Introduction
Psychology is undoubtedly a science that has developed throughout the years, going through many stages before it could qualify as a field that could entail experimental findings, that could be verified empirically through the observation of results that were constant and repetitive. The Stanford prison experiment, undertaken by several researchers under the leadership of Phillip Zimbardo, brought out chilling realities concerning an important psychological aspect of human beings. The experiment established that human beings can particularly be convinced to do things that they otherwise considered morally wrong by authority figures or institutions.
Good and Evil
According to Zimbardo, the boundary between good and evil is created from illusions of mankind, and there is a significant possibility of one slipping from one side to the other. This fact forms the basis of how other factors may quickly contribute to the sudden shift from good to evil or vice-versa. Such factors include dispositional and situational factors. (2007)
Dispositional and Situational Influence
An analysis of the experiment reveals that the fake prison environment managed to evoke emotions and feelings in the prisoners, the prison warden, and even Zimbardo who played the warden. The feelings and emotions were consistent with the ones observed in real prisons. The extent to which the prison environment influenced the behavior of the participants even surprised Zimbardo. The prison wardens assumed the authoritative role and were determined to ensure that prisoners were obedient and subjective to them. On the other hand, the prisoners displayed the frustrations of being locked up and being under authority. Although the participants were chosen randomly from a group of undergraduates, the behaviors they conformed to were consistent with the prison situation. Within a period of six days, the prison environment was able to breed wardens and prisoners from individuals considered to be mentally stable. In one instance in the experiment, most of the prisoners displayed obedience by surrendering their mattresses even when the prisoners knew that it was wrong. Perhaps, Zimbardo’s incrementalist concept best explains the observation. Through continued experience, the participants managed to acquire characteristics that seemed to override other factors such as genetic traits and past experiences. Zimbardo explains that the desire to eliminate evil can lead to actions that are counterproductive and that have been blown out of proportion. (Zimbardo, 2007). For instance, in the experiment by Zimbardo, it became clear that wardens often resolved to use sadistic and barbaric means to contain the rebelling or disobedient prisoners. Zimbardo explains that the creative human mind has also the capacity to creatively come up with methods of torture. The subject authority relationship between the prisoner and the warden predisposes the prisoner to obey the warden even when it involves an unethical act.
The same observation was made by Milgram in the “Milgram Obedience to Authority Experiment.” The participants were required to administer electric shocks to a volunteer under the guise that it was a scientific experiment. Most of the participants were willing to administer dangerous electric shocks after a brief and effortless explanation from the authority figure. (YouTube, 2009c). From the YouTube Video, one participant even exclaims that he thought that the volunteer had been dead. ( YouTube, 2009a). Another female participant also gives the excuse that she had been assured by the authority figure that the damage caused to the volunteer would not be long-term. (YouTube, 2009d). The extent to which the authority figure had an influence on the actions of the participants is surprising. Zimbardo explains that authority figures and institutions usually establish dominance and control upon their subjects, as a way of securing their positions. For instance, the reason why the participants in the Stanford prison experiment playing as wardens were able to use such sadistic approaches was because they had conceived enmity in their minds. Zimbardo outlines that, “it is all done with words and images.” (2007). In most circumstances, people assume an inferior role in the presence of authority figures. The implication is that the authority should be obeyed without question. Under such situations, evil can be conceived and committed even when there are no real threats. An example is the Nazi Holocaust and other evils instigated by authorities to the apparently unsuspecting subjects. (YouTube, 2009b).
Conclusion
The socio-psychological revelations of the Stanford Experiment, although controversial, managed to shed light on the logic behind major evils conducted by subjects on behalf of authorities. A major discovery is that authority strives to establish dominance to ensure its continuity. Another realization is the ultimate responsibility of a particular act. People are usually able to absolve themselves of any responsibility during particular wrongdoing just because it was ordered by an authority figure. These observations compounded by the fact that evil and good are separated by a rather thin line, and that crossing the line is quite easy provides unlimited possibilities of what authority figures can make people do. Regardless of whether their personal moral judgment dictates otherwise, human beings can still be convinced to do evil by authority figures.
References
- YouTube. (Producer). ( 2009a). Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 2/3. Web.
- YouTube. (Producer). (2009b). Jehovah’s Witnesses, Stanley Milgram, the Nazis and Obedience. Web.
- YouTube. (Producer). (2009c). Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 1/3.
- YouTube. (Producer). (2010d). Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 2/3.
- Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House, pg 7-35.