Ethics and Critical Thinking: The Stanford Prison Experiment

Introduction

Conformity and Cialdini's principles of persuasion are external factors that affect reasoning that can help explain the events that took place during The Stanford Prison Experiment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Conformity

Conformity is the practice of matching one's behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes with group norms to fit in with the group. Norms are particular rules that are implicitly followed by a group of people and these rules influence how these individuals interact with other people. More often than not, people tend to choose to follow norms as opposed to carving out their paths because the following standards are met with the least resistance. Conforming can be caused by unconscious influences that are barely noticeable or by direct impact. Social conformity falls under two groups: informational and normative. To begin with, normative conformity is one that takes place because an individual yearns to be accepted and liked by the group (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Peer pressure is an excellent example of normative conformity.

Adolescence mostly comes with the need to feel accepted, and it leaves the adolescents in a vulnerable position. As a result, many teenagers engage in drug use or sexual intercourse out of peer pressure rather than an honest personal desire. Adults also undergo normative conformity. As part of an audience watching a mediocre performance, one is most likely to clap and give a standing ovation if every member of the audience is standing and clapping, despite not agreeing that the performance was good enough. Sticking out from the group brings with it fear of being ridiculed. Informational conformity takes place when an individual wants to behave the correct way by interpreting realities accurately (Rachels, 1993) (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, most of the participants made their decisions based on conformity. There is a set standard on the relationship between correctional officers and prisoners. The correctional officers who displayed cruelty towards the prisoners were doing it in an attempt to save face (McFarling, 2016). A prison guard position is much higher, and disobedience on the part of the prisoners brings embarrassment and shame to the correctional officer. To establish their dominance, maintain their status, and reverse the humiliation, the correctional officers oppress the prisoners.

Prisoners singled out prisoners who had gone against the guards' orders to avoid collective punishment. Although the defiance did not harm anyone and the laws were only meant to establish dominance brutally, prisoners distanced themselves from the one going a different way. As a form of self-preservation, the prisoners left prisoner 819 to get wrongfully punished by themselves (McFarling, 2016). The fear of being on the wrong side of the prison rules caused prisoners to huddle together to follow rules they did not believe in.

Cialdini's Principles of Persuasion

Cialdini outlined some principles of persuasion such as commitment and consistency, authority and scarcity, some of which can help to explain the events of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Scarcity motivates people to do some things out of the fear of losing out on something. Readily available commodities are also not as desirable as those that are rare (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). In the Stanford Prison Experiment, prison guards threatened to confiscate all the blankets from the prisoners and leave them with bare mattresses for the night if one inmate did not eat his cold sausages. The prisoners held their blankets as valuable and did not want to lose the blankets because of one prisoner's insubordination.

Consequently, the other inmates unanimously sang that the inmate was the only one who had done something wrong. The chant disassociated them from their fellow prisoner as they aimed at being in the guards' good books (McFarling, 2016). The relation between the potential scarcity of an item and its influence on motivating people to do something can be useful in explaining the behavior of the prisoners during the experiment.

Commitment and consistency also played a significant role in the events. Living up to an identity is a strong motivator for an individual's actions. An individual will take up habits that are in line with the status they took up, values, and beliefs (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Participants for the Stanford Prison Experiment were picked at random and divided among their roles in a random manner as well. There were no traits used to select those to act as prison guards or prisoners. With their new roles, the participants became committed and consistently exhibited a relationship in line with the normal real-life prisoner-guard relations. The prison guards grew into their roles with sadistic dominance and cruelty while the prisoners grew into their roles by displaying meekness and insubordination once in a while (McFarling, 2016). The phenomenon of living up to the appointed identity could explain the behavior of both prisoners and prison guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, some external factors can be used to explain the events and behavior of participants during the Stanford Prison Experiment. Both normative and informational conformity can justify the decisions made. Scarcity, commitment, and consistency also contribute to the explanation of the exhibited behavior.

References

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 591-621.

McFarling, S. (2016). Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment 11. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIUlBrvqyyo

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (1993). The elements of moral philosophy (Vol. 119). New York: McGraw-Hill.