The Stanford Prison Experiment (August 1971) was conducted by Philip Zimbardo and his peers at Stanford University to investigate the effects of 24 physically and mentally healthy male college students becoming guards or prisoners. One of the key elements present throughout the experiment was deindividuation, the loss of one’s sense of individuality. In deindividuation, the social identity consumes an individual completely in order for group norms to be maximally accessible. The central question of this report is, how can the events of the Stanford Prison Experiment be explained through the theory of deindividuation? The theory of deindividuation supports the Stanford Prison Experiment through the ways deindividuation can emerge, various theories
…show more content…
Factors that cause deindividuation include anonymity, responsibility, group membership and size, and arousal. However, Postmes and Spears’ meta-analysis of 60 studies (1998) does not support Zimbardo’s theory and instead suggests that factors that affect deindividuation “decrease variability of people’s actions in collectives.” Postmes and Spears’ analysis is also supportive of the emergent norm theory, norms that emerge from a crowd due to the actions of a few key dominant group members. The Theory argues that group behavior is not out of control, but is socially structured by a temporary norm. In the Experiment, it may seem as if the events were out of control. However, Zimbardo had asked the guards to “create an atmosphere in which the prisoners would feel powerless” without introducing physical harm. It was the situation, the temporary norm created, which allowed the power abuse. In a position of power it was almost expected for the guards to exercise control due to the attentional cues the role of a guard brought with itself. Along with the emergent norm theory, the social identity theory also undermines the theory of deindividuation as the lateral theory suggests that there is a loss of identity when people are in groups. However, the social identity theory claims that “another aspect of their …show more content…
It gives an explanation for why individuals behaved in the way they did. In an essence, it has been a significant idea for theories such as the emergent norm and social identity, and models such as SIDE to emerge. After gaining insight towards the correlation between the Theory and the Experiment, one wonders about what makes good people become evil. However, Zimbardo claims through the Lucifer effect that people themselves are not become evil, but it is the negatives that they become. One then questions how individuals become negative; it is through the powerful situations, such as the one created by Zimbardo and his peers in 1971, that individuals get exposed tom that causes the people who were becoming the role, to now the role becoming the
Factors that cause deindividuation include anonymity, responsibility, group membership and size, and arousal. However, Postmes and Spears’ meta-analysis of 60 studies (1998) does not support Zimbardo’s theory and instead suggests that factors that affect deindividuation “decrease variability of people’s actions in collectives.” Postmes and Spears’ analysis is also supportive of the emergent norm theory, norms that emerge from a crowd due to the actions of a few key dominant group members. The Theory argues that group behavior is not out of control, but is socially structured by a temporary norm. In the Experiment, it may seem as if the events were out of control. However, Zimbardo had asked the guards to “create an atmosphere in which the prisoners would feel powerless” without introducing physical harm. It was the situation, the temporary norm created, which allowed the power abuse. In a position of power it was almost expected for the guards to exercise control due to the attentional cues the role of a guard brought with itself. Along with the emergent norm theory, the social identity theory also undermines the theory of deindividuation as the lateral theory suggests that there is a loss of identity when people are in groups. However, the social identity theory claims that “another aspect of their …show more content…
It gives an explanation for why individuals behaved in the way they did. In an essence, it has been a significant idea for theories such as the emergent norm and social identity, and models such as SIDE to emerge. After gaining insight towards the correlation between the Theory and the Experiment, one wonders about what makes good people become evil. However, Zimbardo claims through the Lucifer effect that people themselves are not become evil, but it is the negatives that they become. One then questions how individuals become negative; it is through the powerful situations, such as the one created by Zimbardo and his peers in 1971, that individuals get exposed tom that causes the people who were becoming the role, to now the role becoming the