Social Groups and How a Group Can influence an Individual’s Behavior and Decision-Making
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE; Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973a, 1973b) was a study designed to test the group process, dynamics and conformity. Zimbardo’s influence on the study was very little, and the participants, especially the guards, were acting on their will. The study was conducted at Stanford University, where they designed a room to look like a real prison. After the experiment began, they experienced a rebellion and prisoner developing disorders. The experiment was terminated after six days, other than the targeted two weeks. Notably, each of the two social groups involved in the experiment behaved uniquely but in a manner consisted with expected group processes and group thinking.
Group Process and Group thinking
The guards felt that they had the power and the right to exert punishment on the prisoners who disobeyed them. They were able to consult each other about the steps to take on tackling issues brought about by the prisoners. Being in the position of guards gave them a perception of power and authority (Stangor, Tarry & Jhangiani, 2014). Conformity developed among the guards as they agreed to carry out all the punishments due to group pressure. They as well were under the authority of the Zimbardo who played the role of the superintendent. The sense of power in their position led them to humiliate and abuse the prisoners. The guards indicated that depending on the situation; individuals can exert power over others in ways that they never thought they could (Aronson, Wilson & Sommers, 2019).
When the guards on duty were faced with a mutiny among the prisoners, they called the guards who were on standby to assist in cooling down the rebellion. After the task was completed, they formed a kind of understanding among themselves and even started sharing their experiences about the prisoners who then influenced their decisions (Aronson, Wilson & Sommers, 2019). Together they came up with methods to ensure that the prisoners recognized their perceived authority. When the guards acknowledge that they were all motivated to ensure that the prison ran smoothly, they were able to make fruitful decisions together (Aronson, Wilson & Sommers, 2019). The whole group decided the guard’s decisions on who deserved punishment and the kind of punishment to give. From this, it is evident that groups have power over the decision making and behavior of every individual within it.
The Role of a Zimbardo as Group Leader
In as much as the guards could make decisions based on their experiences, they also waited for instructions from the superintendent, a role that Zimbardo played. He assigned the number of hours and days that each guard could work. He also laid the burden of settling the rebellion on the guards. Zimbardo and his co-researchers took up the role of leadership, where they issued instructions to the guards when necessary. For this reason, it could be said that the guards probably behaved the way they did in an attempt to follow instructions. Zimbardo interacted with the guards on the induction day where he gave them instructions on what they were expected. In his speech, he inserted himself in a way that he suggested that he was part of the guards’ team against the prisoners (Zimbardo, Maslach & Haney, 2000).
Possible Results from Using Different Participants
This study was conducted in the United States, where individuals tend to have an independent way of thinking and acting. If the study was carried out in an Asian setting where people tend to have strict norms and values, the study might have been different. For example, with an Asian population, the rebellion may not have happened since the Asian community tends to be strict on values and norms. Also, the participants were all males who are generally aggressive and tend to question authority. Perhaps if the study is conducted with female participants, the result might be different since females tend to be less confrontational. Due to these differences, Zimbardo would likely have gotten different results.
Undermining Group Thinking
The prisoners were able to gather and riot because they were able to influence each other. This phenomenon where a group of people tends to behave in a certain way as a result of personal identity is known as deindividuation. According to Zimbardo, Maslach & Haney (2000), abandoned responsibility and anonymity are the main attributes of deindividuation. In Zimbardo’s study, both the guards and prisoners were deindividualized. The reason why the prisoners were able to riot was that they could not be singled out since they were identified using anonymous numbers. The researcher could have prevented the group mentality by, for example, allowing the prisoners to use names instead of numbers. Also, they could have partnered the prisoners up so that they could form relationships with each other and thus a sense of responsibility to them is upright.
Validity and Ethical Issues in the Study
The validity of the study can be improved by revising the orientation period of the guards by Zimbardo. During the orientation, the guards were told only to avoid physical abuse but were encouraged to take part in other forms of violence. Also, the state of the mock prison where the study was carried out can be made to resemble that of a real prison more.
This study had a few ethical issues. These issues are evident in the way that Zimbardo continued to hold the prisoners who wanted to leave the research and in the way the guards were continually allowed to inflict emotional pain on the prisoners. The researcher should have issued a guideline on a safe way to handle misconduct among the prisoners. Another unethical situation rose from the fact that the researcher continued to hold the prisoner who experienced a nervous breakdown on the second day of the experiment.
Conclusion
Although there have been criticisms about the validity of the study, Zimbardo has always maintained that he held back from influencing the way the guards performed. Notably, the study was pivotal in showing that individuals are capable of behaving negatively towards others as long as they are in a position of power. The study, therefore, inspired and opened doors to activisms and reforms in the correctional system.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. R. (2019). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Stangor, C., Tarry, H., & Jhangiani, R. (2014). Group decision making. Principles of Social Psychology-1st International Edition.
Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Reflections on the Stanford prison experiment: genesis, transformations, consequences. Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm, 193-237.