Specifics of Philip Zimbardo’s Perspective of Stanford Prison Experiment
Phillip Zimbardo’s book “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil” examines how we are all susceptible to making poor choices. Zimbardo argues that there is both good and evil in the world and the line between good and evil is easy to cross, meaning it is easy to become good and bad people. Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Experiment” take the majority of mentioned essay and there he explain that personality does not dictate if one is evil, but more so the system one resides in does. For example, an individual is likely to turn evil if his or her family’s system is broken down. This is why you hear so many stories about people growing up without parents or maybe having easier access to gangs, and they get themselves into trouble down the line. This idea can also be applied to business. An individual is more likely to act unethically if the company’s system is broken. That is why Zimbardo’s most important message of his text is not to blindly follow authority/systems and to take personal responsibility of your actions.
Zimbardo spent a large majority of his book talking about his Stanford Prison Experiment and analyzed the results and some of the psychological motivations behind it. The Stanford Prison Experiment was when he gathered volunteers to act as prisoners and guards in a “simulated prison”. This was a short experiment but as time grew the personalities of the volunteers began to change and conform to their surroundings. The prisoners became passive and almost frightened as they began to feel helpless and isolate. The guards grew more into their role over time and eventually the power started to get to them. They started acting evil and treating the fellow prisoners poorly. The simulation eventually was ended early after Zimbardo himself began to see changes in his personality by overseeing the operation, almost like a warden. It was not until his girlfriend witnessed the experiment that she convinced him it was unethical in nature. The biggest takeaway from this experiment were that individuals conformed to the systems they were apart of. It is important to understand that these individuals were all similar. They had clean records and were all healthy individuals. It was the system and environment that they were in that changed them.
Zimbardo refers to a similar event that took place in the Abu Ghraib prison. The United States military was overseeing the operation. US military forces were taking local civilians into prisons and abused and tortured some of these innocent civilians. They even recorded what they were doing. Like the prison experiment, most would argue that the guards were good people. Some may even call them heroes. But why did they do such awful things to these people? Zimbardo argued that it was not the case of the soldiers having a few “bad apples” in the military. Instead, it was the United States military system in place that made it possible. It is common when scenarios occur like this, we prosecute and blame the few individuals responsible for the action. I believe that Zimbardo’s experiments and references to this prison was that we should be examine the systems the individuals are in. It is more likely we will find things wrong with the system than the person. In the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, we should analyze the United States military.
I agree with some of his experiments and references to the Abu Ghraib prison. I think he makes several interesting points. However, I still believe some people have different moral compasses, and when put in a poor system, those with bad moral compasses may be more enticed to act unethically than someone with a more ethical moral compass.
After explaining the background of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo begins to dive into the Lucifer Effect and explains what it is and how good people do in fact turn bad. Like we mentioned earlier, there is a thin line between good and evil, and people cross over the line easily. So why do humans become bad? Zimbardo argues that people are moral most of the time but can become unmoral, and when they do, it is hard to stop. One small act usually needs to another larger act. In business ethics this is something we have touched upon with some of our readings. This is common in business. For example, you may steal a pen, and then maybe a cup, and then take a long lunch, etc. There are a lot of factors that can cause us to commit an immoral act and get on this path towards evil.
One way is if we lose focus of who we are in a group setting. A group may want to do something you know is wrong, but you don’t speak up. This could lead to an immoral act. Similarly, if we or the business lose focus of who is affected by our actions. We are more likely to do something when we don’t think of those who may be hurt as human. Another example involves us doing an act that would keep us anonymous. One would not have any chance of getting in trouble, we are more likely to do something immoral. The environment around us can play a role. He gave an example where he said how an abandoned car in Palo Alto, California got little attention, but one in the Bronx, New York was quickly robbed of the items inside. He argues that this was because of the environment the car was a part of. Finally, if we are short of time, and are in a pressure to achieve something, we are less likely to help prevent or help stop an immoral act.
Zimbardo moves away from indirect influences but instead talks about direct things that a business can do to overpower one’s person ethics and create evil. Businesses could establish rules and keep reminding employees that the rules must always be followed. An example in business would be a manager saying rules are rules. You may be told to do something, which you know is wrong, but your manager told you to do it. Disobeying them would be breaking a rule. A company could also convince you that what they are doing is for the good of the country, company, or society, instead of talking about how it hurts someone. Similarly, like we talked about in business ethics about whistleblowing, the cost of quitting could be high. An example of this would be quitting a company would mean you don’t get commission and can’t pay for your house down payment. Staying on you would receive a nice bonus and could buy that house. Usually a company’s top executives are not going to be the scape goat in case something goes wrong. Knowing you won’t get caught could be enough to make one do something immoral. A good way to stop these from influences from occurring is to stand firm in your beliefs and tell yourself that you are responsible for anyone or anything hurt from your actions.
Overall, when analyzing Zimbardo’s book, I agreed and thought he made a lot of interesting points. I believe there are a few things business majors that are about to enter the workforce can learn. First, we should try and keep our moral compass. We all have different ethical systems and we should stick to what we believe is right. We should stick up for these beliefs. Second, we should assess those close to us and the system we are a part of. For business majors, that means analyzing the company we work for. Make sure that the company is doing things for right reasons and that senior leadership are being good role-models. Third, we should try and have a fresh perspective and be a voice of reason in group settings. Sometimes people can be afraid to speak up when they believe something is wrong, simply because no one else has said anything. Speaking for what you believe brings diversity and a discussion. Next, it is important once again to go back to the “why” we do what we do in a business. Zimbardo made an interesting point where he was talking about how sometimes systems may not be corrupt and use an ethical framework, but the pursuit of a goal or ideology could create that corruption or evil. For example, a company may be ethical, but when focused on achieving end results and profits, the system begins to worsen. Another example may be firing an employee to make ends meet. Finally, and think most importantly, we need to remember what we do is our choosing and we need to take responsibility for our actions. Zimbardo makes another reference to the business world when he asked the question whether we should consider if the person telling us what to do has the authority to do so, or should we ask whether they have the right ethical beliefs to tell us what to do. I think we should consider both. A manager may tell us to do something wrong, and they may have the authority to do so. However, they may not care about the ethical consequences that may occur because of what they are telling you to do. Even if that is the case you need to be prepared to stand up for yourself and your beliefs and be aware of the consequences if you choose to do what they want. Keeping these lessons in mind can hopefully help individuals act more ethically in a business environment and make the world a better place.
Overall, I thought it was an interesting book that taught us many things about human psychological and why people become bad. The overall perspective of the Stanford prison experiment helped us to understand the psychological implications of the “Lucifer Effect” and made it possible to understand lessons we can take from his book. Zimbardo taught us that having the knowledge of knowing how systems can affect our ethical standards can in turn make the world a better place. There were positive messages that we can improve ourselves ethically and on a personal level if we begin to stand up for what we believe in and taking responsibility for our actions. Doing this will help clear up right from wrong and help those around us.
