![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[You can blame or thank a thread on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
oursin journal for this baby. It arose out of discussion with aycheb to be precise.]
Zimbardo Prison Study vs. The BBC Experiment
Or
“Do situational influences determine behavior? Could we all prove to be sadists if placed in the right situation at the right time?”
*A question more than one fictional television drama has played around with, particularly those in the sci-fi/fantasy category.
Followers of the dramas: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek the Next Generation, The Twilight Zone, Dr. Who, Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy, Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel the Series, BattleStar Galatica (new series), and last but not least, Farscape – know whereof I speak. Think about it – how many times has science fiction writers asked the above question? In Buffy the Vampire Slayer – we had the Initiative, an underground military team organized and hand selected by a psychologist to conduct her own brand of social, behavioral and neurological psychology experiments on – she justified the torture and imprisonment of demons, including OZ for science. Riley and his buds, nice college boys, she turned into monsters through military obedience training – while Spike, a monster, she’s tames, renders almost harmless to anyone but demons, by taking him prisoner and giving him a chip. Farscape through its in depth exploration of the character – Scorpius, asks what makes a torturer – literally depicting all criteria stated in the paragraphs below by Milgram. Or in more than one episode of STNG, we have Riker exploring what it is like to be a prisoner in an asylum and Picard exploring both sides of the torture question – once as a victim, and once as the perpetuator – I Borg. Then there’s Angel – the title character who loves torturing his victims and despises himself for it, justifying his actions by stating that they had it coming. BattleStar Galatica and the treatment of the Cylon prisoners in disturbing and gritty detail – supporting in some respects the psychological view that if we dehumanize the prisoner, if they have no meaning to us, anything goes. Well enough on the television front, after all TV is nice and comfortable, distanced from us, particularly if placed in a science fiction or fantasy setting that we consciously know cannot be real – so how about a bit of reality?
In 2002, the BBC broadcast The Experiment, a psychological study similar to the infamous Zimbardo Prison Study conducted in 1970, except this round it was conceived partly as a reality TV show and partly as a psychological experiment.
Reality TV is in a way a social psychology experiment gone haywire, so is a good portion of the internet come to think of it, but let’s stick to the topic. In reality TV - you take a bunch of people from diverse backgrounds throw them into a group situation that contains precise controls and challenges, then see how they behave. The producers take steps to massage the situation in order to obtain the amount of melodrama that they feel is needed to produce ratings. The difference between a reality TV show and a scientific experiment is two-fold 1) the purpose – an experiment is about science, reality TV is about obtaining high ratings and attracting viewers, (arguably the BBC series was both – except that the funding came from the BBC and was controlled to a good extent by the BBC, a television network, concerned with ratings. While Zimbardo’s project was funded by Stanford University and other educational organizations and purely for scientific reasons. Never intended to be seen by a broad audience or for ratings.) 2) the series of scientific controls put into place to ensure that the data acquired is as accurate as possible. Reality TV suffice it to say does not have as many controls in place as pure experiment would. By its very nature, it has to exist outside the lab, and as a result is contaminated. The more people you involve in an experiment, the more likely it will be contaminated and data proven suspect. Not unlike the controls a biologist or chemist might put into place to ensure their experiment is not contaminated by outside forces. Sort of the difference, if you will, between performing a chemistry experiment over your stove and performing one in a sterile laboratory setting. Or performing a chemistry experiment as a demonstration in an auditorium with millions of cameras and an audience, and performing one in a sterile lab with just a few colleagues present.
Was The Experiment, conducted by psychologists Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher, devised for ratings? Not according to the psychologists, who state quite clearly in an article printed in The Guardian on October 31, that “the aim was to test what had become received thinking on the subject , as formulated by the famous Stanford prison experiment, run by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University California in 1971.”
Haslam argued with Zimbardo’s theory that behavior is situational, stating that personality and other factors such as politics play a role. According to Haslam behavior isn’t necessarily determined by the situation someone finds themselves in, rather that “people are capable of reflecting before acting;” people can in effect choose how to react to the situation and not necessarily be controlled by it. I take issue with Haslam’s interpretation of Zimbardo’s argument. From what I’ve read, which admittedly may be less than Haslam, but on the other hand I do not have an agenda like Haslam does – so may be more impartial - Zimbardo does not state that human behavior was predicated solely upon the situation nor is it determined solely by situation, but rather that situation plays a large role in determining how human beings will behave. We may be perfectly wonderful people in our day to day lives, but when we’re put into a specific situation behave horribly. Or vice versa – be horrible monsters in day to day life but behave beautifully or saintly if placed in the right situation. (An argument more than one person has proposed on line regarding certain character behaviors in TV shows.) Situation plays a tremendous role in how human beings behave according to Zimbardo, but it does not necessarily determine how they will behave.
( Does Situation Determine Behavior – a comparative analysis of the Zimbardo Prison Study vs. the Experiment, with supporting studies mentioned. Cut-tagged for length. )
Sources:
1.oursin original live journal post on the topic, November 1, 2005.
2. Sutherland, J (Oct. 31, 2005.)“The Ideas Interview: Alex Haslam: Abu Ghraib need not have happened and the Stanford prison experiment got it wrong.” The Guardian, Found at : http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts
3. Social Economic And Organizational Research Group (SEORG) – “The Experiment – FAQ” – found at: http//:www.ex.ac.uk/Psychology/seorg/exp/faq.html
4. Aronson, E. The Social Animal 9th Ed. 2003 (pp. 8-9; pp. 222-223)
5. Zimbardo, P ( 1971, October 25). The psychological power and pathology of imprisonment (p.3). Statement prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary; Subcommittee No. 3; Hearings on Prison Reform, San Francisco.
6. Gibson, JT & Haritos-Fatouros, M. (Nov. 1986) “The Education of a Torturer”, reprinted from Psychology Today (pp. 20, 50-58) in Readings in Social Psychology, General Classic and Contemporary Selections ed. Wayne A. Lesko, 5th Ed. 2003.
[*Oho..this is interesting. I just wrote a paper on a historical event from two perspectives as assigned by the class, but not exactly the way my professor wanted. Doesn’t matter, am auditing, not getting a grade, so do not need to turn it in. Plus somewhere between Law School and well now, I must have gotten fed up with writing papers based on someone else’s idea of how one should be written, within nice narrow lines and borders – course doesn’t help that I have a job that has narrow lines and borders. Or I’m just lazy. Take your pick. ]
oursin journal for this baby. It arose out of discussion with aycheb to be precise.]Zimbardo Prison Study vs. The BBC Experiment
Or
“Do situational influences determine behavior? Could we all prove to be sadists if placed in the right situation at the right time?”
*A question more than one fictional television drama has played around with, particularly those in the sci-fi/fantasy category.
Followers of the dramas: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek the Next Generation, The Twilight Zone, Dr. Who, Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy, Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel the Series, BattleStar Galatica (new series), and last but not least, Farscape – know whereof I speak. Think about it – how many times has science fiction writers asked the above question? In Buffy the Vampire Slayer – we had the Initiative, an underground military team organized and hand selected by a psychologist to conduct her own brand of social, behavioral and neurological psychology experiments on – she justified the torture and imprisonment of demons, including OZ for science. Riley and his buds, nice college boys, she turned into monsters through military obedience training – while Spike, a monster, she’s tames, renders almost harmless to anyone but demons, by taking him prisoner and giving him a chip. Farscape through its in depth exploration of the character – Scorpius, asks what makes a torturer – literally depicting all criteria stated in the paragraphs below by Milgram. Or in more than one episode of STNG, we have Riker exploring what it is like to be a prisoner in an asylum and Picard exploring both sides of the torture question – once as a victim, and once as the perpetuator – I Borg. Then there’s Angel – the title character who loves torturing his victims and despises himself for it, justifying his actions by stating that they had it coming. BattleStar Galatica and the treatment of the Cylon prisoners in disturbing and gritty detail – supporting in some respects the psychological view that if we dehumanize the prisoner, if they have no meaning to us, anything goes. Well enough on the television front, after all TV is nice and comfortable, distanced from us, particularly if placed in a science fiction or fantasy setting that we consciously know cannot be real – so how about a bit of reality?
In 2002, the BBC broadcast The Experiment, a psychological study similar to the infamous Zimbardo Prison Study conducted in 1970, except this round it was conceived partly as a reality TV show and partly as a psychological experiment.
Reality TV is in a way a social psychology experiment gone haywire, so is a good portion of the internet come to think of it, but let’s stick to the topic. In reality TV - you take a bunch of people from diverse backgrounds throw them into a group situation that contains precise controls and challenges, then see how they behave. The producers take steps to massage the situation in order to obtain the amount of melodrama that they feel is needed to produce ratings. The difference between a reality TV show and a scientific experiment is two-fold 1) the purpose – an experiment is about science, reality TV is about obtaining high ratings and attracting viewers, (arguably the BBC series was both – except that the funding came from the BBC and was controlled to a good extent by the BBC, a television network, concerned with ratings. While Zimbardo’s project was funded by Stanford University and other educational organizations and purely for scientific reasons. Never intended to be seen by a broad audience or for ratings.) 2) the series of scientific controls put into place to ensure that the data acquired is as accurate as possible. Reality TV suffice it to say does not have as many controls in place as pure experiment would. By its very nature, it has to exist outside the lab, and as a result is contaminated. The more people you involve in an experiment, the more likely it will be contaminated and data proven suspect. Not unlike the controls a biologist or chemist might put into place to ensure their experiment is not contaminated by outside forces. Sort of the difference, if you will, between performing a chemistry experiment over your stove and performing one in a sterile laboratory setting. Or performing a chemistry experiment as a demonstration in an auditorium with millions of cameras and an audience, and performing one in a sterile lab with just a few colleagues present.
Was The Experiment, conducted by psychologists Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher, devised for ratings? Not according to the psychologists, who state quite clearly in an article printed in The Guardian on October 31, that “the aim was to test what had become received thinking on the subject , as formulated by the famous Stanford prison experiment, run by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University California in 1971.”
Haslam argued with Zimbardo’s theory that behavior is situational, stating that personality and other factors such as politics play a role. According to Haslam behavior isn’t necessarily determined by the situation someone finds themselves in, rather that “people are capable of reflecting before acting;” people can in effect choose how to react to the situation and not necessarily be controlled by it. I take issue with Haslam’s interpretation of Zimbardo’s argument. From what I’ve read, which admittedly may be less than Haslam, but on the other hand I do not have an agenda like Haslam does – so may be more impartial - Zimbardo does not state that human behavior was predicated solely upon the situation nor is it determined solely by situation, but rather that situation plays a large role in determining how human beings will behave. We may be perfectly wonderful people in our day to day lives, but when we’re put into a specific situation behave horribly. Or vice versa – be horrible monsters in day to day life but behave beautifully or saintly if placed in the right situation. (An argument more than one person has proposed on line regarding certain character behaviors in TV shows.) Situation plays a tremendous role in how human beings behave according to Zimbardo, but it does not necessarily determine how they will behave.
( Does Situation Determine Behavior – a comparative analysis of the Zimbardo Prison Study vs. the Experiment, with supporting studies mentioned. Cut-tagged for length. )
Sources:
1.
oursin original live journal post on the topic, November 1, 2005. 2. Sutherland, J (Oct. 31, 2005.)“The Ideas Interview: Alex Haslam: Abu Ghraib need not have happened and the Stanford prison experiment got it wrong.” The Guardian, Found at : http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts
3. Social Economic And Organizational Research Group (SEORG) – “The Experiment – FAQ” – found at: http//:www.ex.ac.uk/Psychology/seorg/exp/faq.html
4. Aronson, E. The Social Animal 9th Ed. 2003 (pp. 8-9; pp. 222-223)
5. Zimbardo, P ( 1971, October 25). The psychological power and pathology of imprisonment (p.3). Statement prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary; Subcommittee No. 3; Hearings on Prison Reform, San Francisco.
6. Gibson, JT & Haritos-Fatouros, M. (Nov. 1986) “The Education of a Torturer”, reprinted from Psychology Today (pp. 20, 50-58) in Readings in Social Psychology, General Classic and Contemporary Selections ed. Wayne A. Lesko, 5th Ed. 2003.
[*Oho..this is interesting. I just wrote a paper on a historical event from two perspectives as assigned by the class, but not exactly the way my professor wanted. Doesn’t matter, am auditing, not getting a grade, so do not need to turn it in. Plus somewhere between Law School and well now, I must have gotten fed up with writing papers based on someone else’s idea of how one should be written, within nice narrow lines and borders – course doesn’t help that I have a job that has narrow lines and borders. Or I’m just lazy. Take your pick. ]
