Hi All- Since I have spent more than a decade in prisons, both as a prison psychologist and as the head of a prison education program, I feel reasonably well qualified to jump in on this thread. First, I think that it is important to remember that prison guards (and prisoners) are not homogeneous on any personality trait. From my observations they are (surprise!) normally distributed. A very few are sadistic by nature and another very few are extremely caring. Most fall somewhere in between. While the prison system tries to weed out both ends of the spectrum in the hiring process it is not entirely successful.
Mike asked, "If the power of the situation is so great, why weren't all of the guards turned towards the dark side?" A good question. I think that the answer is that good correctional systems put in a multi- layered sytems of checks and balances to prevent the occurance of situations like the Stanford Prison Experiment or Abu Ghraib. Even under exceptional circumstances such as riots and hostage takings there are controls designed to prevent either the "let's just shoot 'em all" or the "they're just misunderstood victims of society" side from taking control. Clearly, these controls don't always work (e.g. Attica), but on the whole they do. Without these systems I think that the situation would overwhelm individuals very quickly. While it is unlikely that we will be able to perform a true experiment which manipulates the roles of guards and wardens we can easily see the results of quasi-experiments in which these variables are manipulated. In my tour of most of Canada's prison s (while developing a course on how to handle riots and hostage takings) I had a chance to tour a military prison. In this institution the ethos was markedly different from the civilian prisons that I was used to. In the civilian prison inmates who were kept in solitary confinement had regular access to standard meals, exercise, books, hobbies, etc. In the military prison they were confined in total darkness (except for an inspection light every 15 minutes). They were fed bread and water (plus thin gruel after two weeks). The attitude of the guards in the military prison would never have been tolerated for an instant in the civilian prison. Was this just a selection bias for guards? Unlikely, as most of the guards in the civilian prison were ex- military. Long story short: situational variables trump personality variables. -Don. Don Allen Dept. of Psychology Langara College 100 W. 49th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. Canada V5Y 2Z6 Phone: 604-323-5871 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, May 6, 2007 11:03 am Subject: [tips] Re: [Fwd: What sort of person volunteers for a prison experiment?] To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > Well, I like the phrase "wickedly humorous," but I think I was > just > being a little wry. For what it is worth, I suspect that there is > an > interaction between personality traits and situational variables, > but I > am always wary of others who claim this as a "foot in the door" > toward > effectively denying that relatively normal-seeming people can be > led to > act brutally in situations in which it is permitted (not to > mention > demanded). > > Chris Green > =============== > > Mike Palij wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > On Sat, 05 May 2007 20:19:04 -0400, "Christopher D. Green" wrote: > > > >> This might be reassuring to people who don't want to believe > that anyone > >> can be influenced by the environment to become sadistic. > >> http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/05/what_sort_of_person_.html > >> On the other hand, it won't be of any comfort who want to > believe that > >> the Stanford Prison Study has nothing to do with what happened > at Abu > >> Graib. After all, if people who volunteer for prison studies > score > >> higher on "aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, > >> narcissism, and social dominance and lower on empathy and > altruism," > >> imagine what people who volunteer for the army are like on > these traits. > >> > > > > I think that Chris is being somewhat provocative in his statements > > above but I can't tell whether he is being wickedly humorous or > > merely sensational. A few points: > > > > (1) Although Zimbardo and others may feel that the "power of > > the situation" is overwhelmingly demonstrated in the Stanford Prison > > Experiment (SPE) I have felt that they have never adquately dealt > > with the alternate rival hypothesis that it is an interaction > between> situational factors and personality traits which may not > have been > > detected in their original study because of lack of statistical > power> (focus on such an interaction is actually an important part > of the > > article that served as the basis for the news items Chris linked to > > above). > > > > (2) Chris can correct me if I'm wrong but the assertion that > > what happened at Abu Ghraib can be understood in terms of > > the what happened in the SPE is an argument by analogy whose > > validity is dependent upon having more or less complete knowledge > > about the two situations, specifically about the causal factors that > > led to abusive treatment. If I am not mistaken, in the original SPE > > study only about a third of the "guards" were actively abusive while > > the remainder either ignored the abuse and just "tried to do their > > job" and some guards actually tried to help the "prisoners". > Whatever> was going on in the SPE it is clear that not all the > "guards" became > > brutal sadistic instruments of oppression comparable to the prison > > guards in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" (which served as the > inspiration> for the use of mirrored sunglasses in SPE and the > source of the phrase > > "What we have here is a failure to communicate"). If the power > of > > the situation is so great, why weren't all of the guard turned > towards > > the dark side? > > > > Also, the guard known as "John Wayne" can be seen as instrumental > > in helping to esculate the level of abuse against the SPE prisoners; > > what would have happend if "John Wayne" weren't one of the "guards" > > but instead one of the "prisoners"? One wonders how "John Wayne" > > would score on Sidanius & Pratto's social dominance scale as > well as > > Altemeyer's authoritarianism scales? I think that there were many > > things going on in the SPE that we still don't understand and may > > never completely understand and which, I think, make any > arguments of > > analogy to it weak though I do think that it does suggest how one > > might think about situations like Abu Ghraib (though I dobut > that the > > general public will ever really know all of the details about the > > Abu Ghraib situation). > > > > (3) In thinking about the SPE and how it could be made into > something> that is actually an experiment, one manipulation that > seems apparent to > > me deals with nature of how authority operated in that situation > and how > > were figures of authority supposed to operate. Consider the > following> distinctions that could be implemented as experimental > manipulations:> > > (A) Roles of guards: > > (A1) guards are told to maintain order and discipline among the > > prisoners in accordance to specific rules (e.g., respecting the > civil > > rights of the prisoners, etc.) > > (A2) guards are told to maintain order and dsicipline by any means > > necessary as long as it can be kept secret from "outsiders". > > > > (B) Role of Warden and Supervisors: > > (B1) The warden and supervisors are told to maintain order and > > discipline among the GUARDS, making sure that they are not abusive > > and treat the "prisoners" humanely. > > (B2) The warden and supervisors are told to maintain order and > > discipline among the GUARDS but not to limit guards "good faith" > > efforts to maintain order and discipline among the "prisoners" by > > whatever means necessary. > > > > It appears to me that the SPE and possibly Abu Ghraib represent > > the combination of (A2) and (B2) above (however, Abu Ghraib may > > have additional significant factors operating since issues of > life and > > death were involved as well as significant consequences for soldiers > > disobeying direct orders no matter how morally repugnant they > might > > see). > > > > Would we obtain the same results of the SPE if we had the > combination > > of (A1) and (B1)? I don't think so. I believe that the level > of abuse > > and mistreatment would be much lower though perhaps not completely > > absent. Indeed, I think it is in this combination of conditions > that> potentially pathological features of "guards" may break > through because > > a specific situation might produce a loss of self-control in a guard > > and personality traits (e.g., psychopathy, sensation-seeking, etc.) > > may play significant roles. In this context, personality traits > might be > > attributed as playing the major causal role. > > > > It probably is unlikely that one could replicate the SPE and > manipulate> the factors I've specified above but I have a feeling > that one could > > probably examine actual prisons and categorize them according to > > these distinctions. The question then becomes under which > conditions> does one see the greatest and lowest level of prisoner > abuse and > > mistreatment. > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > Take care, > > -Mike Palij > > > > > >> Regards, > >> Chris > >> > > > > > > > > --- > > To make changes to your subscription go to: > > http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi- > bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english> > > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription go to: > http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi- > bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english > --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
