Group psychology and the Standford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Group psychology and the Standford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib PDF

Description

MaryElizabeth Greeley Emily Guthier Stephanie Simon Xiaojun Tian Effect of group psychology at Stanford Prison Study and Abu Ghraib Emily: Our presentation is on the effect of social psychology at Stanford Prison Study and Abu Ghraib. [change slide]

Emily: Here is our presentation outline. [change slide]

Alex: “Social (group) psychology is the study of how people influence other people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions in groups. Given the importance of groups, it is not surprising that people’s thoughts, emotions, and actions are strongly influenced by their desire to be good members.” Groups influence individual behavior through social facilitation, deindividualization, and group decision making, which will be discussed through the case of Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib Prison. [change slide]

Mary: Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted at Stanford University on August 14–20, 1971, by a research group led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo (et. al.) using randomly selected college students living in the Standford University area, all middle-class and male. The experiment had male undergraduates at Stanford University play the roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison. The students, who had all been screened and found to be psychologically stable, were randomly assigned to their roles. The prison guards were given no training of how they should behave with the prisoners and therefore made their own rules. The goals of the experiment were to see the behavioral and psychological consequences of being a prisoner or prison guard. After days of nothing special happening among the inmates and guards, the guards became brutal and sadistic and the prisoners became helpless to resist. The results demonstrate what people are willing to do when put in a situation with defined social roles. [change slide]

Mary: This study demonstrates how normal people can lose their individuality when they become part of a group, a term known as deindividuation. The prisoners in this experiment were placed into a group of other prisoners, were forced to take the identity of a random number over their birth name, and therefore had no chance to express themselves as an individual. Inmates sometimes rebelled as a consequence to assert their individuality. One inmate, #416, went on an eating-strike as a sign of rebellion to assert their individuality. However, this strike was not taken well and so other inmates were affected. The guards

were making new rules if #416 refused to give up his strike by taking away privileges, like visitations, away from the other prisoners. Prisoner #416 was cursed at and screamed at as a consequence and put into solitary confinement. [change slide] Steph: Another point to address when discussing group psychology is Robert Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation which states that the presence of others will enhance one’s own dominant response to an event. The prison guards were told to act like a prison guards with no prior training or experience. Their behaviors were solely based off of the limited descriptions they received beforehand. They were free to treat the prisoners in any way they felt fitting whether it be brutal or not. In this case, the guards’ dominant response was to punish the inmates if they disobeyed and to privilege inmates who behaved accordingly. Only after a few days were the guards punishing any behavior, no matter what it was. [change slide]

Steph: The Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq was a real life example that mirrored the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment regarding horrible abuses of power. In 2003, during the first year of the Iraq War, American soldiers brutalized Iraqi detainees. “The American soldiers raped prisoners, threatened them with dogs, beat them, placed them in humiliating positions and forced them to perform or simulate oral sex and masturbation.” (Gazzaniga, 2016) However, it was not until April 2004, CBS’s 60 Minutes II revealed images of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison to the entire world. Due to the publicity of these horrific acts, The Department of Defense charged fifteen soldiers convicting them to a range of “formal reprimand” to ten years in prison (Alkadry, Witt 2009) [change slide]

Steph: The actions and decisions that the American soldiers participated in examines further evidence that groups influence individual behavior. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib, like the students in the Stanford study emulated the actions described in group influential behaviors such as social facilitation and deindividuation. The soldiers charged with these crimes insisted at their trials that they were, “just following orders… to soften up prisoners for interrogation…” (Alkadry, Witt 2009) The presence of other soldiers would have aroused the group further to make the undesirable decisions a more likely outcome. Government Officials attempted to explain the cause of these horrific actions based on a, “few troubled individuals…” (Gazzaniga, 2016). However, deindividualization can occur when when people are no longer self-aware and their personal standards no longer apply. The article covering interviews of the perpetrators stated that their dispassionate and indifferent responses were summed up with the statement, “Military Intelligence made me do it,” as if this entirely absolves them of ethical and moral responsibility (Alkadry, Witt 2009) [change slide]

Emily: These situations have multiple similarities. First, they both depend on an abuse of power. The Stanford Prison Experiment randomly assigned students roles as prison guards or prisoners. They had no guidelines for the prison guards, so they made their own rules. These rules led to them abusing their own power and thereby abusing the prisoners. This type of situation also occurred at the Abu Ghraib Prison. The soldiers running the prison brutally abused the prisoners. They used the power bestowed upon them by the army to sexually abuse and brutalize the prisoners. [change slide]

Emily: An article written in 2004 by the American Psychological Association claims that the results from the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib Prison propelled research of prison social dynamics into national dialogue. Bystanders and observers alike wanted to learn the causes for this series of disturbing behavior. As a result, multiple programs to improve prison conditions were implemented. For example, Navy SEAR program educated interrogators on the potential dangers of abusing their power by showing a documentary detailing the Stanford Prison experiment. Further research into the causes of these terrible abuses of power highlighted that this type of behavior was not caused by an individual. Instead, it is caused by systemic abuse that permeates hierarchies within prison environments. [change slide]

References Alkadry G. Momad, & Witt T., Mathew (2009). Abu Ghraib and the Normalization of Torture and Hate. Public Integrity, vol 11, pp. 135-153.

Demonstrating the Power of Social Situations via a Simulated Prison Experiment. (2004, June 8). Retrieved April 12, 2017. Dittmann, M. (2004, October). What makes good people do bad things? Retrieved April 12, 2017. Gazzaniga, M. S., Heatherton, T. F., & Halpern, D. F. (2016). Psychological science. New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Zimbardo, P., Haney, C., Banks, W.C., & Jaffe, D. (1971, August 14-21). The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. [Cassette-tape Transcript]...