The Artificial Prison of the Human Mind

G

Guest

Guest
Here's an interesting article on a quite infamous experiment on the effects of prison on human behaviour, guards and prisoners placed in those roles at random. I wonder if any of these guards had an ounce of individualization potential or even compassion? The experiment seems to imply that anygone given a guard position becomes a monster and anyone in a prisoner position a caged beast. I wonder if this experiment was not "fixed" somehow? Still it makes one think.

From http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=443

There are also blogger comments after the article. What struck most people is that things deteriorated from experiment to reality in only six days (actually much less, but the experiment had to be halted after that time).

The Artificial Prison of the Human Mind
Posted by Daniel Lew on April 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm

1971, a study about prisons was funded by the U.S. Navy to try to better understand problems in the Marine Corps.' prisons. The study was run by a group of researchers at Stanford, led by psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo. The idea was to create a controlled environment in the Stanford halls to simulate a prison. There would be participants recruited to play both the prisoners and the guards, and the experiment would last for two weeks.

No one thought the experiment would have any big problems - the participants were just playing a short game of prison. Yet in less than a week the prisoners were becoming psychologically disturbed, and the guards disturbingly sadistic. There were riots, hunger strikes, and abusive treatment - all in the mock-up jail cells created in the halls of the Stanford psychology department. The study had to be canceled early, leaving one critical question - how could a fake prison situation become real so quickly?

The problem couldn't have been the characteristics of the participants. The original twenty-four volunteers were picked for their stability of mind, out of a group of seventy. Also, the pick between the prisoners and prison guards was made at random via coin tosses. Thus, there was no bias when it came to the players.

Zimbardo did attempt to make the prison more real with some degrading tactics to simulate a real prison. Each prisoner was given a number that was their identification for duration of the experiment. As for clothing, a prisoner only got one ill-fitted Muslin smock, an uncomfortable pair of rubber thong sandals, and a nylon pantyhose cap (which was put over the head, as though they had a shaved their hair off). If that wasn't bad enough, each had a chain on their foot, its constant clinking specifically to remind them that they were not free.

Photo courtesy Philip G. ZimbardoThe guards were made to be quite intimidating - they went to a military surplus to get their khaki outfits and wooden batons. Also, they each wore large, reflective glasses. This was not in order to look cool, but to prevent eye contact with the prisoners.

On the chosen start date, the prisoners were arrested for armed robbery and taken from their homes by the actual Palo Alto police, who cooperated with the project. Their arrival at the pseudo-jail was as nasty as in any prison - they were stripped naked and deloused, then given their uniforms and numbers. And so the simulation began.

The first day of the experiment was relatively peaceful. Then, on the second day, the prisoners got feisty and attempted a rebellion. They took off their stocking caps and numbers, as well as barricading their cells with their beds. The guards took this threat seriously, calling in reinforcements to solve the problem. In the end, they used fire extinguishers to blast the prisoners away from the doors, then rushed in, stripped them naked, and sent the ringleaders into solitary confinement.

To further break the rebellion they used some mind games on the remaining prisoners; some were put in "good" cells where they were treated nicely, where the rest were put into "bad" cells where they were mistreated. After half a day, some of the prisoners were switched, thoroughly confusing the prisoners. Had someone ratted on another? Were there informers in their midst? Further rebellions were crushed.

Photo courtesy Philip G. ZimbardoThis was only the beginning of the problems, though. The guards became abusive in response to the prisoners' rebellion. Regular head counts were made into hour-long ordeals with torment and forced physical exercise. Bathroom usage became a right, and was often denied at night. Instead, prisoners had to do their thing into buckets in their cells, which the guards sometimes refused to throw out. The allowance of food became a tool for the guards. Prisoners were forced into humiliating and degrading circumstances, through nudity and forced acts. Guards would become more abusive during the night as well, when they thought the cameras were turned off.

This environment got to be too much for some of the participants. Within two days, one prisoner began to have an emotional breakdown. However, at this point the guards started taking their roles very seriously - they thought he was trying to get out of his time by acting crazy. The participant soon became convinced that there was no escape from the study and went into a rage, an action that was finally enough to prompt his release from the study. He was not the only one who was released from the study early, and many others who stayed suffered from uncontrollable crying and disorganized thought.

Tauntingly, there were offers made to the prisoners to go on early parole. When asked if they'd sacrifice their payment in the study to get out early, most said yes. However, all paroles were rejected. Even though they had no incentive to continue in the study, they went with it anyways - as though they were really stuck in prison. Not that the guards would have let them free- as time went on the guards became more involved with their end of the study as well.

Photo courtesy Philip G. ZimbardoThere were a few more rebellions from individual prisoners, but nothing so organized as the initial riot. One participant that entered the study later, as a stand-by prisoner, quickly started a hunger strike upon hearing the terrible conditions in the prison. He was thrown in solitary confinement for hours. At the same time, the other prisoners were offered an opportunity to get him out - if they sacrificed their own blankets. A rather crude tactic, but it caused the others to turn against this lone rebel (and stay warm at night). The prisoner was eventually taken out of solitary confinement by Zimbardo himself, since the rule was that no prisoner spend more than one hour in solitary.

There were many more abuses, as each day the guards became more controlling and the prisoners more disturbed. Despite all of this, visitors to the study did not seem to see any serious problems with the experiment. One day the friends and family of the prisoners were invited to visit them. Though a few made small protests to the participants' treatment, no one insisted upon the end of the study. Later, a chaplain came to visit with each of the prisoners, and he also voiced no objections.

However, in the end the experiment was canceled when a woman named Christina Maslach came to visit the Stanford prison. After seeing the crazy state that the prison had fallen into, she was outraged at the terrible conditions of the whole situation. Photo courtesy Philip G. ZimbardoOf the fifty people who had visited the "prison," she was the first to object to its morality. This argument was enough for Zimbardo to end the study early, after only six days of the prison. Of course, her concerns might have carried more weight due to the fact that she and Zimbardo were dating at the time.

The researchers' overall conclusion in the study was that people fit their roles to institutions surprisingly well, despite their individual differences. That is, their situation dictated how they acted, rather than their own dispositions. However, this study has been highly criticized due to its unethical nature as well as its generally unscientific nature (can you imagine tracking all the variables?)

Still, it's undeniable that there's something more to the human mind than we think if such normal, stable people can become so degraded or monstrous in only a week's time. The prisoners, normal before the study, were quickly trapped in their own real prison. The guards were vigilant and kept the prisoners from escaping, despite their disturbed states. And thus a controlled scientific simulation quickly deteriorated into reality.
 
Yeah I heard about this study before. Interesting fact-finding, but it's results weren't really surprising to me. It does sound like the experiment was taken a little too seriously in my opinion.
 
It would be more interesting to me to hear about the so called 'ringleaders', on both sides of the prison bars, and their influence on the behavior of the participants. A possible microcosm of pathocratic human society?
 
There's a good movie about a very similar situation.
It's german and it's title is "Das Experiment".
 
The BBC channel actually made a TV show in 2001 that used the idea behind the Stanford experiment.

Two groups of men secluded in a mock-up prison, one side took the role of the guardians, the others the prisonners.
It did not went as far as the SPE.

Still...why would the BBC want to do that !!

Read about it here http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/socialsciences/story/0,9846,638487,00.html


The movie in question >>>>
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/
 
I realized this was a well-known experiment. I posted it here, because it seems to me to be so well-known as to practically have attained urban myth status. And from what I read from Tigersoap's links it has never been repeated. I really suspect that the original experimentor tampered with the conditions of the experiment in an attempt to prove that humans can so easily be stripped of humanity.

People having breakdowns in 6 days? Then people who are really incarcerated for much longer periods must be dropping like flies. And while science never considers as scientific validation an experiment performed only once, this one was in all the intro psychology books when I was an undergraduate as employing "controversial" methods, but with results taken very seriously.

In fact, it is quite a well-promoted experiment. Almost too well-promoted, for a one-shot deal. And recently it became a movie and now I see a TV show was attempted. A movie, of course, is acting. Did the BBC show get cancelled because it was too unethical, of because it became obvious that humans will not undergo the degredation of the previous experiment without some "motivation".

I mean the first night of the Stanford experiment there were riots. Why? Why didn't the prisoners wait it out? That was all they had to do, just relax. Then the "guards" right off the bat acted like brutes. Sure, I know people like that, they're psychopaths, but a random pick out of the population would have only a few such persons, and the rest would surely protest. Instead everyone acted off the bat as one, without even a rudimentary ponerization period. Even the guards in American miliatary prisons needed repeated orders and prodding with specially trained interrogators in the action to get in the "groove".

I presented this well-known article because I suspected something was fishy with this so called experiment, and after thinking on it I am more than just suspicious. Maybe the experimentor wanted to create a sensation. He was a young guy who could have craved publicity, to make a name for himself. Maybe someone else payed him to pick certain people as guards, and have certain inmates start riots. The result, however, was that this experiment along with Joseph Conrad's "Lord of the Flies" (a work of fiction) are often sited examples that humans are completely dependent on whatever circumstances the fates or people of power choose for them.

I think such a promotion is designed to make us fear ourselves, and lose trust in the most precious aspects of our being. It just seems a coincidence (like 9-11 one might say) that this one-shot "experiment" has been so promoted, while it also serves precisely what the PTB want us to think of ourselves. And that IMO, is something to think about.
 
Hi Esoquest,

Thanks for giving another angle about this.
Never ever thought about that.

I watched the BBC show when it was aired and from what I remember there were tensions but nothing as bad as the SPE.
It was all a 'show' in the end, not a real experiment though.

uhm...maybe they wanted to show that when mundane people are placed in position of power they can't use it and they abuse it unlike the persons in charge of the real thing (governement, police etc...)

That reminds me of this other BBC show called "crisis command" where people like anyone else (which wasn't really true) where placed in charge of handling "crisis" like, for example a terrorist attack, the whole show demonstrated that they could not take the right decisions.
The weird thing is that the show aired in 2004 was about a hijacked plane and subway bombings !!

http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Crisis_Command

Sorry I have digressed...

Still when I heared about Abou-ghraib it directly made me think of the SPE.

Maybe it was the purpose but I can't shake off the similarities.
 
EsoQuest said:
I presented this well-known article because I suspected something was fishy with this so called experiment, and after thinking on it I am more than just suspicious. Maybe the experimentor wanted to create a sensation. He was a young guy who could have craved publicity, to make a name for himself. Maybe someone else payed him to pick certain people as guards, and have certain inmates start riots. The result, however, was that this experiment along with Joseph Conrad's "Lord of the Flies" (a work of fiction) are often sited examples that humans are completely dependent on whatever circumstances the fates or people of power choose for them.
We watched some of the original footage in one of my intro-psychology courses. What I found interesting was that after the guards had been chosen, they were given a special debriefing. One of my classmates noticed that it was odd and mentioned it to the prof. She pointed out that the experimenter very explicitly told the guards what they were to do. He said that they could really try to intimidate them, make them feel worthless, etc. So the experimenter already had in mind what guards are really like and told them to be that way. It definitely wasn't a "natural" process. In reponse to the remark, the prof excused the experimenter's behaviour, saying that what he said would have been approved/scripted/etc, when it was obviously not. In a REAL experiment, they might have been SHOWN real guards, and not explicitly told the techniques to use. (You could tell the guards knew what was expected of them in this experiment)

While this experiment was obviously flawed and over-hyped, there is one that I think is very important: Milgram's shock experiments, where a subject is told to repeatedly shock another subject for answering questions incorrectly (the first subject is unaware that the second is an actor). Depending on certain variables (like the proximity of the experimenter, the second subject (who screams as the shocks get higher)), dup to 75% of people will go all the way to the highest voltage (something like 250V, I believe). However, when ANOTHER 'actor' is present who gives all the shocks to his own 'actor', 95% of the real test subjects will go along with them! In other words, if a pyschopath demonstrates his deviant behaviour in a situation where it is authorized and seen as acceptable, 95% will conform, even if it means possibly murdering someone (in some cases the actors would cease to respond to the shocks, causing the shockers to question if they were still alive).
 
'Mind Control in the 21st Century' was posted on SOTT a think a few months back and contains a summary of both the Stanford study and the Milgram study in the first few pages.
http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18651&Disp=0
Found these three quotes about the Stanford study interesting to the discussion.
Stanford psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo, said to be a high school classmate of Milgram, took the issue of simple "authority" to the level of "power over others," in his 1971 "Experimental Prison" study.(...) [So maybe Zimbardo had something to prove as EQ indicated - not sure how difficult this would be to find out.]

Bear in mind, that the players (test subjects) ALL were consciously aware that the mission was role-playing; not reality. Yet, in the fashion of "Lord of the Flies," they devised their own social value system. (...)

Automatically, one's mind goes to the Iraq Abu Grhaib scandal; questioning how such events could happen, against such well-known studies as Milgram and Zimbardo; let alone the known Nazi horrors of W.W. II. There is a reasonable presumption that such would be far beneath the dignity of American troops.

However, it should not be lost that the deeds were not only admitted by the Pentagon and White House (with extreme reluctance), but were defended, with an insistence that the U.S. forces had a unique "right" to conduct torture, certainly levels of coercion, which clearly violated the Geneva Conventions. The world ignored the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on the military use of penitentiaries; the prison use continued. (...)
EsoQuest, I'm interested in reading more about
EsoQuest said:
Even the guards in American miliatary prisons needed repeated orders and prodding with specially trained interrogators in the action to get in the "groove"
if you happen to know where I can find the info. Had read claims and rumors that the CIA, Intelligence officers and Special forces might have been/are involved, but the only people going down in court-martials are the guards and the prison commander being demoted.

hkoehli - Do you happen to have a link or know where I can read more about the Stanford study. I'm especially interested in info on the experimenter giving the guards a special de-briefing. Thanks for your perspective.

EsoQuest said:
I think such a promotion is designed to make us fear ourselves, and lose trust in the most precious aspects of our being. It just seems a coincidence (like 9-11 one might say) that this one-shot "experiment" has been so promoted, while it also serves precisely what the PTB want us to think of ourselves. And that IMO, is something to think about.
So the Abu Grhaib torture scandal might have a motive of breeding hate amongst Muslims for the US/West much like the Cartoons. And maybe as EsoQuest indicates (about the study) the purpose of Abu Grhraib and the secret prisons, etc is a motive to also demoralize the Army and the American people. Read this today 'West Point Graduates Against the War Launches Campaign Against the Deceit of the US Government' http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4434 Seems to fit in some ways, but could also fit that the PTB are goading and herding the American people to some kind of action.
 
Mike said:
hkoehli - Do you happen to have a link or know where I can read more about the Stanford study. I'm especially interested in info on the experimenter giving the guards a special de-briefing. Thanks for your perspective.
Well, it was in a video I was shown in a class, so I'm not sure what the exact source was. There's an expensive DVD at http://www.prisonexp.org/video.htm, but I'm not sure if that has the footage I saw.
 
hkoehli said:
While this experiment was obviously flawed and over-hyped, there is one that I think is very important: Milgram's shock experiments, where a subject is told to repeatedly shock another subject for answering questions incorrectly (the first subject is unaware that the second is an actor).
I remember seeing a film on this one in colledge. It is obviously more scientific, and shows how easily people can be pressured to take orders. I remember that when the actor was screaming as the subject pressed the high voltage buttons, the subject would go into tears refusing to go on. It was then that the experimentor would put the pressure on eventually yelling at the subject to go on. There was a lot of pressure, in fact, and the subject pressed the buttons while in tears of remorse, but press them he did.

This does not show anyone falling into sadistic behaviour, but it does reveal how a psychopath can break the will of a normal person so that they commit acts against their moral code. THAT is a valuable lesson. If the subject had read and thought about Ponerology before doing the experiment, I doubt if he would be so easily swayed.

In the Stanford experiment, on the other hand, those in guard roles with any sense of ethics would probably have refused to implement the experimentor's plan. Those that were willing were probably a bit on the psychopathic side themselves.

Mike said:
EsoQuest said:
Even the guards in American miliatary prisons needed repeated orders and prodding with specially trained interrogators in the action to get in the "groove"
if you happen to know where I can find the info. Had read claims and rumors that the CIA, Intelligence officers and Special forces might have been/are involved, but the only people going down in court-martials are the guards and the prison commander being demoted.
I don't have the links on hand, but there are testimonies from the commander, a certain general as well as some of the guards on various alternative sites describing the role of privately contracted interrogators in setting policy as well as the roles of certain officers. The guards especially were trying to excuse themselves claiming they were under a lot of stress and pressure, had little sleep, were forced to constantly watch over the prisoners etc. So perhaps a bit of googling might be in order here, specifically looking for the testimonies of the witnesses.

All of this is far more indicative of Milgram's experiment than the Stanford study, where guards were pressured constantly by psychopaths to be as brutal as possible until many just clicked into psychopathy themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom