In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted a highly controversial experiment that would become infamous. His research question: Why were prison guards violent? What drove them to violence? Was it their personalities? Was it their environment? In order to study this, Dr. Zimbardo created a prison-like environment in the basement of the Psychology building at Stanford University.

There were 10 prisoners and 11 guards, who were recruited through a newspaper ad (below). These participant were all randomly assigned to their roles, prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo himself would be a researcher, but also play the role of Prison Warden.

The Prisoners

The participants who were assigned prisoner were actually arrested at their own home. However, there was absolutely no warning (which actually broke the consent form the participants signed prior to the experiment beginning). They were handcuffed, had their finger prints taken, and processed like real criminals would be at the police station. Then, they were blindfolded and driven to the makeshift prison at the university. Prisoners were held in small cell rooms, with two other prisoners. Upon arrival, the prisoners were strip searched, had their possessions taken away from them, and were given prison clothes. On their clothes/uniform, there was an ID code. From that point forward, they were only addressed as their ID number. This is how Zimbardo and the other researchers began the processes of deindividualization, or trying to get the prisoners to lose their sence of self.

The Guards

The guards, on the other hand, were split into groups and given shifts each day. They were dressed in matching uniforms, a club in hand, and dark sunglasses (to inhibit eye contact with prisoners). The researchers told them to do what, in their opinion, was needed in order to maintain obiedience and structure within the prison. Prison guards quickly began to harass and insult the prisoners, verbally, as well as give them demeaning tasks meant to strip them of their dignity.

Prisoners were beginning to follow the rules strictly, in fear of having a punishment given to them. Prisoners became submissive to the guards, which in turn made the guards more aggressive. On day two, prisoners created a rebellion, which endly badly for them. The prisoners were harassed, and the leader of the rebellion was placed in solitary confinement as punishment. One prisoner was actually released after a day and a half into the experiment. He was beginning to show signs of depression. Eventually, other prisoners had to leave the experiment early, due to emotional distress that could have had long-term effects on their psychological state. After six days, the experiment was forced to shut down early.

The results of this study show that the power of a situation can heavily impact whether someone will conform to certain roles or not. These findings support Dr. Zimbardo’s hypothesis of the situation being the strongest driving force for prison guards, rather than their personalities. As for the prisoners, they became submissive because of the deindividualization process and their learned dependency on the guards. They lost their sense of self by being referred to as a number and not having their personal belongings. During interviews after the experiment had concluded, both groups of participants were surprised with the way that they behaved.

Additional Resources

• Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 30, 4-17.
• Psychology and Stuff Podcast: The Stanford Prison Experiment. https://blog.uwgb.edu/uwgbpsych/psychology-and-stuff-the-stanford-prison-experiment/
• Psychology and Stuff Podcast: The Stanford Prison Experiment… Part 2. https://blog.uwgb.edu/uwgbpsych/psychandstuff22/
• http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
• http://www.prisonexp.org/
• https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my-textbook

In 1951, Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments with the intent of finding out how social pressure affects decision making and conformity in participants. He had 50 males participate in what they thought was a vision test. What the participants were not aware of was that Asch had confederates, or people acting as participants who were actually part of the experiment, in the room with them.

The task was simple: indicate which line was the longest of the three. The participant would answer last in the group. The confederates would answer first, and incorrectly on several trials. Interestingly enough, the participants went along with the obviously incorrect answer about 32% of the time. We can infer that this was due to the pressure and desire to be accepted by other group members, which we also call: conformity.

For more information, follow these links:

• http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
• Original Study: Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

In the early 1960’s, Stanley Milgram conducted a study of obedience to authority figures that would eventually impact Social Psychology forever. He was particularly interested in how and why Nazi workers were willing to kill thousands of innocent people.  This helped him create an experiment that looked at obedience to authority figures.

The Experiment

Milgram had 40 participants, all male, and ages that ranged from 20 to 50 years. The participants would be paired with another ‘participant’, who was actually a confederate that knew the purpose of the experiment. The confederate would always be the learner, and the participant would always be the teacher.

The learners job was to ‘memorize’ a list of word pairs. The learner was  placed in a room separate from the teacher, and was strapped to a chair with electrodes (see picture). The teacher was placed in front of a switch board apparatus, which would administer shocks at different levels to the learner. The board had increasing voltage from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 volts (danger-severe shock).

The teacher would list a word, and the learners objective was to answer with the words correct pairing. When the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher was ordered to give a shock, and increasing the amount of voltage each time. While the learner wasn’t actually feeling any shocks whatsoever, the teacher believed he was experiencing this pain. There was also an actor in the room with the teacher who was dressed as an experimenter in a lab coat, telling them that they must continue and that they have no choice but to continue.

The Results

Surprisingly, 2/3 of the participants continued to the highest shock, 450 volts. 100% of the participants continued to at least 300 volts.

These results suggest than when people are given orders, even when they believe it is causing someone else pain, they are likely to obey. This is true especially when the orders are coming from someone who they perceive as an authority figure.

Additional Resources

There were many different variations of this experiment conducted by Milgram. See below for some videos and helpful links/sources to learn more!

• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
• http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

What causes people to help those in need? Whether it is hearing gunshots, seeing an injured or ill individual on the streets, or simply extending a helping hand, what are the factors which dictate whether or not others will offer help?  Researchers John Darley and Bibb Latane (1968) asked the same questions and created the bystander intervention model based on their findings.

When Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in the middle of a New York street with no law enforcement responding, it triggered research.

Why do bystanders not help those in need? According to Darley and Latane (1968), people responded to this question by saying they do not want to  get involved, are fearful of physical harm,  experience public embarrassment, or that someone else will do something to help the situation.

 

 

When there are other individuals around, there is a diffusion of responsibility.  People assume that someone else has called 911 or assisted in some manner. When there is only one individual or a small group of people, they are able to discuss the situation to take action and help those in need.  The responsibility to help is placed on the one individual or small group and they are more likely to take action.

The Study

In order to test and observe these hypotheses, Darley and Latane (1968) created an experimental study to observe how individuals respond in various situations.

Participants were placed in a “discussion group” about college life experiences which took place over an intercom system.  During the discussion, another student in the group had a seizure, which was expressed through a recorded script. The researchers measured how quickly students responded to the situation by telling the experimenter.  They tracked the number people through to be in the group and how that affected the response time.

The Results

The results of the study confirmed the above hypotheses in that 85% of those who thought they were the only ones who knew about the situation reported the seizure before the recording had stopped. However, 31% of those who thought someone else in the group would report still reported. When individuals were in a two-person study group, all of the participants reported the situation. When in the six-person discussion group, 62% of the participants reported the emergency.

Implications

These findings are consistent with the Kitty Genovese stabbing. When there are more people or a perceived greater number of people, one individual is less likely to assist as quickly or if at all compared to one individual approaching the situation.

Darley, J.M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in   emergencies:  Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.