the nature of the environment, resulting in rebelling against the guards or choosing to harm themselves in reaction. For instance, prisoner 8612 rebelled against the guards as a reaction to the pressure he was undergoing at the hands of the guards. This secured his release. On the other hand, prisoner 819 decided to inflict self-harm by going on a hunger strike. Moreover, the experiment highlights that any human being is capable of betraying you under the right circumstances and time. For example, the relationship between the students prior to the experiment was, at best good, but on the onset of power to the guards resulted in the betrayal of the inmates. Moreover, the inmates betrayed prisoner 416 when given the offer to betray their colleague took the offer without hesitation. In a bid to manipulate inmate 416 to follow orders, the guards offered the other inmates the choice between sleeping without blankets and having the desires of inmate 416 fulfilled or sleeping without them and keeping the prisoner locked (BBC 20:00). The inmates chose to betray their colleague and sleep with their blankets on. This instance also highlights the inherently selfish nature of human beings. From the Zimbardo experiment, one can learn that despite the negativity associated with a particular thing, sometimes it is justifiable to undertake an unethical path to achieve a particular goal. The setting, the environment, and the hostility of the guards were all unethical. The experiment, nevertheless, served as a major breakthrough in the field of psychological research especially due to the results which could not be obtained previously due to ethical barriers. The results from the experiment have been used to explain and predict various human behavior patterns. This does not, however, justify the inhuman treatment of people in scientific research.

References

McLeod, S. (2008). Stanford prison experiment. Simply Psychology. https://popehs.typepad.com/files/the-stanford-prison-experiment.pdf

Patricia Im (January 2017) Psychology: The Stanford Prison Experiment - BBC Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4txhN13y6A