Applications of Stanford Prison Experiment - Research Paper Example

Applications of Stanford Prison Experiment Modeled on Milgram’s experiment on obedience, Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to investigate the power of social situations in predisposing individuals’ behaviors (APA, 2004). Conducted in 1971 at Stanford University, the mock-prison experiment comprised of twenty-four college students from all over the country. The pre-selection process helped to screen for psychologically well-adjusted participants with no history of behavioral problems or genetically predisposed maladjustments. Half the students were assigned the role of prison guards while the remaining half was assigned the role of prisoners. Zimbardo played the role of the prison superintendent while his research assistant played the role of the warden. Under Zimbardo’s directive, the prison guards enforced authoritarian measures, which sought to disorient, depersonalize and de-individuate the prisoners. Among the tactics, they used included referring to the prisoners by their assigned numbers and not their names and adopting a reward-punishment system to regulate the prisoner’s behaviors. Consequentially, the prisoners passively accepted the guards’ harsh treatment and further followed directives issued by the guards to harass their non-compliant counterparts. Zimbardo and the research assistant found themselves entrenched in the study whereby they sanctioned the guards’ inhumane treatment of the prisoners. Despite the premature termination of the experiment, the researchers were able to confirm their hypothesis. It was apparent that the participants’ behaviors resulted from the situational context and not dispositional factors (APA, 2004). Explored below are the applications of Zimbardo’s experiment in contemporary society. Over the years, various scholars have attempted to uncover factors that predispose ordinary people (psychologically and behaviorally well-adjusted or normal individuals) to engage in genocidal acts. Structural theories encompass cultural, situational and institutional explanations, which are specific to a given society at a particular time. The basic presumption of structural theories centers on contextual factors, which mobilize individuals to participate in mass violence. According to proponents of structural theories, the occurrence of genocide crimes hinges on the existence of the right structural context. The contextual factors include characteristics of a specific culture, state or the existence of a specific historical situation. Entrenched in this theory exists institutional explanations concerning individuals participation in genocide. They infer that institutional hierarchy and the state’s capacity controls citizens’ inclination to perpetrate mass violence. For example, during Hitler’s reign, Germany was an authoritarian state characterized by societal adherence to directives given by the government (Harff, 2003). Authoritarian states require unquestioned compliance from all their citizens; therefore, when asked to participate in genocide crimes, citizens in such countries comply despite the actions contradicting their personal philosophies. Politicization of genocide by leaders remains a key factor that predisposes individuals to participating in genocide. More often than not, leaders advance their personal agendas at the expense of their subordinates. They are conscious of the influence they have on swaying the public’s perspectives. Characteristics of a specific culture also predispose ordinary citizens to execute genocide crimes. According to Goldhagen (1997), the prevalence of genocide is specific to cultures characterized by deep social divisions, institutionalized racism, and cultural anti-Semitism. The deep social divisions encompass segregation based on ethnic, race, and gender differences. Social psychologists sought to uncover the impact of group influence on individuals’ behaviors, a concept they referred to as mob psychology. According to these scholars, people in a mob assume the qualities of the entire group in favor of their unique dispositions (beliefs, attitudes, and personality traits) increasing the probability of them engaging in heinous, inhumane acts such as gang rape, murder, and violent riots. The process an individual undergoes when losing his individuality after becoming affiliated to a group is referred to as de-individuation. It encompasses the loss of one’s sense of creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. Factors of anonymity, arousal and group unity weigh down on an individual’s personal control of guilt and shame. As a result, individuals distance themselves from their personal identities, which functions to reduce their concern for evaluating social situations. The arousal of an individual’s interest only occurs when outcomes meet the goals the group is seeking to achieve (Gavreliuc, 2007). In addition, diffusion of responsibility occurs whereby, each member of the group bear the burden of the actions. No member is accountable for specific actions undertaken within the context of a group. In fact, each individual assumes that another member of the group will assume responsibility of a certain action (Gavreliuc, 2007). Diffusion of social norms occurs when members of a group identify and internalize norms and attitudes of influential members of the group. During the identification process, a person’s attitudes and beliefs undergo a transformation whereby, a person embraces those of an admired leader in favor of their own. Zimbardo’s mock-prison setting mirrored real-life prison settings; as such, his results made it possible to comprehend the behaviors exhibited by prisoners in riots that erupted shortly after the study in Attica and San Quentin prisons and those exhibited by wardens in Abu Ghraib, American prison in 2004 in Iraq. Serving as a vital witness for the defense team, Zimbardo attributed the wardens’ behaviors to the situational context. US troops were currently engaged in a war against Iraqi militia groups whereby prisoners of war (POWs) captured by both parties were subjected to inhumane treatments, which stripped them of their dignity and hope. Since then, Zimbardo’s experimental results have been used to institute reforms in the country’s correctional facilities. For example, juvenile offenders awaiting pre-trial are no longer housed with adult inmates, as they are likely to face abuse (APA, 2004). In the Stanford experiment, other prisoners subjected juveniles to various forms of abuse. In conclusion, Zimbardo’s experiment enlightened our understanding of the role of situational factors in predisposing human behaviors. Other scholars, especially social psychologists are now able to understand phenomena such as mob psychology or factors that predispose ordinary individuals to engage in genocidal acts. In addition, Zimbardo’s study also helped to explain behaviors in real-life prison environments, which helped to institute legislative reforms. References APA. (2004, June 8). Demonstrating the power of social situations via a simulated prison experiment. Retrieved from American Psychological Association : http://www.apa.org Gavreliuc, A. (2007). From Interpersonal Relationships to Social Communications. Goldhagen, D. (1997). Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Vintage Press. Harff, B. (2003). "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955." American Political Science Review, February 97(1):57 -73 Read More