Good people in a bad environment? Which would win out?
The “guards” wore uniforms which served as symbols of differentiation,
authority and power. They would also wore sunglasses which would allow them psychological
difference and be dehumanised so that they could act in an inhuman manner
easier.
Day 2 saw a rebellion as some prisoners were frustrated at
the anonymity. The guards then acted up against them to reinstall power. They
were repeatedly woken up and given menial tasks so they experienced unrest,
anxiety and fatigue.
The “guards” then started a campaign of “divide & conquer”
and destroyed “prisoner solidarity”.
One “prisoner” decided to go on a hunger strike. The “guards”
then put him in the “hole” and used the other “prisoners” to make him feel guilty
and break his defiance.
"Only a few people were able to resist the situational
temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of
morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class," Dr
Zimbardo later wrote in his book, “The Lucifer Effect”.
Other psychologists visited the experiment and were sickened
by the suffering of the “prisoners”. Zimbardo ended the experiment in the next
day. The “prisoners” suffered shame and the “guards” suffered guilt. Safeguards
were then installed.
Playing a role VS “adding to the script”? And why did the
other “good guards” not speak up against the “bad guards”?
No comments:
Post a Comment