Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo has been a Stanford University professor since 1968. Zimbardo’s career is noted for giving psychology away to the public through his popular PBS-TV series, “Discovering Psychology,” along with many text and trade books, among his 300 publications. He was recently president of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Zimbardo conducted the (in)famous Stanford Prison Experiment in the summer of 1971. He recently published a book called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil in which he discusses the Stanford Prison Experiment, its relevance to Abu Ghraib, and the “banality of heroism.”
Question: What are the sequence of events of the Stanford Prison Experiment?
Answer: The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was my attempt to determine what happens when you put good people in an evil place: Does humanity triumph or do situational forces come to dominate even the best of us? My Stanford Psychology graduate students, Craig Haney and Curt Banks, and I created a realistic simulation of a prison-like environment—a “bad barrel” into which we placed twenty-four highly selected college student volunteers for a two-week experiment.
On the basis of the assessment from a battery of psychological tests and interviews we had selected them from among seventy-five who had answered the ad we placed in the city newspaper. By a flip of the coin of chance, half were to role-play guards, the rest took on the role of prisoners. Naturally, the prisoners lived there 24/7 while the guards worked 8 hour shifts. Initially nothing happened the first day as these college students from all over the U.S. were awkwardly getting into their roles.
But on the second morning, the prisoners rebelled; the guard’s crushed the rebellion and then instituted stern measures against these now “dangerous prisoners.” From then on, abuse, aggression, and eventually sadistic pleasure in degrading the prisoners became the daily norm. Within thirty-six hours the first prisoner had an emotional breakdown and had to be released, followed in kind by similar prisoner breakdowns on each of the next four days.
Good, normal young men had been corrupted by the power of their role and by the institutional support for such a power differential with their humbled prisoners. The Bad Barrel had proven to have a toxic effect on our Good Apples. Our projected two-week long study was terminated prematurely after only six days because it had escalated out of control.
Question: What brought the Stanford Prison Experiment to an end?
Answer: The guards were beginning to enforce sexually degrading “fun and games” against the prisoners. Obviously, I should have ended the study on my own after witnessing the emotional breakdowns and sexual abuses, but I did not because I had taken on the second role of Prison Superintendent added to that of Principal Investigator, and prison officials are not bothered by such reactions. Fortunately for me someone was bothered, bothered enough to force me to shut down this “little shop of horrors.”
I had invited a number of “outsider” young faculty and grad students to interview everyone connected with our experiment to give me a fresh perspective on what they discovered. One of them was a recent Stanford PhD who as about to be a new assistant professor at Cal Berkeley named Christina Maslach; I had just begun dating her. She came down to our dungeon on the fifth night of the study, and after observing what had become the “normal” final toilet run of prisoners each night, got really distressed.
She saw them with bagged heads, ankles in chains, hands on each other’s shoulders moving along the corridor like a zombie parade as guards shouted abuses at them. “It is terrible what YOU are doing to those boys,” she yelled at me, adding something like, “I’m not sure I want to continue a relationship with you if this is what you are really like!” That double slap in the face was the catalyst for my realizing that the study had worked too well, that those powerful situational forces had also corrupted me. After making all the necessary logistical arrangements, I pulled the plug on the Stanford Prison Experiment the next day.
In The Lucifer Effect, I detail for the first time the full day-by-day and night-by-night chronology of the events that had such a transformative impact on virtually everyone who got immersed in that setting. It is only by seeing the creatively evil ways the guards invented to break the will of the prisoners to resist that one comes to appreciate how a host of situational forces can combine to make good people do bad things.
I believe that such understanding puts us all in a better position to appreciate what the Lucifer Effect really means. Lucifer, God’s favorite angel, was cast out of heaven into hell for his sin of disobedience against God, and became the Devil, Satan. My book analyzes lesser human transformations of ordinary, good people as they are seduced by a set of situational forces to take the first steps down evil’s slippery slope.
Question: How would you apply what you learned with the Stanford Prison Experiment to what happened at Abu Ghraib?
Answer: Three decades later, the scenario of the SPE was reenacted with chilling similarity in another prison by other American prison guards. The images flashing across TV screens around the world of the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military police men and women were shocking, but not at all surprising to me.
I had seen their counterpart in my basement prison at Stanford, naked prisoners, bagged heads, sexually humiliated. It was inexcusable behavior, but not inexplicable once I discovered that the beyond the visual parallels were the same set of psychological principles operating in that Bad Barrel of Tier 1A, Abu Ghraib, night shift.
My sense of the sickening similarities between the mock prison of the SPE and that all too real prison dungeon in the middle of a controversial war was also highlighted in one of the investigations into the causes of this human tragedy.
The investigation by the former Defense Secretary James Schlessinger and his committee concluded that the “landmark Stanford experiment” should have been a cautionary tale for the military. That report indicts the untenable situation created in that prison dungeon for creating the volatile environment that became a catalyst for abusive behavior. Good Apples turned sour in a few weeks on duty in that Hell hole of a Bad Prison Barrel embedded in the Bad Barrel of War.
Question: Is there a difference between “good commanders” and “good professors” letting something bad happen?
Answer: The worse abuses in both prisons occurred on the night shift, when there was least surveillance by me, the good professor, and by them, the good commanders. In both cases, guards were allowed to have too much unrestrained power without top-down oversight.
In Abu Ghraib I believe the top brass intentionally designed that setting to give permission for these lowly Army Reservists, “weekend soldiers” without mission specific training, to “prepare detainees for interrogation,” to “take the gloves off,” to “soften them up” for interrogation.
Tier 1A was the interrogation, “soft torture” center where 1000 detainees were housed, men and boys whom the commanders believed held the key to the insurgency’s success. But most knew nothing, and those that might have some worthwhile information had only cold, stale information after being confined for months. Pressure from Donald Rumsfeld went down the military chain of command and ended up with military intelligence in charge of Tier 1A soliciting the seven MPs on the night shift to step over the line of protecting their prisoners to breaking them down.
Question: If it’s possible, how would you allocate “blame” to the three factors of disposition, situation, and systemic conditions?
Answer: The Lucifer Effect makes evident that blame for such abuse should not be limited to the few grunts at the end of the food chain—the so called “rogue soldiers.” If their immoral actions were fueled by the horrible situation they were forced to work in then we must also put in the docket those who helped to create that situation—the Power Boys running that sorry show. It must include “Command Complicity” of the architects of the conditions that led to such abuses—those in the Bush administration, and the Military commanders who should have know what their subordinates were doing for three long months.
In the book I invite readers to act as jurors judging each of a number of military and civilian personnel for their crimes against humanity in that place. My new web site[www.luciferEffect.com] goes further by providing visitors with a virtual voting booth to judge the guilt or innocence of CIA former head George Tenet, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, VP Dick Cheney, and our Commander in Chief of War, President George W. Bush.
Question: How would you re-engineer the “system” to prevent a reoccurrence?
Answer: Such abuses do not occur where there is responsible leadership; where commanders and leaders of all institutions make crystal clear that they will not tolerate doing harm; that personal dignity will always be respected; that the rules of engagement will be known by all; that everyone is ultimately personally responsible for their actions; and that any violations of such protocol will be meet with public censure and punishment.
In addition, it is imperative for all leaders to appreciate the psychological dynamics operating in situations they create, and to have psychologically trained personnel who are charged with making them work positively not destructively.
Question: Are people inherently and consistently good or bad?
Answer: I begin my book with John Milton’s classic statement about the power of the human mind, that it is its own place, and can “make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.” I follow with a psychological celebration of the mind’s infinite capacity to make any of us villains or heroes by enabling us to be caring or indifferent, selfless of selfish, creative or destructive.
People are not born evil, but rather with survival talents, and remarkable mental templates to be anything imaginable — just as infants readily learn to speak and understand any of a thousand languages in an instant in their development. We get a push from nature in various directions, such as being more inhibited or bold, but who we become is ultimately a complex process of cultural, historical, religious, economic and political experiences in familial and other institutional settings.
Most of us fail to appreciate the extent to which our behavior is under situational control, because we prefer to believe that is all is internally generated. We wander around cloaked in an illusion of vulnerability, mis-armed with an arrogance of free will and rationality.
Instead, few of us really know ourselves or most others in our lives. We can hardly have confidence in assertions of what we would do in a new or alien situation because we chose to live in familiar, safe, predictable situations. And we play the same roles over and over in each of our various behavioral settings, as do those we think we know.
Those roles come with scripted actions and dialogues that soon are familiar to our audiences, since we are rarely taxed to improvise but say the lines as stated. Another illusion we cherish is that the line between good and evil is impermeable, with those bad people on the other evil side and we and our kind and kin are forever located in the realm of goodness.
A body of psychological science puts a lie to such an illusion by dramatically demonstrating the ease with which ordinary people can be seduced or initiated into the ranks of the other by blind obedience to authority, mindless conformity, diffusing responsibility, dehumanizing, adherence to norms and rigidly playing our assigned roles. That line between good and evil is not an abstraction but “cuts through the center of every human heart,” according to poet and former Stalin era prisoner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Question: What makes people go wrong?
Answer: There are many reasons why people go wrong; it all depends on the situation – excluding those with mental disorders that can trigger rage and violence. They are hired guns in the mafia or the military or in children’s rebel militias. They mindlessly follow seemingly just ideologies that encourage any means necessary to realize their noble ends. They want to be “team players,” “to get with the program,” “to be in the popular click,” to not be rejected and cast in the out-group.
They go wrong by doing nothing, by being guilty of the evil of inaction, doing what their mothers urged them—not to get involved, to “mind their own business,” and let bad shit happen by looking the other way and holding their noses. Good people don’t rush in to do evil where angels fear to tread, instead they start by straying only a small way away from their moral center, and each successive step down is hardly different, barely noticeable, until it is too late and their behavior is shocking and may even be awesome of awful.
Question: How does a person resist undesirable influences?
Answer: Situational forces can make good people do bad things, but that does not translate into either suspending personal accountability or endorsing pessimistic determinism. We are ultimately responsible for the consequences of any of our behavior that is enacted intentionally; however, now we add to the accountability mix those responsible for creating and maintaining evil-generating behaviors.
I am advocating a revolution in legal theory that expands on the narrow individualistic focus by adding situations and systems to calculations of guilt and sentencing. Further, I advocate replacing the traditional medical model of individual disease and cure, which has spilled over into law, psychiatry, religion and most of our institutions, with a public health model.
The presence of pathology in a society alerts the search for the “disease vector” which when found enables inoculation against its toxicity and environmental modifications to prevent its spread. Finally, I must add the obvious recognition that people create situations and thus with wisdom and good will can change them to work for us rather than against us.
The last chapter of Lucifer lays out a basic program of central actions designed to increase our resistance potential. It is expanded in my web site to offer specific strategies and tactics of resistance geared to various types of influence—group conformity pressures, persuasive communications, compliance eliciting by influence professionals, cult recruiting, and more.
Question: Using the same factors that make people do bad things, can you make people do better and better, even heroic, things?
Answer: My new mission in life, my new calling, emerged as I was writing the final chapter of Lucifer. In rethinking Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” as a kind of every normal person’s situationally specific but temporary excursion into the realm of evil, I realized is counterpart was missing.
The “banality of heroism” describes ordinary people who engage in extraordinary deeds of service to humanity—in particular, usually once- in- a lifetime situational setting. Like those doing monstrous deeds that look “terrifying normal,” these ordinary heroes look “delightfully normal.”
So I argue that the very same situation that can inflame the “hostile imagination” in those who become perpetrators of evil can inspire the “heroic imagination” for the first time in any of us. To become a hero involves only two steps on humanity’s path:
One must act; moving away from the passivity of the mass of silent observers of evil or threats to life by somehow being catalyzed into action in that setting.
That action is taken on behalf of others; it is a socio-centric act against the evolutionary imperative of being ego-centric, of not taking risks or putting those precious genes in harm’s way.
My concern is how to promote in our children this heroic imagination, to make them accept the mantle of being a hero-in-waiting for a situation that will come along sometime in their lives when others are following the paths toward evil or toward indifference, and instead, they elect to act on behalf of another person or group or ideal without thought of personal gain or even recognition.
I have to believe that by creating a generation of such ordinary heroes is our best defense against evil, whether on the battlefield, in prisons, or corporate headquarters.
Wow, that was really interesting, seeing as I’m Christian – and good & evil is a very prevalent concept in the church and my life.
One thing though – I did not understand the answer to Question 9, especially after the 1st paragraph (I do know it’s a very difficult question though…) Could you please elaborate?
This really intresting idea! If this metod reallly work i can use this is metod!! thx u
The Lucifer Effect is a great read! I finished it last week. Zimbardo provides a very clear and simple explanation of why (and how) common folks can be transformed into beasts. As I was reading, I opened a text file and saved quotes from the book. Summary:
“Any deed that any human being has ever committed, however horrible, is possible for any of us – under the right or wrong situational circumstances. That knowledge does not excuse evil; rather it democratizes it, sharing its blame among ordinary actors rather than declaring it the province only of deviants and despots – of Them but not US.”
Sometimes Pogo is right: We have have met the enemy and he is us…
Chris, I think he’s talking about developing a personal habit of heroism (his words elsewhere) to combat the ease with which people can do the evil things. Situations and environments may cause people to do evil, but the antidote to this “disease” is to develop a natural tendency to do good by practicing it every day. I’ve talked to his partner, Zeno Franco, a couple of times about this and have written on it in my blog. I’m fascinated with where they’re going with all of this as we seem to be on parallel roads
Phil Zimbardo interviewed by Guy Kawasaki
People are jerks — what else is new?
Great post Guy. One area I think the “Lucifer effect” is very prevalent is in the office place. Look how many Good people went Bad at Enron.
A similar experiment was the famous Milgram Experiment by Stanley Milgram. Check it out. I am sure you will find it just as fascinating.
I know you went to Stanford, and everything but this guy is hardly being objective. The direct supervisors of the guards at Abu Ghraib, though their names have been plastered all over the media, are not even listed on his “voting booth’ web page. I suppose he blames the Stanford board for his predation on the young men who responded to his ad for research subjects.
I don’t know about Stanford but at UCLA in the 70s we were required to participate in so many hours of “volunteer” research in order to pass any psychology class. That his research took place almost 2 decades after the Milgram Experiment, a much less harsh experience for participants, had been universally condemned as unethical is quite revealing.
And now he’s making money off of his abuse of those Stanford students? Doesn’t it strike anyone as strange that this very politically correct book is now released some 35 years after the incidents it depicts? (If not I have some pet store dot com stock you might be interested in.)
Me thinks that the Lucifer Effect may also apply to the temptation to make money in the publishing business. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil, at least according to the Bible.
Shame on you Guy for helping this jerk market his book.
Simply fascinating. Dr. Lombardo’s work in the field of psychology has made very meaningful contributions to the world. I particularly appreciate his applied approach – “giving psychology away” and books like the Lucifer Effect that illuminate insights about the nature of human behavior that can help solve widespread societal challenges.
I’m touched to hear of his new mission in life and excited to see him tackle it.
Radio Advertising and the Lucifer Effect
Guy Kawasaki interviews Dr Philip Zimbardo, who has a new book out which sheds light on the Abu Garib prison horror. How does this relate to radio advertising. In short, indrectly. Perhaps the most relevant way it relates is concerning…
The Face That Launched a Thousand BlogPosts
8:15AM: Jason Calacanis publishes the latest in a brilliant series of linkbaits. By 6:00 PM, hes got 30+ blog posts mentioning him and linking, of course. And the number keeps going up and up. This is the face that launched a thousand(or at leas…
I have always found these kind of studies fascinating, in part because I was raised by a mother who jokingly called herself “the nice white lady”–but in fact, she was an activist for civil rights in the 60s and 70s who didn’t always put her own safety first. Where did that come from in her? I’ve asked her more than once, and she’s never been able to tell me. I hope Zimbardo will continue with this kind of research, because it’s vital.
“People are jerks — what else is new?”
Does your objection hang on whether Zimbardo’s banal heroes will be saying,
“Simon Legree, stop whipping that slave.”
“Mr. Lincoln, stop your immoral war.”
or is something else at issue in your objection?
My objection is to the cynical way that Dr. Zambardo is profiting from his unethical research by tying it in to current events.
It’s an explanation, but still no excuse in my opinion.
“Good Apples turned sour in a few weeks on duty in that Hell hole of a Bad Prison Barrel embedded in the Bad Barrel of War.”
Stanford Prison Experiment and Swarm Intelligence
Guy Kawaski recently conducted an interview with Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the person who created the Stanford Prison Experiment. I’ve been fascinated with this experiment, because of how the situational factors of it could turn good college students into s…
Impressed that he gave gritty, real answers to your questions, that he took full responsibility for his participation in and reaction to the experiment. No ivory tower for that prof.
Power and the Stanford Prison Experiment
Ive been toying with the idea that government is actually an extended, blown-up version of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Im obviously not an expert in psychology, and in the grand tradition of blog-based armchair punditry this has mostl…
The “good apples put into a bad barrel” metaphor immediately made me think of people who get mixed up in a fundamentalist/hardline church. Now more than ever, THAT is a crystal clear example of people “following the paths toward evil” who “elect to act on behalf of another person or group or ideal without thought of personal gain or even recognition.”
Or put differently: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” (Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999)
Sounds like Solon himself! 2600 years ago, Solon of Athens, one of the earliest and wisest Athenian philosophers, took several leaps forward in governance. 2 of Zimbardo’s statements remind me of Solon, as copied by me from another website (credited at the end of this Comment): “In the turbulence of Athenian politics, another of his laws required that, in the event of a revolt, anyone not taking sides would lose all civil rights. This precluded good men, frightened of taking a stand and hoping to save themselves, from remaining aloof from affairs of their city in times of crisis.” and “He is said to have defined a well-governed city by stating, ‘That city where those who have not been injured take up the cause of one who has, and prosecute the case as earnestly as if the wrong had been done to themselves.'”
Thanks to ancientworlds.net for its article on Solon and these quotes!
Resistance Is NOTFutile
The Lucifer Effect How DO Good People Go Bad? An interesting question and an equally interesting interview with the author at Mr. Ks blog. I especially liked the last question #10 about the other side of the coin. A V…
This is a very powerful document with far reaching ramifications not only for the services but for corporations.
I admire in point 10 above, the quest to create a future generation of heroes. I would however, hope that we can set up systems and a process which does not rely on a hero being available to call a halt to the evil.
Perhaps, you could help me come up with an alternative solution.
Wow – interesting and horrifying too. Most people are followers. So in a particular situation, even if the leader was bad, the good followers would become bad too.
This explains why Adolf Hitler had so many followers.
I suppose then, what the world really needs are more great leaders and fewer bad ones. But, the problem is, most leaders whether good or bad are experts at convincing those around them that they are right, particularly through the media.
All this means that someone powerful enough could convince most of us that they are right, however bad their intentions are. Scary stuff – no wonder there is so much conflict in the world.
And by the way can you include a picture showing too, like you do in meebo blog or like in a MSNM.
You guys take care!! God bless you!!! =)
Dear Madame or Sir: I find the prison experiment by Dr. Philip Zimbardo to have been somewhat inhumane and cruel. There are some people who are stronger than others and we should try to encourage them to help people who are weaker and more vulnerable. I feel that sadistic psychological experiments are not right. Thank you. David O’Malley