Zimbardo's Prison Experiment: Social Forces and Moral Behavior

Observations from the Experiment

During the experiment, some of the "prisoners" became hysterical, submissive, and dejected. None of them quit the experiment, though some requested "parole" and, when their parole was denied, accepted the sentence as though they truly were stuck in the "system." Three "prisoners" had to be released because their depression was so severe and their thinking had become very confused—probably a reaction to the difficulty of being unable to tell what the "reality" of the situation was. The "inmates" chose to protect themselves over one another; for example, when one was put in solitary confinement and the others were told that they would have to give up their blankets in order to get him out, they chose to keep their blankets.

The "guards" exhibited equally striking behavioral changes. Some became abusive, tyrannical, and cruel, while others befriended the "inmates" and did favors for them. However, at no time did any of the "good" guards come to the researchers to complain about what the "bad" guards were doing. They tacitly accepted these abuses and attempted to "make up" for them by being nice to the "prisoners." Zimbardo notes that the guards did this only for the sake of their own egos, just as the "prisoners" thought of themselves first before their fellow inmates.

Zimbardo explains that the illusion of self-control that we all possess is based primarily on the fact that our environment is relatively free. However, when environments and social structures change, we quickly adapt to and accept the new parameters, even if they are horrific. The rapidity with which ordinary college students assumed these extreme roles—and the ease with which they internalized the power dynamics—demonstrates the profound influence of situational forces over individual identity.

Real-World Applications and Social Implications

Zimbardo's experiment helps to explain many situations in everyday life. It explains the way normal citizens can become power-tripping police officers or the way persons from humble origins can grow up to be ruthless corporate leaders. It also explains the way militants like those led by Malcolm X will protest corrupt abusers of authority, and it explains the way people will "get back in line" like sheep when delivered a reprimand by authorities. This theory—that we are all subject to social condition and situation—applies to family, work, government, and numerous other contexts.

A paradigm of expectations exists either to be challenged or accepted, but usually what is needed is a new paradigm altogether. Zimbardo appears to call for a communal setting that is more humane, more considerate, more helpful, less condemning, and less brutal. He appears to be calling for one that is, in a sense, more genuinely Christian or perhaps utopian in its ideals. The fact that most existing paradigms are constructs of bureaucratic, impersonal, and inhumane dogmas—where everyone is expected to act like a cog in a machine—only serves to reinforce the awful principles which Zimbardo uncovers in his experiment. Such settings do nothing to encourage humanity's higher and nobler faculties; instead, they suppress moral agency and encourage ethical compromise.