Explorations and Methodologies

KanikaSud

Assignment submitted to the Department of Sociology, in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the M.Phil. Degree

in Sociology for the course Methodological

Perspectives(Paper I).

July, 2014

University of Mumbai

Explorations and Methodologies

Zimbardo, Philip G. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good people turn Evil,

Random House, New York. ISBN 978-1-4000-6411-3

One glance at the current media news channels and our history books and documentaries

awaken us to the enormity of violence infused in the social realities of many people’s lives.

How is it that an individual or a group of people (or an entire nation for that matter) can

devolve to monstrosity and commit atrocious attacks on the other? Are some people

pathologically pre disposed to be aggressive and violent in comparison to others?

It is very possible for one to have come across people from all walks of lifewho

overemphasize on personality traits in explaining any behavior while concomitantly

underemphasizing situational influences at play. In fact, often times, perhaps I too have

succumbed to this temptation to avert the blame on the personal traits of people who

commit harm unto others, instead of conducting a macro analysis of the system they are a

part of. Social Psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo calls this a mental bias called the

“Fundamental Attribution Error”1.Truth be told, our History books too are replete with

various instances when people are treated as the embodiment of Evil or good.

Professor Zimbardo’s compelling book titledThe Lucifer’s Effect: Understanding how good

people turn evil2 starts off with an opening chapter that sketches the theme of the

transformation of Human nature, of good people doing evil things.This is followed by

disconcerting accounts of crimes against humanity; from Homer’s account of Trojan War,

where slaughtering of women and children was ordered, Rwanda massacre in the

1990’swhere in the Hutus torturing Tutsis was commonplace, Witch Identification

destruction (WID)programmesand the Japanese slaughtering Chinese civilians during

1The tendency for an observer, when interpreting and explaining the behavior of another person (the actor),

to underestimate the situation and to overestimate the personal disposition. Read more: http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Fundamental+Attribution+Error#ixzz37Zw0OztB 2The title of this book is inspired by this transformation of human character named after God’s favourite angel

Lucifer, who fell from grace and ultimately became satan.

world war II et al. He lays down the background of these atrocities to challenge the

traditional views held in the field of dispositionally oriented modern psychiatry and clinical

psychology, while attempting to understand the cause of such heinous proceedings of

evil.Professor Zimbardo points out the flaws of our institutions that are founded on a

dispositional judgment when attempting to comprehend unusual behaviours. His main

argument is that while people should not be condoned for the odious acts they commit, it’s

important to scrutinize the situational and systemic forces that are responsible for shaping

the individual conduct.

Professor Zimbardo has further articulated that systems create situations and conditions

conducive to behaviours and actions to prevail. Systems are laced with far-reaching

“networks of people, their expectations, norms, policies, rules, and laws”. He states further

in his book; “overtime systems come to have a historical foundation and sometimes also a

political and economic power structure that governs and directs the behavior of many

people within its sphere of influence.”3It’s therefore, not a case of a “few bad apples”, a term

used to conveniently describe a few “deviant people” which highlights a dispositional view;

but the entire “apple barrel” is faulty and must be scrutinized, posits Professor Zimbardo.

An analysis of the system focuses on the barrel makers who have the power to design the

apple barrel. He draws from C. Wright Mill’s notion of “Power Elite” to describe the

guardians of the system, who want to cut off the problem and deflect the blame away from

those at the top. For that reason,his assertion was that people are not innately good or bad,

and that often times they are made to perform evil in the garb of obedience i.e. “we are just

carrying out orders”.

It is these issues and many more that attracted me to The Lucifer’s Effect: Understanding

how good people turn evil. I was keen to understand the notion of blind obedience to

authority, and how it is interwoven with notions of ideology, hierarchy, and power.I

wanted to look at the relationship between “Following authority and orders” and

“Individual Resistance”. Keeping in mind the above mentioned atrocities having committed,

should people be “good” in the sense of not harming others? Or should they be “good” in

3See pg 191

the sense of doing what they are told to do? If they chose one over the other, what does that

imply?I also wanted to understand how a Quantitative approach is employed as a way of

creating knowledge, studying human values, being a harbinger of Social Justice and change,

etc. How could one understand the influence of existing power structures and subjective

experiences of people via quantitative methods and methodologies?

Professor Zimbardoraises a pertinent question via the book about the “nature of human

nature”. “Is it possible for average, even good people to become perpetrators of evil?” This

book provides a chronology of the changes in human nature that took place during a

simulated experiment led by Professor Philip Zimbardo and a team of his researchers,

which is popularly known as the Stanford Prison Experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment(SPE) is one of the classic experimental studies in the field

of Social Psychology, conducted in the 1970’s by a Social Psychological Professor Philip

Zimbardo. It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and it was of interest to both

the US Navy and Marine Corps as investigation into the causes of conflict between military

guards and prisoners. 4 Zimbardo recollects this experiment conducted at Stanford

University in graphic details in this book.

SPE was designed to study whether “good” people can perform “evil” acts if placed within

particular social contexts; and to empirically observe the impact of the simulated prison

situation in those who lived in it, both the Prisoners and the guards. ProfessorZimbardo

and his research team preferred to create a simulated prison over studying actual prisons

with real guards and criminals for quite a few reasons5;usually researchers are viewed with

distrust by the systems’ insiders. Besides, Zimbardo wanted to observe all phases of prison

life, to get direct access to prison and guards. Thiswas not always possible in real prison

systems, as they would be only allowed to see what they are permitted to see, which would

not enable them to get underneath the surface of prison life. Hence, by creating the

psychological environment of a prison, they reasoned they would be in a position to

observe, record, document the entire process of becoming indoctrinated into the mental set

4See http://www.prisonexp.org/faq.htm#study

5See page 32

up of prisoners and guards, not to mention understand the deeper structure of the prison –

guard relationship.

In order to facilitate this examination, Professor Zimbardo altered the basement of

Stanford University’s Psychology Department into a make-do prison. In real prisons, one

cannot be assured to what extent is someone or their situation responsible. Some may be

sadists, sociopathic, etc. In order to avoid this puzzlement, Zimbardo and his team

systematically selected (via recruitment, interviews, and psychological tests) local college

students of similar backgrounds and attributes with no prior history of anti

socialbehaviour (White, middle class, able bodied and emotionally stable, above average

intelligent college students) to play randomly assigned roles of guards and prisoners, with

Zimbardo as the Prison Superintendent.

The guards were given clothing similar to that of an actual prison guard and mirrored sun

glasses to thwart eye contact. Prisoners were provided with uncomfortable ill-fitting

smocks and stocking caps, as well as chain around the ankles. They were supposed to be

addressed by their prison numbers sewn on their uniform, as a replacement for their

names. The prison guards were given no formal training on their roles, except for a brief

orientation where in they were only told to maintain law and order and were asked to

refrain from physical violence. In due course of the experiment, it was found that the

participants of the research study had internalized their assigned roles well pastProfessor

Zimbardo’s expectations.6 The guards started to heavily impose arrogant and authoritarian

measures and subjected the prisoners to psychological and physical abuse.7 The prisoners

too, submissively accepted psychological abuse, and at the guards’ orders, maltreated other

prisoners too. ProfessorZimbardo wasn’t spared from the effects of his simulated prison-

like atmosphere for his research either. He too was consumed by the role of a

superintendent, while permitting the evil to continue, by not discontinuing it. A

documentary film titled Quiet Ragewritten and directed by ProfessorZimbardo and Ken 6SPE was supposed to be a two week long study; however it lasted for only 6 days, after Dr. Christina

Malasch’s request to do so. Horrific turn of events unfolded, where in “pacifists were becoming sadistic guards, and normal kids were breaking down emotionally” in Professor Zimbardo’s words. 7For e.g. endless counts, middle of the night awakenings, lack of privacy, nakedness, chains, bagged heads,

lousy food, minimal bedding, arbitrary creative evil of some of the guards, etc .

Musen respectively,features original recording of SPE along with follow up interviews with

research subjects.

Through SPE, Professor Zimbardo sought to determine that contrary to the “inherent

personality traits” which are assumed to cause abusive behavior it is the “systems” that

establish situations(particularly in Prisons, as outlined by this study), which further lead to

evil. The book shows how people in everyday situations are willing to do harm to others, in

response to command from an authority figure, while knowing better not to do so. Thus,

Zimbardo acknowledges the systemic and situational forces at play which enable humans

to enact in ways which are considered “evil”8

When one assesses the logic and rationale underlying particular techniques and methods

applied in SPE, one can note the Methodological assumptions spelt out by

ProfessorZimbardo in this text areseemingly Positivistin nature. The logic of Positivist

project is that knowledge has to be objective, generalize-able and verifiable on which a

truth claim is made. This knowledge is to be arrived at systematically, via empirical

observation and appropriate measurement techniques. Thepositivist project asserts that

the methods of natural sciences are relevant to the study of societies. In this view, Social

Sciences like Social Psychology, Sociology etc occupy the search for causal relationships

between observable phenomena, and theories are tested against observations. However

this does not mean that Social Science researchers with this view are not curious about

people’s subjective views, attitudes and opinions. They can be explored, for instance,

through the Survey method.9

According to Hughes and Sharrock (2007) the Positivist project begins with an idea of what

a Science is-one which is based on the Natural Sciences. One of the main tenets of

positivism was that there had to be a unity of method to all the sciences and accordingly,

social sciences were to join that company, if they were to implement that method in their

inquiries. However, this was not an uncomplicated matter of implementing techniques and

8“evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent

others -- or using one's authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.” See pg 17 9see http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/characterizing-positivism-interpretivism-and-realism-

approaches-psychology-essay.php

procedures used in the various natural sciences, but to pursuing the logic of inquiry the

natural sciences followed.

In this bookProfessor Zimbardo clearly mentions he wanted to “systematically” and

“empirically” test and challenge the traditional dispositional theories upheld by the

academics in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, institutions, and the general populace in

explaining the cause of unusual behaviors.ProfessorZimbardo’s conviction that the process

of the experiment ought to be carried out in accordance with Science, in much the same

sense that the leading natural sciences are, therefore reflects his adherence to the Positivist

Methodology.He also professed the significance of “detachment” in order to conduct any

research with unbiased activity. Professor Zimbardo draws from Social Psychologist cum

theorist-researcher Kurt Lewin’s argument for a science of experimental social psychology.

Lewin emphasized that it is practicable to abstract noteworthy issues from the real world

conceptually and practically and test them in experimental laboratory, while later on

applying the results of the study to change the status quo in favour of the greater common

good. Methods such as questionnaires, statistics and measurement techniques were used,

which is common in any other work in Psychology.

The basis Ontological assumption10in the Positivist Project is that reality is objective and

external to human beings. Knowledge is seen as a hard body of objective reality. Positivist

Social Science Researchers tend to be non-realists, as they are prone to restricting reality to

the observable. See-ability is therefore an important criterion for making truth claims. It is

very clear in this book that ProfessorZimbardorobustly endorses the idea that situational

forces influence individual behavior, in contrast to the dispositional view harboured by

many to assess the rampant abuses taking place in many institutions and societies. For him,

the reality is “out there, external to individuals”. He mentions in the book that he expected

the student subjects in SPE to resist institutional forces and the dominance of the forces

than they were. Quite the contrary, this did not happen. The prisoners and guards adopted

the power – prone mentality. Thus, Professor Zimbardo has asserted that it is the system

“out there” and around us, which provides institutional support, authority and resources

10

Concerned with what exists; or the nature of reality.

that allow situations to operate as they do. However, he further adds that system power

involves authorisation to enable a particular behavior and penalize actions that are

contrary to them. This requires higher authority that validates rules, roles, orders, etc. And

such validation comes cloaked in the form of Ideology. He therefore adopted the point of

view that analysing systems as well as situations external to humans matter was vital in

enabling us to realize what went wrong at Stanford and other real prisons such as Abu

Gharib Prisons, Nazi concentration camps, etc.

The Socio-cultural assumption11espoused by Zimbardo, was spelt out in the way SPE was

conducted and from what he observed as follows ; human beings are not as essentially

active as they are made out to be in traditional dispositional views rampant in modern

psychiatry and clinical psychology. Quite the contrary, we human beings respond to

external events or stimuli. He demonstrated this assumption through the way in which

prisons, guards and he himself underwent a role transformation. The guards became

power hungry and authoritarian in no time, subjecting prisoners to degrading humiliations

and prisoners began to accept and internalize those routine humiliations and

oppressiveness of the prison setting. In retrospect, ProfessorZimbardo too transformed

from a “usually compassionate teacher, to data-focused researcher to callous prison

superintendent” which he found very upsetting. They were all thus, responding to the

system surrounding around them.

Epistemologically12,in this study Zimbardo has used a combination of Quantitative

Research methods and Qualitative methods, but more the former which included; around

the clock direct observations made of behavioral interactions between prisoners and

guards, added-on by collecting multiple forms of evidence such asvideo recordings of

twelve hours, concealed audiotape recordings of thirteen hours, statistical data analysis,

questionnaires, self reported individual difference personality-measures, and various

interviews, coupled with a wee bit of the latter; qualitative narratives of the subjects,

interviews and focus group discussions. Unlike traditional experimental method, they

11

Relationship between humans and natural environment. Is human being essentially passive or active in relation to their surroundings? 12

concerned with knowledge and how can it be obtained.

didn’t have a control group of comparable volunteers, as they wanted their design to be

more of a demonstration of a phenomenon, like Milgram’s original obedience studies, than

as an experiment to establish causal associations. Thus here the simple independent

variable was only the main effect of the treatment of guards’ v/s prisoners. Few days before

the experiment began; the subjects of this study underwent three kinds of psychological

tests to measure individual differences among themselves, namely; F-scale of

authoritarianism13, Machiavellian scale of interpersonal manipulation strategies14 and

Comrey Personality scales15.In the domain of a positivist Epistemology, one of the main

criteria for making truth claims is that measurement has to be possible. Observation,

measurability and record keeping (documentation etc) are three important sources of

knowledge in the positivist project, which were consistently applied by Professor

Zimbardoin this study to arrive at the desired conclusion. We can thus clearly see that

Professor Zimbardo’s epistemological assumptions are quantitative and positivist in

nature.

In Sociology, SPE is desirable for teaching concepts central to the field of Social Control and

deviance, including Broken Windows Theory16, and Labeling theory, as well as core

Sociological concepts such as norms, roles, social expectations, and Research ethics17. In

terms of its importance of the text in Sociology, it hasfurther contributed to the existing

body of knowledge which point to the exerting influence of the systems.Regarding the

theoretical assumptions spelt in the book, labeling theory18 of Social Deviance is apparently

capable of explaining how these Stanford undergrads became so profoundly entrenched

into their roles. However, methodologically, SPE has demonstrated the efficacy and

effectiveness of field experiments such as SPE in theory testing and generation, which are

13

Rigid adherence to conventional values, uncritical attitude toward authority. See pg 210 14

Assessment of one’s endorsement of strategies for gaining effective advantage in interpersonal encounters. See pg 210. 15

Self report inventory consisting of 8 subscales used to predict dispositional variations between guards and prisoners. See pg 211 16

Theory of crime which posits public disorder as a situational stimulus to crime, along with the presence of criminals. (pg 25) 17

See http://www.thesociologicalcinema.com/videos/the-stanford-prison-experiment 18

Labeling theory states that people unconsciously read how other people see them and they act to these labels, and over time this label becomes part of the way that person views his or herself. See http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/what-makes-us-evil/

seldom conducted in the field of Sociology anymore.The methodological importance of this

text can be gauged from what is stated by Professor Zimbardo in this book which reflects

methodological fluidity “…when its value lies typically in its ability to illuminate underlying

processes, identify causal sequences, establish variables that mediate an observed effect.

Moreover, experiments can establish causal relationships that if statistically significant

cannot be dismissed as chance connections.” Therefore, from the above statement, one

could say that Professor Zimbardo perhaps, comes across as a Pragmatist19 and a

Situationalist20. He seemingly advocates the integration of methods within a single study, as

both approaches have intrinsic strengths and weaknesses. However, he maintains that

definite research questions relate more to quantitative approaches. He outwardly treats

the two approaches as complementary, albeit he is more inclined to the quantitative or the

positivist approach.

Nonetheless, despite the popularity of SPE, the study has raised serious ethical and

academic questions in Social Science Research. The experimental subjects, who were

assigned the role of prisoners,were subjected to intense mental and emotional turmoil. It

was only after Dr. Malasch expressed her utter dismay and requested Professor Zimbardo

to terminate the experiment, did he realize that he too got consumed by his role of playing

a Superintendent. Therefore, when it comes to experiments on human subjects, the notion

of “detachment” and “objectivity” is not necessarily applicable. Consequently, it was easier

19

situationalists maintain that qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary but should not be integrated in a single study. However, they believe that definite research questions relate more to quantitative approaches, whereas other research questions are more suitable for qualitative methods (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). Thus, although representing very different directions, the two approaches are treated as being complementary. see http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/characterizing-positivism-interpretivism-and-realism-approaches-psychology-essay.php#ixzz37a9BEaBj 20

Pragmatists, unlike purists and situationalists, contend that a false separation exists between quantitative and qualitative approaches (Newman & Benz, 1998). They advocate the integration of methods within a single study. Sieber (1973) articulated that because both approaches have intrinsic strengths and weaknesses, researchers should utilize the strengths of both techniques in order to understand better social phenomena. Indeed, pragmatists assign to the philosophy that the research question should drive the methods used (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). In any case, researchers who ascribe to epistemological purity disregard the fact that research methodologies are merely tools that are designed to aid our understanding of the world. see: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/characterizing-positivism-interpretivism-and-realism-approaches-psychology-essay.php#ixzz37a9NFZuC

said than done for Zimbardo to keep traditional scientific controls in space. He couldn’t

curtail the effects of variables other than the single independent variable (Relationship

between prison guards and prisoners). Neither was he a neutral observer, as he directed

the experiment as the prisoner’s superintendent. Hence one can note the flaws in this

methodology which requires a natural science- like approach in studying human subjects.

As humans, we bring in our subjective biases and attitudes, commitment to either bringing

a positive change or maintaining the status quo, etc in our studies, which are determined

by our social locations. Therefore, the positivist methodology in the Social sciences

assumes humans as “knowable objects” in the world who apparently have little or no

agency of their own. In a positivist Social Scientific study like this one, the research subjects

became “objects” to arrive at a particular theory or test a prevalent theory, so much so that

the distress they are subjected to is trivialized and rationalized in the name of contribution

to the production of “true knowledge”.

Reference List

Books:

Zimbardo, Philip G. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good people turn Evil,

Random House, New York. ISBN 978-1-4000-6411-3

John A. Hughes and W.W. Sharrock (2007) Theory and Methods in Sociology : An

introduction to Sociological Thinking and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN-10:0-333-

77286-5 paperback.

Websites:

Psychology Glossary http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Fundamental+Attribution+Error#ixzz37Zw0OztB

Stanford Prison Experiment: Frequently asked Questions http://www.prisonexp.org/faq.htm#study

Characterizing Positivism InterpretivismAnd Realism Approaches Psychology Essay http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/characterizing-positivism-interpretivism-and-realism-approaches-psychology-essay.php

The Sociological Cinema : Teaching and learning Sociology through Video http://www.thesociologicalcinema.com/videos/the-stanford-prison-experiment

“What makes us evil?” in My Sociological Imaginationhttp://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/what-makes-us-evil/

The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo http://www.lucifereffect.com/