"Good people have turned into fiends." Excerpt from a book by the organizer of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo is an American social psychologist who organized the famous Stanford Prison Experiment (STE). In the course of it, he divided the volunteers into guards and prisoners and placed them in a makeshift prison. The research team observed the behavior of people under the pressure of the created circumstances.

The experiment did not last even a week, although the claimed duration was 14 days. Very soon, the makeshift prison became a real hell for those who played the role of prisoners. The "guards" deprived them of food and sleep, subjected them to corporal punishment and humiliation. Many of the participants started to have real health problems. STE was discontinued after six days. Zimbardo found the strength to write a book about the experiment - "The Lucifer Effect" - only 30 years later. Lifehacker publishes an excerpt from the tenth chapter of this book.

Why the situation matters

In a certain social environment, where powerful forces operate, human nature sometimes undergoes transformations as dramatic as in Robert Louis Stevenson's wonderful story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Interest in STE has persisted for several decades, in my opinion, precisely because this experiment demonstrated tremendous "character transformations" under the influence of situational forces - good people suddenly turned into fiends in the role of guards or into pathologically passive victims in the role prisoners.

Good people can be seduced, nudged, or forced to do evil.

They can also be forced to irrational, stupid, self-destructive, antisocial and meaningless actions, especially in a “total situation”, the impact of which on human nature contradicts the feeling of stability and integrity of our personality, our character, our ethical principles.

We want to believe in the deep, unchanging virtue of people, in their ability to resist external pressure, rationally assess and reject the temptations of the situation. We endow human nature with godlike qualities, strong morality and a powerful intellect that make us just and wise. We simplify the complexity of human experience by erecting an impenetrable wall between Good and Evil, and this wall seems insurmountable. On one side of this wall - we, our children and household members; on the other, they, their fiends and chelyadins. Paradoxically, by creating the myth of our own invulnerability to situational forces, we become even more vulnerable as we lose our vigilance.

STE, along with many other social science studies (discussed in Chapters 12 and 13), gives us secrets we don’t want to know about: almost everyone can experience character transformation when we are at the mercy of powerful social forces. Our own behavior, as we imagine it, may have nothing to do with who we are capable of becoming and what we are capable of doing once we are caught in a situation. STE is a battle cry calling for abandoning the simplistic notions that good people are stronger than bad situations. We are able to avoid, prevent, confront and change the negative impact of such situations only if we recognize their potential ability to "infect" us in the same way as other people who find themselves in the same situation. So it is useful for each of us to remember the words of the ancient Roman comedian Terence: "Nothing human is alien to me."

We must constantly be reminded of this by the behavioral transformations of Nazi concentration camp guards and members of destructive sects, such as the Jim Jones Peoples Temple and the Japanese sect Aum Shinrikyo. The genocide and horrific atrocities committed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Burundi, and most recently in the Sudanese province of Darfur, also clearly show that under the pressure of social forces, abstract ideologies of conquest and national security, people easily abandon humanity and compassion.

Under the influence of bad circumstances, each of us could commit the most terrible act ever done by man.

Understanding this does not justify evil; it, so to speak, "democratizes" it, puts the blame on ordinary people, not considering the atrocity to be the exclusive prerogative of perverts and despots - them, but not us.

The main lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment is very simple: the situation matters. Social situations often have a more powerful influence on the behavior and thinking of individuals, groups and even leaders of a nation than we are used to thinking. Some situations have such a strong influence on us that we begin to behave in ways that we could not have imagined before.

The power of the situation manifests itself most strongly in a new environment in which we cannot rely on previous experience and familiar patterns of behavior. In such situations, conventional reward structures do not work and expectations are not met. In such circumstances, personality variables have no predictive value, because they depend on the assessment of the expected actions in the future, an assessment based on habitual reactions in already familiar situations, but not in a new situation, for example, in the unfamiliar role of a guard or a prisoner.

Rules create reality

The situational forces operating in the STE combined many factors; none of them was very important in and of itself, but their combination proved to be quite powerful. One of the key factors was the rules. Rules are a formal, simplified way to govern informal and complex behavior. They are an external regulator, helping to comply with the norms of behavior, showing what is necessary, acceptable and rewarded, and what is unacceptable and therefore punishable. Over time, the rules begin to take on a life of their own and maintain official power even when they are no longer needed, too vague, or change at the whim of their creators.

By referring to the "rules", our guards could justify almost any abuse of prisoners.

Let us recall, for example, what torments our prisoners had to endure, memorizing a set of seventeen random rules invented by the guards and the head of the prison. Recall also how the guards abused Rule # 2 (which states that you can only eat while eating) to punish Clay-416 for refusing to eat the sausages dumped in the mud.

Some rules are needed to effectively coordinate social behavior - for example, when the audience is listening to a speaker, drivers stop at red lights and no one tries to skip the line. But many rules only protect the authority of those who create or enforce them. And of course, as in our experiment, there is always a final rule that threatens punishment for breaking other rules. Therefore, there must be some kind of force or agent who is willing and able to carry out such punishment - ideally in front of other people, to keep them from breaking the rules. Comedian Lenny Bruce had a funny sideshow, describing how rules gradually emerge about who can and who can't throw shit over the fence into a neighbor's territory. He describes the creation of a special police force that enforces the "no shit in my yard" rule. Rules, as well as those who enforce them, are always important elements of the power of a situation. But it is the System that creates the police and prisons for those who are punished for breaking the rules.

Roles create reality

As soon as you put on the uniform and get this role, this job, when you are told that “your job is to control these people,” you are no longer the person you were in ordinary clothes and in a different role. You really become a security guard as soon as you put on your khaki uniform and dark glasses, pick up a police baton and go on stage. This is your suit, and if you put it on, then you will have to behave accordingly.

Guard Hellman

When an actor plays the role of a fictional character, he often has to act contrary to his personal identity. He learns to speak, walk, eat, even think and feel as the role that he plays requires. Professional training allows him not to confuse his hero with himself, playing a role that differs sharply from his true character, he can temporarily abandon his own personality. But sometimes, even for an experienced professional, this line is blurred and he continues to play a role even after the curtain has come down or the red light of the movie camera has gone out. The actor becomes absorbed in the role, which begins to rule his ordinary life. The audience is no longer important, because the role has absorbed the personality of the actor.

A striking example of how the role becomes "too real" can be seen in the British television show "The Edwardian Country House" (The Edwardian Country House). In this dramatic reality show, 19 people, selected from some 8,000 candidates, played the roles of British servants working on a luxurious manor house. The program participant, who was given the role of chief butler in charge of staff, had to follow the strict hierarchical standards of behavior of the time (early 20th century). He was "frightened" by the ease with which he turned into a domineering master. This sixty-five-year-old architect did not expect to step into the role so quickly and enjoy unlimited power over the servants: “I suddenly realized that I did not need to say anything. All I had to do was lift a finger and they fell silent. It scared me, very scared. " A young woman who played the role of a maid, in real life a manager of a travel company, began to feel invisible. She and the other members of the show quickly adapted to the subordinate role, she said. “I was surprised and then scared at how easily we all began to obey. We realized very quickly that we shouldn't argue, and we began to obey."

Typically, roles are associated with specific situations, jobs, or functions - for example, you can be a teacher, doorman, taxi driver, minister, social worker, or pornographic actor.

We play different roles in different situations - at home, at school, in a church, in a factory or on stage.

We usually step out of the role when we return to a “normal” life in a different setting. But some of the roles are insidious; they are not just "scripts" that we only follow from time to time; they can turn into our essence and manifest

almost all the time. We internalize them, even if at first we thought they were artificial, temporary and situational. We truly become a father, mother, son, daughter, neighbor, boss, co-worker, helper, healer, whore, soldier, beggar, thief, and so on.

To complicate matters further, we usually have to play many roles and some of them conflict with each other, and some do not correspond to our basic values and beliefs. As in STE, these may be “just roles” in the beginning, but the inability to distinguish them from the real person can have a profound impact, especially when role behavior is rewarded. The "clown" gets the attention of the class that he cannot get by showing talent in some other area, but over time no one takes him seriously anymore. Even shyness can be a role: at first it helps to avoid unwanted social contacts and awkwardness in certain situations, but if a person plays it too often, then it really becomes shy.

A role can make us not only feel embarrassed, but also do absolutely terrible things - if we lost our guard and the role began to live its own life, creating rigid rules dictating what is allowed, expected and reinforced in a given context. These rigid roles shut off the ethics and values that govern us when we act "as usual." The defense mechanism of compartmentalization - coping with a situation by defusing conscious beliefs that are opposite in content. Such hypocrisy is often rationalized, that is, explained in some acceptable way, but it is based on the dissociation of contents. - Approx. per. helps to mentally place conflicting aspects of different beliefs and different experiences in separate "compartments" of consciousness. This prevents their awareness or dialogue between them. Therefore, a good husband can easily cheat on his wife, a virtuous priest turns out to be a homosexual, and a kind-hearted farmer turns out to be a ruthless slave owner.

Be aware that a role can distort our view of the world - for better or for worse, for example, when the role of a teacher or nurse forces one to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of students or patients.

Cognitive dissonance and rationalization of atrocities

An interesting consequence of the situation in which we have to play a role that contradicts our personal beliefs is cognitive dissonance. When our behavior conflicts with our beliefs, when our actions do not align with our values, conditions for cognitive dissonance arise. Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that can be a powerful motivating factor for changing either our behavior in society or our beliefs in an effort to eliminate dissonance. People are willing to go to great lengths to bring conflicting beliefs and behaviors to some kind of functional integrity. The greater the dissonance, the stronger the desire to achieve integrity and the more dramatic changes can be expected. Cognitive dissonance does not occur if we have harmed someone for good reason - for example, if there was a threat to our life; we are soldiers and this is our job; we carried out the order of an influential authority; we have been offered substantial rewards for actions that are contrary to our beliefs.

As might be expected, cognitive dissonance is greater the less convincing the rationales for “bad” behavior, such as when they pay too little for disgusting actions, when we are not threatened, or the rationales for such actions are insufficient or inadequate. The dissonance increases, and the desire to reduce it also grows, if it seems to a person that he is acting of his own free will, or he does not notice or does not realize the pressure of the situation, which prompts him to act contrary to beliefs. When such actions take place in front of other people, they can no longer be denied or corrected. Therefore, the “softest” elements of dissonance, its internal aspects - values, attitudes, beliefs and even perceptions - are subject to changes. This is confirmed by numerous studies.

How could cognitive dissonance be the cause of the changes that we observed in the temperaments of the guards during the STE? They volunteered for long, difficult shifts for little money - less than $ 2 an hour. They were hardly taught how to play a new and complex role. They had to regularly play this role for all eight hours of shifts over several days and nights - whenever they put on uniforms, were in the yard, in the presence of others - prisoners, parents or other visitors. They needed to return to this role after sixteen hours of rest between shifts. Such a powerful source of dissonance was probably the main reason for the internalization of role behavior in the presence of other people and for the emergence of certain cognitive and emotional reactions, which over time led to more and more arrogant and violent behavior.

But that is not all. Taking on the obligation to perform actions contrary to their personal convictions, the guards felt a strong desire to give them meaning, to find the reasons why they act contrary to their real beliefs and moral principles.

Reasonable people can be tricked into irrational actions, creating cognitive dissonance in them that they are not aware of.

Social psychology offers ample evidence that in such a situation, reasonable people are capable of absurd actions, normal people are capable of crazy things, highly moral people are capable of immorality. And then these people create “good” rational explanations for why they did something they cannot deny. People are not so rational, they just have a good command of the art of rationalization - that is, they know how to explain the discrepancies between their personal beliefs and behavior that contradicts them. This skill allows us to convince ourselves and others that our decisions are based on rational considerations. We are unaware of our desire to maintain inner integrity in the face of cognitive dissonance.

Impact of social approval

We are generally unaware of another, more powerful force playing on the strings of our behavioral repertoire: the need for social approval. The need for acceptance, love and respect - to feel normal and adequate, to meet expectations - this need is so strong that we are ready to accept even the most wacky and outlandish ways of behavior that strangers believe to be right. We laugh at episodes of the television show "Hidden Camera" that demonstrate this truth, but at the same time we rarely notice situations when we become "stars" of such a show in our own lives.

In addition to cognitive dissonance, our guards were also influenced by conformity. Group pressure from other guards forced them to be "team players", to submit to new norms that required dehumanizing inmates in a variety of ways. A good guard became "outcast" and suffered in silence, being outside the circle of social reward from other guards on his shift. And the most brutal guard of each shift became an object of imitation, at least for another guard on the same shift.

In The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo not only described the reasons that push people to commit terrible things. The value of this book also lies in the fact that it teaches us to resist negative influences. And that means - to maintain humanity even in the most difficult circumstances.