The controversial Stanford prison experiment conducted by the US psychologist Philip Zimbardo of the University of Stanfordmade in 1971had a disruptive impact in the field of social psychology describing a complex social phenomenon – sometimes called “Lucifer effect” – according to which normal people (let’s say “good”) can come to implement sadistic and violent behaviors starting fromenvironment in which they are immersed when their identity is substantially defined by social group of belonging.
Stanford’s prison experiment consisted in the engagement of 24 people within a fake prison For a few days: at 12 of these the role of guard and to the other 12 that of prisoner. The goal was to understand if, even in the face of a simulation, the behaviors would have modeled themselves according to the role assigned and the context. In fact, the experiment gave some dramatic results So much to make it suspend. Over time, however, he has put himself in serious doubt the validity of the test.
Zimbardo’s starting hypothesis
In the 1971, Philip Zimbardo, US psychologist Active in the study of how the social context could influence human personality and behavior, it became famous for having conducted one of the most dramatic and controversial psychological and social experiments ever: Stanford’s prison experiment.
Zimbardo and their work group had the aim of refuting a thesis widespread among the psychological time of time, namely that the violent and anti -social behavior that are observed in prisons could only be attributed to the personalities of individuals (that is, that “evil” is only an inner and personal question).
The thesis supported by the US psychologist was instead that the behaviors of prisoners were not attributable only to the subject, but also to the context in which people find themselves. Basically, a person would become “good” or “bad” based on the situation, the role held and the power that is conferred on him.
This assumed in social psychology is called fundamental error of attribution. It is our tendency to explain our behavior and that of other people solely in terms of personality traits, underestimating the strength of social influence and context.
The organization of the Stanford experiment
The first step to organize Stanford’s experiment was that of find some people willing to participate: an announcement was published in a local newspaper and, of the 75 candidates (all male), the experimenters chose it 24. Each of them was subjected to Diagnostic interviews and personality tests To make sure that no one manifested special psychological problems, medical disabilities or previous crime or drug abuse.
Subsequently the boys were randomly assigned to the group of prisoners or that guards. To make the experiment even more realistic, Zimbardo had meticulously reproduced the structure of a prison And he had asked to arrest the prisoners without notice.
For both groups a specific treatment:
- THE prisoners They were forced to wear uniforms with identification numbers on the chest and back, to replace their real names (the use of numbers was a way to make the prisoners feel anonymous and de-humanized)
- The guards They wore kaki -colored uniforms, dark sunglasses to prevent visual contact with others. They had Manganelli, whistles and handcuffs supplied just like real police officers.
The guards were not specified no behavior strategy to manage prisoners and researchers would have observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards With hidden cameras and microphones.
How the experiment took place
During the night of the first day The prisoners were awakened for the count: for trying to claim their autonomy, the guards began to punish them forcing them to make flexions. The first day still passed without major problems, but the morning of the second day The prisoners began to rebel by barricading themselves in the cells.
Already after only a couple of days, i first episodes of violence of revolt brought the guards to behaviors to the limit of the sadist and prisoners began to manifest Symptoms of submission to the guardswhich in turn not only did not stop vexaring them, but above all they seemed to experience a certain taste in doing it.
The researchers had to stop the study To guarantee the safety of the participants, But the result had already proved striking: When you find yourself acting within social and group dynamics, episodes can be verified in which self -awareness and self -control is lost.
This phenomenon, defined de-identificationhad led the subjects involved to put aside their personal responsibility, demonstrating how the context could transform normal people into elements totally merged with the group and its goals.
What Zimbardo’s experiment shows: considerations and criticisms
What does Zimbardo’s experiment show? The reflection of the psychologist resumes the considerations of Gustave Le Bon With reference to the masses: the bon claimed that when people feel they belong to a group they are brought to see themselves only in terms of that identity and that belonging, leaving aside their personal responsibility (the rules, the moral and civil acquisitions of the individual). The mass is impulsive, changing, influenceable, acritical especially in those contexts in which symbols of power emerge (guards, manganelli) and anonymity (sunglasses, the number instead of the name).
However, it is good to remember that the experiment has been widely criticized:
- First of all, why has not satisfied the standards established by numerous ethical codes and a rigorous scientific method: in fact it is not replicable.
- In addition, it results little generalizefor example from a gender or age point of view, and does not take into account many implicated variables (environmental, situational, etc.).
Despite criticism, however, it remains an important case of study of how the situation can influence human behavior.
