Opinion Analysis by Layan Eissa, Contributor

November 25th, 2020

We often hear that ‘money changes people;’ however, is it really the money or is it the social power you obtain from it that influences one’s character and behavior? Could it all be psychologically stimulated? How big of a role does one’s environment play in such circumstances? The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in order to really understand how a normal person would act once given a position of power over other individuals and the green light to use that power in whichever way they deem appropriate. Will that power be abused? Does that give some insight on how the world really works? That being said, Philip Zimbardo was able to prove through this experiment that, under the right circumstances, one could trigger their darkest traits. [1]If people are given the power to depersonalize others while remaining anonymous, they could become evil.

[2]The Stanford Prison Experiment took place in 1973 in the basement of the Psychology Department of Stanford University, where 24 chosen men were selected to participate, out of 75, based on a set of personality tests and interviews to eradicate individuals with any criminal history, drug abuse, or medical or psychological problems. [3]The 24 participants, who did not know each other prior, were randomly assigned as prisoners and prison guards and the prisoners would communicate solely through ID numbers to preserve the anonymity aspect of the experiment. The guards were asked to wear military looking garments during the period of the experiment and worked 8 hour shifts each, with the other guards as standby; while the prisoners wore their assigned uniforms, they were treated like real-life criminals in which they were arrested from their homes with no prior warning and were placed in ‘barred prison cells.’ [4]Moving on to the experiment itself, the ‘guards’ have been told beforehand during an orientation meeting to oppress the prisoners. And so, a case of demand characteristics took place, in which the guards felt like they are SUPPOSED to act this way in order to abide by the experimenters’ wishes, as if this behavior was somewhat necessary; however, physical punishment was not permitted. 

[5]The experiment was going well the first day, the prisoners were obedient and abode with by the rules; however, the rebellion began by the second day in which the prisoners made a statement against the guards, which led to even more restrictions implemented by the guards. Even though the events have been documented and told a certain way over the centuries, there has been speculation that the events have not been told the way they truly took place; therefore, I will be providing accurate information from a trusted source, a participant in the experiment.
Mr. Dave Eshelman, who participated in the experiment as a guard, shared a portion of his experience and his side of the story as a participant, not an experimenter. [6]He begins to explain that, as a participant, he earned 15$ a day and was never led to believe, as a guard, that him and his peers were a part of the experiment, but that their mere purpose was to get results from the prisoner participants. In addition, the guards were informed that they were being filmed and they could clearly hear the experimenters dictating all the actions taking place; however, what is most fascinating is what Mr. Eshelman says next. 

[7]He further states that as the days have gone by, he would implement harsher punishments on the prisoners, believing that not only would this aid Mr. Zimbardo's experiment by delivering his wishes, but also it was somewhat self-serving. The power, granted to him, intrigued him and he wanted to learn what he could do with it, as an 18-year-old at the time. And so, the positions that were given also came with a set of expectations that the participants felt the need to fulfill. 
A similar experiment was conducted 2 to 3 years ago with the three most essential elements of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which are anonymity, depersonalization and power. Different guidelines (more ethical), called ‘Distraction in The Dark,’ were used to test whether or not one would still abuse their power while being oblivious of the purpose of the study, meaning with no set of expectations or a set provided goal.

The experimenters formulated the experiment with two different groups of people, who shared identical requirements. One group of people was chosen based on Personality Assessment Tests of honesty and morality, and they were told that the experiment was solely to test their skills in solving puzzles inside a pitch-black room (the experimenters would be able to see them still). They were informed that a button that would invoke a loud pitched noise, which scales 1-12 (12 being harmfully loud), into the other team’s room as a form of distraction; however, it comes with a twist. [8]The first group of participants were told that an opposing team was also attempting to solve the puzzle but, to avoid actual harm from being inflicted, there was in fact no other team. And so, this is where the three elements begin to play their role. Anonymity, depersonalization and power are included in the sense that since the participants had no prior introduction, if they were to use their power in a sadistic sense, no one would know who it was, especially that not only was the room pitch black, but also that every participant had their own button.

As the experiment began, over the course of two hours, the experimenters (the ’other team’) have blasted the participants with the noise 23 times. Yet the participants only retaliated 6 times, and never above the 5th level on the scale. The experimenters have chosen these individuals specifically for their high scores of moralities to see how long it would take them to impose a higher level of nuisance against the ’other team’. Since the experimenters viewed no progress, they decided to hand the participants some sort of authority over the ‘other team’ in which they would stop attempting to solve the puzzle and simply focus on the distractions. Instead, what happened was that the participants simply had friendly conversations and uninterestedly pressed the button 3 times in 10 minutes, at the 3rd scale. This concludes the outcome of the experiment with the first set of participants.
The second set of participants concluded both phases of the experiment with similar results to the first set. The only reason the buttons were pressed in the second phase was merely because the participants were doing what they were told, fulfilling the demands of the experimenters. To sum it all up, one’s personality plays a huge role in determining whether sadistic behavior simply splurges out when given the authority. 

When an individual is given a position of power and a certain expectation to live up to regarding the way they're meant to behave, it is highly likely for their actions to shift solely for that purpose. However, in my opinion, once one really adapts to their environment with time, it would bring some sort of personal satisfaction knowing that you hold power over others and can abuse that power whichever way you please. In conclusion, one’s personality does outshine a sadistic inducing environment, yet, when provoked, excuses would be made to justify the cruel behavior that could follow. 


References

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND_bBDE8RQ

[2] https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

[3] https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND_bBDE8RQ

[5] https://auth-v2.smartwifi.ae/api/cisco?user_continue_url=https%3A%2F%2Fauth-v2.smartwifi.ae%2Ffinal_redirect&node_id=149624921816386&node_mac=88%3A15%3A44%3A50%3A7d%3A42&gateway_id=149624921816386&client_ip=10.32.38.200&client_mac=f0%3A18%3A98%3A19%3A7a%3Aa2&base_grant_url=https%3A%2F%2Fn70.network-auth.com%2Fsplash%2Fgrant

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND_bBDE8RQ

[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND_bBDE8RQ

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND_bBDE8RQ