The Lucifer Effect - The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

A book by Philip Zimbardo titled "The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil" came out in the 2008 paperback. Its psychological undertones were displayed in the 2010 film "The Experiment", Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment - 1992 ( a documentary) and in the 2015 film 'The Stanford Experiment'.  The book's basis is that "good" people can turn "evil" when exposed to the right circumstances. When studied, the Professor explained the dark periods of our history, the most terrible atrocities from the Holocaust, the atrocities in Rwanda, Sudan, Bosnia, Burundi, Kosovo, Albania, Rape of Nanking, My Lai, Jonestown in Guyana, etc. The perpetrators could be described as every day, normal people. They would be called monsters by their victims. All of the stories are gruesome, and it shows the depravity that the human soul can descend when exposed to the appropriate stimuli. This book's reading points to the uncomfortable thought that we could have been Hitler, Stalin, Ted Bundy, Nero, Pol Pot, Caligula, Otto Adolf Eichmann, Ivan the Terrible, a Suicide Bomber,  a torturer, etc. or a psychopathic serial killer. "Consider the possibility that each of us has the potential, or mental templates, to be saint or sinner, altruistic or selfish, gentle or cruel, submissive or dominant, sane or mad, good or evil." With simple psychological methods like dehumanization, deindividualization, and crowd behaviour manipulation, we could be almost be programmed to do anything, especially when sustained and continuous. An even scarier thought was in the University of Hawaii that (90% of 570) students were endorsing a "Final Solution" of those who were physically and mentally unfit. Still, it was dressed as a high minded scientific project for humanity's benefit, only just after one short, less than 30-minute presentation. This affects the way I see crime and punishment and makes me ask the question, should we really punish people for the crime that we all could do if we were exposed to their condition? If we all could do it, what are we actually punishing them for, them being in the wrong place at the wrong time? In short, there are some actions that we can do or will do that we can never explain. That we could not predict how we would behave when we are under a particular condition. When left alone, every group will descend into total "Lord of the Flies" anarchy if exposed to the appropriate stimuli. This does not mean that perpetrators of abuse should be excused or absolved, but now, their actions could be understood. Abusers must be punished as a form of atonement and redress. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. But of course, as a religious person, this will raise the question of God, belief, and religion. We should not forget that the Church of England was explicit during the slave trade. Catholic Hutu nuns were actively involved in the Rwanda genocide. The 9-11 Bombers believed that they were doing in God's name. Then there were numerous religious wars fought in God's name. I would like to believe that this was a bastardization of the corresponding religion. A true disciple will remain true to himself and not fall to "The Lucifer Effect" whatever the circumstances. As in Christian theology, we are all sinners, but for the grace of God.

In August 1971, Philip G. Zimbardo, Professor of Psychology, Stanford University, using male college students as subjects, conducted a series of experiments to understand the psychological dynamics between guards and prisoners in the US. The research was fully funded by the US Navy, in which 24 college male students were divided by random selection (using a flip of a coin) into "guards" and "prisoners". The "guards" had arrived earlier and helped set up the prison. Meanwhile, the "prisoners" were actually arrested by real police officers at their homes, brought to the "prison" (modified college offices) in the back of a police car, stripped naked, blindfolded, hosed, and deloused using delousing powder. Then the "guards" were given smart khaki uniforms, a baton each and a pair of silver dark reflective glasses which gave the guards "a degree of anonymity", and the "prisoners" were given a headscarf, their uniforms which is essentially a short flock, with their corresponding prison numbers on it and they were not allowed any underwear, hence exposing their genitals. The "guards" came up with a list of 17 rules, which included instruction on how to address and refer to each other, which was by their prison numbers only and address the "guards" as "Mr Correctional Officer".  Eat only at mealtimes, participate in all prison activities, keep their rooms clean, remain silent during rest periods, after the night out and at mealtimes, obey all orders issued by the "guards" at all times, not to refer to the experiment as an "experiment", etc. After a while, the "guards" became brutal, abusive, inventively creative, sadistic, and unusually crude to the "prisoners". Despite the physical and psychological abuse they endured, the endless counts, humiliation, being bullied, some of the prisoners displayed extreme stress symptoms. All were chained, handcuffed, head covered by hoods, sleep-deprived, made to clean the toilets with their bare hands, some went on hunger strikes, the middle of night wakings, being tripped by the guards, time spent in solitary confinement, time disorientation (all the clocks were removed, no windows - so they could not see the sky, closed environment), inappropriate undressing by the "guards", the lousy food and minimal bedding, he noticed that the majority of the "prisoners" were more than willing to leave the program without pay. But despite knowing full well, they could leave the program at any time, the "prisoners" felt psychologically trapped and were emotionally bound to the program. As in their minds, the line between the experiment and reality has been blurred. Then the issue of the "guards" was able to justify their actions on the prisoners, that the "guards" were convinced in a strange way that the "prisoners" had committed a fictitious crime and hence deserved to be punished. They purposely removed their access to latrines as a form of punishment and had the "prisoners" passing their excrement in a bucket in the middle of their cells, which left their cells smelling as a result.  Within a period of less than a week, the "guards" were able to set a well-organized system of control and punishment, having the "prisoners" doing unnecessarily unproductive jobs as moving boxes to one room and then back again, undressing prisoners, physical abuse, an excessive number of press-ups, isolation, psychological manipulation, etc. Meanwhile, after selecting the group, further assessment was done, and further tests on the students, the graduate team studied, videotaped, and audio recorded each interaction in every room. It seems everybody on the research team, including the Professor himself, had lost touch with reality. They were able to interview all the precipitants during the debriefing and get their thinking and mindset throughout the "experiment". Prof Z said that most of us are biased, and we would like to believe that we would be the exception and be the hero. He said this is unlikely as heroes are rare. As the Milgram Experiment found, "Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being". Hence, heroes were scarce. Another experiment (Hofling Hospital Experiment) mentioned was when an unknown locum doctor gave nurses instructions to give a fatal dose to a patient of a particular drug (21 out of 22 gave the drug - a placebo in this instance).

One of the scary thoughts that Prof Z had was that the guards could do whatever they wanted in the basement dungeon. They believed that they had no oversight and thought "no one was observing their secret games of domination and submission, with no one interfering with their 'mind games'". This could lead to a nightmare scenario which could result in prisoners deaths. 

Prof Zimbardo gave an example of the Jane Elliot Blue/Brown eye study. In this study, blue eye pupils were told that there were superior and more intelligent than their colleagues. The teachers soon noticed an increase in their scores. The blue-eyed pupils became arrogant, boastful and proud. She also noticed a reduction in the scores of the brown eye pupils. Then Jane Elliot told pupils she had made a mistake and the reverse is true. The results and progress changed correspondingly. Prof Z brought it up because he expected Carlos, a former prisoner and advocate for prison rights, to show compassion and understanding for the prisoners in his new role as Chairman of Stanford County Jail Parole Board. But as in the study, the brown eye pupils did not show any pity, empathy or understanding to their blue-eyed counterparts - Carlos was professional and brutal towards the prisoners. But he later stated in his final report hated the role. He "invariably left with a feeling of depression". In boarding school, we know of our mates who were excessively maltreated or, in some cases, unfairly treated by the seniors as juniors. But when they reached the senior classes, they did not have any empathy for the juniors' plight under them. In the form of auto-analysis, self-awareness or introspection, although I did believe I was unfairly targeted as a junior, I left the boarding system as my parents could not afford the abnormally high rate levied on non-indigenes of the state just as I had become a senior. I would like to believe that I would not be as crude as the others. Because my senior cousins were my juniors in the same school, my relationship with the juniors was always amicable because of this - hence I could not even if I wanted to.

His girlfriend, Dr Christine Maslach, later his wife, who was doing her PhD in Psychology, came to offer some professional advice and help out during the project. She left crying on the 5th day, as she felt that the prisoners had been dehumanized and believed that everybody on the team had lost their moral compass. The experiment was aborted the following day, on the 6th day.
 

 He did continue to meet all those involved decades afterwards and at reviews, conferences, and TV programs based on the SPE. During the debriefing, which they did afterwards, some of the guards apologize. Others tried to justify their actions that they were acting on "orders". A form of Cognitive dissonance, where they appeared comfortable in acting so. But he realized that the problem was with the system and those in charge, which boiled down to him. Because he had failed to control or check on the guards.  That because he had designated control to the guards, by omission and inactivity, they had inadvertently validated the guards' action. This "paralysis of action" actually encouraged the guards. In the SPE, since there was no overall supervision, and he was removed from the prison's daily running. He also noticed that knowledge does not excuse evil, but it democratizes it, sharing the blame and making it more palatable. He realized if his students wanted to, he could have been sued by their parents. In the 70s, it was not as common in the 90s. Although he did collect permission and concert from the students, university, and the Navy about the work he is doing. He believed that the work was unethical as it did cause considerable psychological harm both to prisoners and guards. Similar research was done on SPE, and the results were similar. Many failures could be boiled down to systematic failures, from the Challenger NASA explosion, Nazi atrocities during the 2nd World War, etc. Prof Z said that most of us, it is a myth that we have divided ourselves mentally into good and evil in somewhat absolute terms. And we believe there is a barrier between them, as good people do not commit evil offences. This itself set us up, as "good" people can be evil and vice versa.

Adolf Eichmann, the person responsible for incorporating the Final Solution, appeared in "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". Eichman "appeared normal, more normal than people in the street". In the interview of executioners and torturers of a particular unit in Brazil, sadists and psychopaths are usually weeded out as they are focused on inflicting pain than extracting information. Hence, those left in the unit that eventually becomes executioners or torturers are described as "normal". These normal individual go on to commit such horrendous crimes. Throughout the book, people who commit terrible crimes are no psychopaths but everyday "Joes". Suicide bombers are mostly well-rounded individuals. Some are married, have children, college degree, successful in business, etc., but are motivated by the perceived injustice they see. Some of the perpetrators of mass shootings in the US were described as normal, and when he was going through the data, there was no distinct psychopathy to explain their actions.

After doing the SPE, Prof Zimbardo has been called on numerous occasions to act as an advisor on various prison outbreaks, attacks, etc. The incident of Abu Ghraib was of particular importance. In the book, he gave a detailed picture of the case, although the official response was a few "bad apples", but he believes it was more to do with a systemic failure. As a consultant for the defence, he looked into the prison's processes and procedures and how the lack of overall supervision provided a mixture of system failures. Where there was no clear-cut policy or direction in prison, which was managed by Military Police reservists. Then there was a combination of nonmilitary contractors, security agents with no names or designation due to security concerns, prisoners who were not accounted for, or named because of security issues. The systemic failures allowed failures, killings, and prisoners' nakedness and dressed guards seen. Lack of discipline, weak leadership, failure to maintain standards, and see the correct implementation of regulations. There was no firm, clear and distinct policy on how to treat prisoners, and there was nothing to ensure that at least the Geneva convention was followed. The whole staff was implicated the medical staff while known to give fake death certificates and false injury reports. Then there was an air of secrecy. Prisoners were transferred anonymously without internment numbers as "ghosts". He traced the problem to the US President at that time was W Bush (the 43rd President) with his deputy Dick Cheney. With the Patriot Act, the NSA expanding powers and the suspension of civil liberties. The US government's deliberate policy to get rid of check and balances, rights and limits, transparency, and civil protections have served them so well. Deliberate attempts to avoid the Geneva Convention protecting prisoners against torture, insulating the perpetrators, redefining what constitutes torture, and absolving all those responsible.

To prevent the following 7 layers of Prison Oversight and Rules governing prisoners' treatment and interrogation at Abu Ghraib. 

1. Senior officers present at all times, including at night.
2. At least 2 people present at all times at all interviews
3. A written "No-Go" policy that explicitly states what actions are prohibited during interviews. This should also include actions that are permitted.
4. Mandatory "mission-specific training" must be required for all those taking part in interviews
5. The interview booth must be open to surveillance through one-way observation mirrors and all interviews videotaped.
6. Military Police should have a separate command structure and inspect at random.
7. Multiple layers of supervision and oversight. Medical inspection of each prisoner before and after the interview.

Of course, this brings back Africa's story that those in government behave as if they are not under the law. Corruption by the government is relatively high. This occurs in our present environment when people believe that some other races are more intelligent than Africans. This gives a positive feedback loop and confirmation bias. But that has proved not to be the case (I hope). Years ago, as soon as you arrived at an airport in Africa, you knew you were in a less developed country, electricity generators were always humming in the distance, the water taps were dry, none of the escalators worked, airport officials were constantly requesting for money openly as they checked your baggage or were stamping your passport, toilets were not kept well, etc. The streets were dirty and unkempt. And most of our African politicians trained, worked and lived in either the UK, US, France or Germany. It is because the system, either by omission or deliberate action, encourages such behaviour. As there are usually no vigorously enforced laws for money laundering, as even some of our banks are implicit. Nobody finds it strange that after working in the government for some years, you become a multi-millionaire. Most of our former generals and public civil servants are multi-millionaires. Our churches where our pastors and "men of God", who should have been our moral compass are jetting around the world in private jets and luxury cars, living in mansions and staying at 5-star hotels, preaching the prosperity gospel - "that God's love is displayed by the wealth you have". Hence, it could easily be misinterpreted as God will only give money to those whom he loves and that if you are rich, it shows that God loves you, and you must be doing something right.  As they, too, have succumbed to"the Lucifer effect". As the SPE has demonstrated, the problems are due to problems in the system, the institutions, and procedures which are supposed to keep us in place but are lacking. Now things are much improved, but it certainly could be better. We have to ensure the rule of law and due process in Africa. Strengthen the processes, institutions, systems, and procedures, and make sure that nobody can slip through or break the law due to their tribe, sex, wealth, religion or position.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

Another scary thought is that it is the rise of the far-right in the US. The President remarks about Charlottesville, Shit hole countries, the Brither movement, support for Roy Moore, and the Muslim ban seem like the beginning. There might be fear that the US will not descend into society as far back as what is seen in "The Handmaid's Tale", which is fiction and excessive. The blacks already have been killed off in the book. But something where there would be a restriction on civil liberties. Prof Z has shown that we are all amenable to such changes, especially when suggested by the government. It is not something that has done suddenly but a slow, gradual justification of actions and laws.

Finally, he gave us ways to avoid it, as it is a gradual, insidious systemic incursion of specific values. Prof Z suggests we become acutely aware and actively prevent it. Hence, we train all our staff and monitor situations that have the potential that will cause people to misbehave. We should always celebrate heroism. Avoid being influenced by social influence are imposed from the outside in, from assorted influence agents on individuals or groups. There is a 10 steps Program to Build Resistance and Resilience.

1. I made a mistake: Admission of our mistakes, first to ourselves than to others. Many things are escalated when the people involved stubbornly refuse to acknowledge their error on self-reflection or introspection.
2. I am mindful: We have to be careful and not run on autopilot, especially in a new situation. Not to just follow the crowd, critical thinking is required at each stage.
3. I am responsible: We have to take personal responsibility for our actions. "Always imagine a future time when today’s deed will be on trial, and no one will accept your pleas of only following orders or everyone else was doing it."
4. I am Me, the best I can be: Avoid deindividualization, always assert your authority. Work to change whatever social conditions make people feel anonymous.
5. I respect Just Authority, but Rebel against Unjust Authority.
6. I want group acceptance but value my independence: The lure of being accepted in any group is powerful. Certain things just have crossed the line.
7. I will be more Frame Vigilant: Be aware of the "Frame" and the hidden messages, if any. We must be vigilant of its insidious influence on our emotions, thoughts, and action.
8. I will balance my Time Perspective: By not going “with the flow" when others around you are abusive or out of control, you are relying on a temporal perspective that stretches beyond present-oriented hedonism or present-fatalism.
9. I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security: The need for security is a powerful determinant of human behaviour. We can be manipulated into engaging in actions that are alien to us when faced with alleged threats to our security or the promise of security from danger. 
10. I can oppose unjust Systems: Be the hero who opposes the system.