What are the Implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment for Humanity in the Long Run?

In 1971 a group of 18 students took part in what was to become the most controversial experiment of the decade. The students were divided randomly into prisoners and wardens. The wardens were given complete control of the prisoners and the experiment left to run. The idea of the experiment was to find out the causes of such atrocities as the Holocaust. Dr. Zimbardo, the conductor of the experiment, was intrigued as to why normal Germans, who thought the idea of extermination of all Jews was morally wrong, still allowed it to happen and in extreme cases aided Hitler’s cause in the death camps. Zimbardo was sure that man’s true nature would shine through in his experiment to reveal humans for what they really are. In his experiment this human nature shone through in only a few days and the experiment had to be abandoned.

Dr. Zimbardo was working to find out man’s potential for evil and what caused violence to arise in even the most calm of people. For this reason, the 18 students were handpicked and screened for any mental disturbances or violent behaviour. The students were described by Zimbardo as “peaceniks,” they were some of the calmest people to be found. All the people in the prison were assured to be ‘normal’ people.

In the 1960’s Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment that was to prove nearly as controversial. Two people, a ‘teacher’ and a ‘learner,’ were separated by a screen. The ‘teacher’ would then ask the ‘learner’ questions and each time an incorrect answer was given, the ‘teacher’ would administer an electric shock to the ‘learner’. The voltage would be steadily increased until the maximum 450-volt shock, which would be lethal. At times the ‘teachers’ were reluctant to continue but under the authority of an overseer they would carry on. At one point one of the ‘teachers’ shouted out “Who will take responsibility if this guy gets hurt?” to which the overseer replied “I will take full responsibility, please continue.” This showed the conclusion to Stanley Milgram’s experiment. The authority of the overseer took away all responsibility from the ‘teacher’ because they could hide behind the overseer as he had accepted responsibility for the experiment, despite the fact that it was the ‘teacher’ that had administered the shocks.

It could also show that the overseer, a mysterious man in a white coat, presents such a solid authority that the ‘teacher’ could not disobey his orders. This experiment can prove that not only is it Germans and Sadists who could commit such atrocities as the Holocaust, as previously believed in the light of World War II, but that anyone could as they took it as “only following orders.” This is what Zimbardo was later to investigate further in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

This idea of following orders and “bondage with ease” is also explored by William Golding in his ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

This idea of following orders and “bondage with ease” is also explored by William Golding in his novel “Lord of the Flies.” In Dr. Zimbardo’s prison, the prison guard Dave Eshleman, nicknamed ‘John Wayne’ because of his cruel and degrading attitudes towards the prisoners, becomes the violent leader of the group. He said that, with the anonymity of the dark shades and the uniform, it became easier to treat the prisoners in a violent way. ‘John Wayne’ said that because of these factors he felt as though it was not himself doing those things or that he was not responsible for his actions. The other guards also said that they found it easier to become violent and to watch the violence because Dave Eshleman took all the responsibility away from them.

This idea is also explored in the Lord of the Flies. Twice in the book the rest of the group, but especially Jack, are described as having masks. They are described as being “a single organism” and “a solid mass of menace.” The point of this is to show not only that the group’s individuality is being hidden from sight so they are anonymous and do not feel so guilty about their actions but also so they have “blame without shame.” In other words the responsibility is being taken away from them individually through the group. Jack also takes responsibility away from the group by giving them some authority under which to assert themselves.

During the experiment, Dr. Zimbardo became the Prison Superintendent. Through this role he learnt and observed many things about the group and the treatment of the prisoners, but in turn this reflected on human nature. However the place soon began to take its toll on him. He began to get sucked into the experiment himself. He began acting as the Superintendent rather than as a psychologist conducting an experiment. However, when an independent psychological examiner came in to inspect the prison, she told Zimbardo of what was happening and he realised that it was him who had ultimate responsibility for the prisoners and the guards. Before this inspection he had treated the guards as inferior. This part of the study raises another question: what happens if you put good in an evil place? (the evil place of course being the prison and the good being Dr. Zimbardo and the rest of the people taking part). His conclusion was that the evil place would always win, it having more of an effect than the will of the good people.

He also began to realise that the prisoners were losing their identity. Instead of having names the prisoners became numbers. Both guards and prisoners began to refer to each other by their prison identification numbers (for example prisoner 8612). The loss of identity can also be seen in the Lord of the Flies when the children in the group are given the collective name “Littl’uns.”

Prisoner 8612 lost his identity when he was punished for rebellion. At this point we can see the effect that Dr. Zimbardo was trying to get out of the guards. When he rebelled the immediate action of the guards was not to only punish him but to brutally expose the other prisoners to harsh work in order to create a feeling of resentment between them and prisoner 8612. The guards, led by the notorious John Wayne, exposed the prisoners to meaningless chores. This was to divide the group and make sure that no solidarity remained-except the authority of the guards.

As well as this incident, another incident occurred between Prison Guard Eshleman and Prisoner 416. Prisoner 416 felt as though the guards were pushing his limits so he decided he would push theirs and go on a hunger strike. This got 416 locked in solitary confinement and caused more friction between him and the other prisoners, as they were back doing meaningless work. Finally Eshleman offered the prisoners a deal. They could give up their blankets for the return of Prisoner 416 from solitary confinement or they could refuse and 416 would stay in “The Hole.” They chose to release him but the divide between the prisoners had grown bigger than ever. The prisoners now were inferior in comparison with the guards. They had been de-humanised and this meant that the guards felt more at ease with treating the prisoners as they if they were sub-human.

The reaction of the other guards to Dave Eshleman’s behaviour surprised many observers. Psychologists had predicted that should a situation such as this arise then the other guards would not stand for it. But instead of challenging him and undermining his stolen authority, the other guards chose to allow him to continue his authority. It is the typical ‘safety in numbers’ scenario in which the guards felt it would be easier to go with John Wayne rather than to go against him. This is also seen in the Lord of the Flies in which Jack has stolen authority from Ralph but because the others are too afraid to challenge him, Jack is allowed to continue his reign of terror. The Nazi Regime in German during the 1930s and 1940s could have been so successful because of this point. The German population could have been so terrified of the Nazis that they felt safer ‘going with the crowd’. In this way Hitler was able to carry out the Holocaust because no one dared resist him.

The question that must be asked is “was it worth it for what was discovered?” The great knowledge into the deepest depths of man’s potential evil was bought at a price. 18 individuals have been scarred for life for the purposes of scientific research. It would be easier to dismiss this case as a ‘one off’ but this is exactly how disasters such as the Holocaust happen to begin with. It starts with “it’s only one Jew” and ends up with the extermination of over 6 million. However, it is arguable that without this knowledge the horrors of World War II could happen again and that the price paid for such knowledge is worth the cause. But, is it possible from looking at the Lord of the Flies to read the hypothetical results of such an experiment? People suffering because of their physical appearances, such as Piggy, and people assuming power, such as Jack with others too afraid too stand up to him, does seem to reflect the Stanford Prison Experiment. However, the Lord of the Flies ends as being a hypothetical set of results. It can never really show the true results of such an experiment because it is only a fictional novel.

The only real answer to the question will come in time, when the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment may one day have to stand up to regimes such as the world has previously seen. Man’s potential evil can only be shown through such experiments as the Stanford Prison Experiment but that may not necessarily be a good thing. “Man’s essential illness” may not only be his inner evil, but also his sick fascination with it.

Josh Sanders 4H