# Lessons from The Stanford Prison Experiment



## David Baxter PhD (Sep 2, 2015)

*An Important but Rarely Discussed Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment*
By Scott Barry Kaufman
August 27, 2015 

_Any man can withstand adversity; if you want to test his character, give him power. ~ Abraham Lincoln_

 I recently watched the movie adaptation of the Stanford Prison Experiment, titled _The Experiment_. Like most reviewers,  I found it harrowing. But as a psychologist, I also found it revealing.  With my eyes glued to the screen in rapt attention, heart racing, I  became obsessed with understanding what really was going on, and the  lessons we can glean from such an experiment gone so horribly wrong.

 The standard story, given by the experimenter Philip Zimbardo,  is that the experiment is a lesson about how everyday people (and  groups consisting of everyday people), when given too much power, can  become sadistic tyrants. In a *recent article* for _The New Yorker, _Maria  Konnikova casts some doubt on that conclusion, arguing that the real  lesson is the power of institutions to shape behavior, and how people  are shaped by those preexisting expectations. 

 While this is certainly a valuable lesson, I believe another crucial  variable at play that is rarely mentioned by commentators of the prison  experiment or even in psychology textbooks is _the person_. Yes, power corrupts. But power does not corrupt everyone equally.

 There's no way the small group of participants in the Stanford Prison  Experiment represented the full range of human personality variation.  For one, these were _young males_. Already, there is going to be  higher levels of testosterone, on average, than most other  populations. But there's also the issue that these participants _actively sought out participation_ in a study having to do with prison. Research published  in 2007 found that people who responded to an ad to be part of a study  on "prison life" scored higher on tests of aggressiveness,  authoritarianism, machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance,  and lower on measures of empathy and altruism. 

 But even among the small sample of young male participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment, there was great variability in how people responded to power.  Some guards were particularly cruel, whereas others could barely take  the cruelty and offered to go on errands, while still others were  actively kind to the prisoners, fulfilling their requests. Let's also  not forget the hero of the film, Zimbardo's graduate student Christina Maslach, who recoiled in horror at the sight of how the participants were treated in the experiment.

 I fear it's all too easy for us to focus our attention on that one  loud, brash person who abuses power while ignoring the majority who were  not nearly as cruel. Zimbardo has remarked that he was afraid he would  be in for a very long and boring experiment. I suspect that if "Cool  Hand Luke" didn't sign up for the experiment, the experiment would  indeed have lasted the full two weeks. People would have generally  followed the rules, and we probably wouldn't have had a movie made after  it.

 Since the Stanford Prison Experiment, we've learned a lot more about  the psychology of power. Here's something we've found: power isn't  inherently good or evil. 

 Yes, it's true that power fundamentally alters perception. As Adam Galinsky and colleagues put it, ?powerful people roam in a very different psychological space than those without power.? Power increases confidence, optimism, risk-taking, sensitivity to internal thoughts and feelings, goal-directed behavior and cognition, and creativity.

 But these are not necessarily bad outcomes. Put to good use, power  can have an incredibly positive effect on people. There are so many  compassionate teachers, bosses, politicians, humanitarians, and others  who wield power, who genuinely want to make the world a better place.

 I think a really important point here is that _power amplifies the person_. It gives already existing personality dispositions and tendencies a louder voice, and increases the chances that these tendencies will be given fuller expression. Thus, we must consider interactions between the person and the situation. As Galinsky and colleagues point out,  "the situation loses its suffocating hold over the thoughts and  behavior of the powerful... and they are left with their own opinions,  beliefs, attitudes, and personalities to drive their behavior." 

Research shows  that activating the concept of power in men with an already-existing  disposition toward sexual harassment or aggression increases  objectification of women. There's also an emerging line of research on  the "Dark Tetrad"--  which consists of the darker personality dispositions of narcissism,  psychopathy, machiavellianism, and everyday sadism. One study found that  when given the opportunity, everyday sadists (those with a  higher appetite for cruelty) killed bugs at greater rates than  nonsadists, and were more willing to work for the opportunity to hurt an  innocent person. Similarly, when narcissists have their ego threatened  (e.g., are insulted), they are much more likely to increase aggression, even increasing aggression on innocent bystanders.

 Not just anyone put in a position of power will hurt others, however. Serena Chen and colleagues found that those with an _exchange relationship orientation_ (who focus on tit for tat) engaged in more self-serving behaviors when given power, whereas those with a c_ommunal relationship orientation_ (who take into account other people's needs and feelings when making a decision) demonstrated _greater generosity _when given power.

 So what, if anything, can we do to decrease the likelihood of power leading to bad behavior?

 One interesting reversal to  the finding that power amplifies the person is that when people in  positions of power are given explicit and salient goals, the situation  becomes much more important, and can _override_ people's innate  dispositions.* Perhaps we can refocus people's tendencies in a positive  direction by providing them with clear prosocial goals.

 This suggestion acknowledges the fact that no one is all good or all  bad; all of us have many sides. Even people who abuse power most  certainly have other, more prosocial sides that may be unexplored. We  must ask ourselves which side we most want to bring out of a  person. Zimbardo's experiment shines a light on the bad, but I could  imagine an equally persuasive study designed in such a way to show the  incredible potential for good in just about anyone when given power  with prosocial goals. 

 Another way to bring out more positive outcomes is to simply put  more people with prosocial dispositions (e.g., high empathy and  compassion) in positions of power and let them carry out their already  existing prosocial goals (e.g., desire to reduce violence, feed the  hungry, etc.).

 There are so many humane people in this world. In fact, _most_ people are  humane. Let's not let the minority who abuse power make us forget this  fact. I think the media as well as psychologists could do a lot more to  highlight the more uplifting and hopeful segments of humanity. As Jimmy  Carter once said, "What are the things that you can't see that are  important? I would say justice, truth, humility, service, compassion,  love. You can't see any of those, but they're the guiding lights of a  life."

 Recognizing that power is not inherently good or bad, we can try to  stack the deck as much as possible to harness the incredible power of  power. As Galinsky and colleagues so eloquently put it,

_"Perhaps human accomplishment is as much  about the cans and cannots as it is the haves and the have-nots.  Although power is often thought of as a pernicious force that corrupts  those who possess it, it is the protection from the situational  influence demonstrated here that helps powerful individuals surmount  social obstacles and reach greater heights of creativity to express the  unpopular ideals of today that can lead others to the horizons of  tomorrow." _
​
 * This is another valuable lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment:  the power of goals from authority figures. Experimenters like Zimbardo  are in a position of power themselves, and are responsible for not  abusing that power. This was also a lesson of the famous Milgram experiment. In  the Stanford Prison Experiment, there was no ethical oversight.  Zimbardo took on the role of the prisoner superintendent, and  explicitly told the guards to gain control over the prisoners. In some  cases, he encouraged the priosoners to abuse the guards. In a telling  attempt to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment, the BBC found  that the prisoners worked together to overthrow the guards, who were  ambivalent about their roles in the first place. The difference between  the experiments? The experimenters were held accountable, as the BBC  study had an ethical committee that continually monitored the study to  make sure it didn't get out of hand. Also, there was even some  uncertainty about roles. At least in the beginning, prisoners were told  that they might be able to become guards. Research  shows that in environments in which authority is unstable, or at least  perceived as unstable, being in a position of low power can actually be _empowering_.  As one group of researchers put it, "For low power individuals, power  instability is empowering, leading them to act and behave as high power  individuals... Having unstable low power leads to feelings of confidence  and self-efficacy, especially when low power individuals can gain power  by being creative. They may be more confident about their abilities and  also perceive that they have the 'power to change their situation." I  agree with other psychologists  that the original message of the Stanford Prison Experiment-- that  groups are bad, and that people in power automatically abuse power-- is  far too simplistic.

_Scott Barry Kaufman is scientific director of the Imagination Institute  in the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He  conducts research on the measurement and development of imagination,  creativity, and play, and teaches the popular undergraduate course, Introduction to Positive Psychology. Kaufman is author of *Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined* and co-author of the upcoming book *Wired to Create: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind* (with Carolyn Gregoire)._


----------

