IN A darkened auditorium in September 2008, I sat in the audience awaiting the start of a presentation entitled 鈥淭he psychology of evil鈥� by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Suddenly, the doors at the back of the theatre burst open, lights flashed and Santana鈥檚 song Evil Ways blared from the speakers. A man with slicked-back black hair and a devilish pointy beard danced up the aisle towards the stage, snapping his fingers in time with the music. Zimbardo鈥檚 flamboyant entrance was startling, given the nature of the talk.
I shouldn鈥檛 have been surprised. Zimbardo鈥檚 knack for performance is one of the reasons his Stanford prison experiment is one of the most famous psychological studies of the 20th century, alongside research into obedience carried out by his high-school classmate, Stanley Milgram.
Eschewing conventional academic reporting, Zimbardo鈥檚 first account of the experiment was a sensational piece that appeared in a supplement of The New York Times, showcasing his skill as a storyteller. The article kicked off by detailing how, one sunny morning in Palo Alto, California, in 1971, police swooped on the homes of nine young men. They were bundled into squad cars, taken to the police station, charged, then blindfolded and transported to the Stanford County Jail, where they met their guards.
Advertisement
The 鈥渏ail鈥� was actually a set-up in the basement of a building at Stanford University. The prisoners were one half of a group of volunteers, the other half being assigned the role of guards. In what Zimbardo described as 鈥渁 gradual Kafkaesque metamorphosis of good into evil鈥�, these seemingly well-adjusted young men became increasingly brutal as guards. They 鈥渞epeatedly stripped their prisoners naked, hooded them, chained them, denied them food or bedding privileges, put them into solitary confinement, and made them clean toilet bowls with their bare hands鈥�, Zimbardo wrote. 鈥淥ver time, these amusements took a sexual turn, such as having the prisoners simulate sodomy on each other.鈥� The prisoners, humiliated and victimised, suffered such emotional distress that Zimbardo, playing the role of all-powerful prison superintendent, terminated the two-week experiment after just six days.
The experience made the key players famous 鈥� not least because Zimbardo captured some of the experiment on film and in now-familiar photos. The images showed aggressive-looking guards in tinted aviator shades, clutching police batons, and cowed, shackled prisoners sitting in line with bags over their heads.
The experiment led Zimbardo to conclude that normal people could be transformed into sadistic tyrants or passive slaves, not because of any inherent personality flaws but through finding themselves in a dehumanising environment: context was king. And suddenly, so was Zimbardo. Overnight, he became the go-to expert on prison reform, and over the following decade he appeared at a series of Congressional hearings and advisory panels on the US prison system.
The Stanford experiment might have started as a psychological exploration of incarceration, but Zimbardo and countless media commentators since have reached for it to illuminate an ever-widening range of behaviours 鈥� police brutality, corporate fraud, domestic abuse, genocide. Every invocation of the experiment has cemented it in the public imagination. The experiment has become enshrined in the psychology curriculum for its simple and compelling conclusion, that corrupt environments can turn good people evil. And of course it has made the leap to popular culture, inspiring documentaries, books and dramatisations. The most recent feature film based on it was 2015鈥檚 , for which Zimbardo was a consultant.
Battered credibility
Zimbardo was elected president of the American Psychological Association in 2002 and in 2012 received the American Psychological Foundation鈥檚 gold medal for lifetime achievement. Despite Zimbardo鈥檚 recognition and career honours, and his experiment being in all the textbooks, academic psychology is ambivalent about it. Not surprising, given that the experiment鈥檚 scientific credibility has taken a battering.
On the one hand, with his high profile and media know-how, Zimbardo has done much to promote social psychology. On the other, the experiment鈥檚 ethics, methodology and conclusions have long troubled colleagues. The first published criticism, in 1973, attacked the ethics of the study and questioned whether the apparent degradation of the young men was justified, given the experiment鈥檚 unsurprising result. By 1975, the methodology of the experiment was also under fire. Zimbardo鈥檚 claims that the results support the view that behaviour is determined by circumstances, not personality have also been robustly challenged by a growing number of researchers since then. After all, critics argued, the guards鈥� behaviour was hardly spontaneous: they knew they were expected to behave like tyrants and were encouraged to do so. And by Zimbardo鈥檚 own admission, two-thirds of them did not act sadistically, undermining his claim that the situation had an overpowering influence on their actions.
How did a study so flawed become so famous? First, there鈥檚 the powerful idea that evil lurks inside us all, waiting for the right 鈥� or wrong 鈥� circumstances to be called forth. The experiment itself may be shocking, but the way it echoes archetypal stories of sinfulness make it hard to shake off.
Then there is Zimbardo himself, a compelling narrator who inserts himself front-and-centre in the drama. In that first published account, Zimbardo admitted to a growing sense of unease over his role as architect of an experiment of such cruelty. His epiphany 鈥� helped along by a visit from his then girlfriend, who was appalled at his behaviour 鈥� that he too had been corrupted by power was what prompted him to call the experiment off. This acceptance of blame both disarms critics of the ethics of the experiment and suggests that we can trust him to give an unvarnished account of the research. There are echoes of biblical conversion stories; Zimbardo鈥檚 subsequent involvement in prison reform and more recently in a project to train ordinary people to become 鈥渉eroes鈥� are a form of atonement. 鈥淚 want to be remembered not as Dr Evil,鈥� Zimbardo tells me, 鈥渂ut as Dr Good.鈥�
His public performances, TV appearances and . Let鈥檚 face it, 鈥済ood vs evil鈥� sells, and it circumvents the hassle of trying to understand the subtleties of human psychology.
Zimbardo also has a talent for reframing the 鈥渓essons鈥� of the Stanford experiment to capture the prevailing zeitgeist. In 2004, the study made the headlines when it emerged that American military police had . The public debate about how US soldiers could behave so appallingly raised comparisons with the experiment, rekindling Zimbardo鈥檚 career as a government-appointed expert. In a Boston Globe editorial, he wrote, 鈥�.鈥� In reality, the terrifying and degrading acts of physical, psychological and sexual abuse meted out at Abu Ghraib were way beyond anything experienced by Zimbardo鈥檚 prisoners.
But this fresh attention sparked a more critical examination by journalists, who bypassed Zimbardo and sought out the people who took part. Cracks soon appeared in Zimbardo鈥檚 tightly controlled narrative.
In interviews with researchers and participants, an alternative story emerged. In a 2004 article in the Los Angeles Times, journa list Alan Zarembo reported that 鈥減risoner鈥� Douglas Korpi and Zimbardo鈥檚 exploitation of it. Both Korpi and Dave Eshelman, , spoke of a staged 鈥渆xperiment鈥�, and that they had behaved in order to fulfil their role as paid participants. That undermined Zimbardo鈥檚 insistence that his participants unquestioningly accepted the reality of the dramatic situation.
In 2011, Zimbardo . 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 a formal experiment. My colleagues probably never thought much of it,鈥� he told an interviewer. In a high-profile blog post in 2013, in the teaching of psychology, and later called it 鈥渁n embarrassment to the field鈥�.
In April this year, French author published the book Histoire d鈥檜n Mensonge (鈥淗istory of a Lie鈥�). Le Texier compared archival records with Zimbardo鈥檚 published accounts, listened to audio recordings and video footage of the experiment that had been edited out of public presentations, and interviewed research staff, former 鈥済uards鈥� and 鈥減risoners鈥�. He concluded that Zimbardo鈥檚 claims were overblown and his findings hollow.
In a , journalist Ben Blum confronted Zimbardo with the contradictions Le Texier had uncovered. Zimbardo pointed to the fame of the experiment as his defence. He later published a rebuttal on his website, infuriating critics of his research by dismissing them as 鈥渂loggers鈥� and labelling their findings 鈥渄ifferences in interpretation鈥�. Only time will tell if these recent revelations will diminish the experiment in the public imagination.
If social psychology can be said to have attained the status of religious teachings, then Zimbardo is one of the field鈥檚 best-known preachers. And like a good preacher, Zimbardo represents the story of the experiment as a timeless parable. 鈥淔amous studies like Milgram鈥檚 obedience to authority, Mischel鈥檚 marshmallow test, the Stanford prison experiment, they raise moral issues and offer lessons about the psychology of temptation,鈥� Zimbardo tells me. 鈥淭hink about the Lord鈥檚 prayer. What is the key line? 鈥楲ead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.鈥� There are temptations all around us, and who gives in and who resists, this is a fundamental thing about human nature. This is what all these experiments explore and that gives them great public appeal.鈥�
鈥淚 want to be remembered not as Doctor Evil, but as Doctor Good鈥�
In his 2007 bestseller , Zimbardo appealed to readers to look inwards. 鈥淐ould we, like God鈥檚 favourite angel, Lucifer, ever be led into the temptation to do the unthinkable to others?鈥� He promised readers a journey that will take in 鈥済enocide in Rwanda, the mass suicide and murder of People鈥檚 Temple followers in the jungles of Guyana, the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the horrors of Nazi concentration camps, the torture by military and civilian police around the world, and the sexual abuse of parishioners by Catholic priests鈥︹�� Then he adds that the 鈥渙ne鈥� thread tying these atrocities together鈥� comes from 鈥渢he Stanford Prison Experiment鈥�.
Through his story of a descent into the basement hell, the suffering, the epiphany, the ascent, transformation and redemption, Zimbardo offers a powerful message of hope about human nature: we all have the potential to be saints rather than sinners. It鈥檚 seductive to think that in the fight between good and evil we can all be winners through the redemptive power of psychological knowledge. Shame that, as far the Stanford prison experiment is concerned, it鈥檚 more showbiz than science.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淭he evil inside us all鈥�
