Reading time: 4 minutes
Our interactions with others, and the contexts in which we find ourselves, have an influence on our daily behavior. Whether unconscious or as part of conscious experience, our interpretations of objects, facial expressions, social cues, and words all depend on the context, and more particularly, are an essential part of our survival. For instance, before crossing the street, our survival instinct pushes us to look both ways to check for incoming traffic, in order to ensure that we make it across safely. In this way, everything we do is guided by the situations we’re in. However, what happens when humans are subjected to more dire contexts? More importantly, can we truly predict people’s behaviors and their adherence to moral principles in the face of environments which promote immoral actions?
The Social Identity Theory, proposed by Henri Tajfel, offers one perspective on this matter. The theory argues that our membership in social groups (e.g. religion, jobs, nationalities) is incorporated into our self-concept—one’s general feeling about themselves. On the basis of this, individuals will then form opinions of their ingroups (which tend to be positive) and their outgroups (which are usually negative). The theory goes on to explain that since individuals will derive parts of their identity from the group to which they belong, their behaviors will also be influenced by their instinct to conform to group norms—which can either be moral or not.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, led by Philip G. Zimbardo, serves as a perfect example of the Social Identity Theory in action. The experiment took place in the basement of Jordan Hall in August 1971. Out of the 70+ individuals who responded to the advertisement about the experiment, 24 Stanford students, who were deemed to be the most mentally and physically tough, were recruited. The students were then assigned either to the group of guards or prisoners, and were instructed to embody their designated roles. The experiment aimed to examine the impact of situational factors and authority on behavior, as well as the effects of role-playing, over the span of two weeks.
However, the mistreatment of prisoners by their peers, such as having restricted access to the bathroom and being forced to do push-ups, led them to stage a rebellion within the first 48 hours of “incarceration”. The guards’ behavior escalated so rapidly, as they began to enforce harsh punishments, that Zimbardo was forced to terminate the experiment after only six days.
To this day, the Stanford Prison Experiment holds an important position in the field of psychology as it sheds light onto the importance of understanding power dynamics, ethical considerations in research, and the potential for “ordinary” people to engage in extreme behaviors when subjected to particular roles and environments. Additionally, it can be inferred that the guards were experiencing a concept called moral disengagement—the process of convincing oneself that ethical standards do not hold value in specific contexts, allowing for unethical behavior to manifest without feeling guilt. Through this process, the guards were able to justify their abusive behavior without experiencing guilt or responsibility.
Inspired by the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo developed the Lucifer effect to describe the fine line between good and evil and human’s susceptibility to what he describes as “the dark side” when exposed to certain social settings. Zimbardo explains that contexts have the power to contaminate the individual, leading them to commit acts that they would usually find reprehensible.
The torture endured by the detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq, serves as another example of situational influences on behaviour. The prisoners were met with cruel acts on behalf of the U.S. military personnel, who were tasked with extracting information from the inmates. They were beaten, forced into nudity, deprived of food, water, ventilation, and made to perform sexual acts, to name a few. These sadistic actions, that the prisoners were subjected to by the very individuals in positions of authority, led to a series of escapes and attempted escapes that went by undocumented.
Many of those in charge failed to report the grueling events that were occurring, perhaps as a way of maintaining group cohesion. In social psychology, this can be described using the concept of groupthink, which was originally offered by Irving Janis, who explained that members of groups are likely to accept a viewpoint which represents a perceived group consensus, despite the fact that they themselves might disagree with it. In a way, people are prone to such behaviors as a result of the fear of being rejected by their ingroup—the very people from whom they often seek the most validation from. Once again, we notice how individuals can suppress their own moral compass in order to please the expectations of their social group.
Another factor that might be at play here is the individual’s responsiveness to those in power. In the Abu Ghraib prison, the military officers were more likely to follow the “subtle” orders that they received from their superiors due to the chain of command. A similar dynamic was observed in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment. In this study, participants were assigned the role of a “teacher” and were ordered to administer shocks to actors who posed as the “learners”, whenever they gave an incorrect answer. Even though the shocks were fake, the participants were unaware of this fact and were instructed to increase the shock intensity with each wrong answer. The “learners” would fake scream and beg for the shocks to stop. Despite hearing the yelling and sounds of distress, most participants continued to administer the shocks under the pressure of the experimenter—the authoritative figure in this case.
The Milgram experiment, therefore, highlighted the powerful impact that authority can have on human behavior and the potential for “normal” people to act out in scary ways when directed by someone in the position of power.
The aforementioned experiments have undoubtedly raised major ethical concerns within the psychological community, for various reasons. Despite the fact that ethical guidelines would prevent such studies from being conducted today, they have provided us with a lot of insight into human behavior in extreme scenarios.
Now, ask yourselves, if you were a participant in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment or Milgram’s obedience study, do you think you would be capable of behaving in the same way as the actual participants? Perhaps you’re still convinced that you would not crack under the pressure. But even so…the reality might surprise you.
By Sara Janković
sara.j.jankovic@gmail.com
Bibliography:
Argyle, M. (2024). social psychology. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/social-psychology/Interaction-processes
Baez, S., García, A.M., & Ibáñez, A. (2018). How Does Social Context Influence Our Brain and Behavior? Frontiers for Young Minds. https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2018.00003
Neighbors, C., Foster, D. W., Fossos, N. (2013). Peer Influences on Addiction. In P. M. Miller (Ed.), Principles of Addiction (p. 323-331). Academic press. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/social-identity-theory
Manning, M. A., Bear, G. G., & Minke, K. M. (2006). Self-Concept and Self-Esteem. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 341–356). National Association of School Psychologists.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03571-026
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-04177-000
Hersh, S. M. (2004). Torture at Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
Schmidt, A. (2024). groupthink. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/science/groupthink
Eldridge, S. (2024). Milgram experiment. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Milgram-experiment
Stanford Libraries: [Stanford Prison Experiment] https://exhibits.stanford.edu/spe
A.P.E. 
Lascia un commento