Stanford Prison experiment took place at Stanford University in the year 1971 and it was conducted by Philip Zimbardo to find out the influence of social roles on our behavior. It was one of the landmarks of the human psychological study in response to subjected to captivity and to reveal to the world on the real circumstances of the prison life (Konnikovaet al., 2015). The intention of the experiment was to examine captivity, but the results it generated have proven useful in demonstrating the impression people’s obedience especially if provided with an idea that is legitimized and support both socially and institutionally(Zimbardo, 2007). It has also been used to demonstraterationalconflict theory and authoritative power.
How Authoritarian Power Effects Behavior in Prison and Its Psychological Effects on Prisoners
Authoritarian power gives an individual power to command something to be done according to his or her wish. Authoritarianism is a very common managerial/leadership practice exercised in prisons among the prison officers and prison commanders. Too much authoritative power often results to ruthless oppressions as Stanford Experiment reveals (Konnikova et al., 2015). The experiments clearly show the effect of circumstances that one goes through shape behavior in the long run so as to cope with the situation. Evidently, authoritative power runs most of the American Federal Prisons, and with increasing number of convicts serving jail terms.It is apparent that prison wardens no longer care about the social welfare of the inmates. They ensure that they live through the day, and the inmates run the confined environment of the prison life.
Characteristic of Authoritarian Leadership
Authoritarians come in two categories: the leaders and followers, each of the two is driven by very different ambitions, and this difference helps us understand how authoritarian social structures work. According to Zimbardo, leaders are known by scientists as people having high dominance orientation (SDO) and these individuals often seek every opportunity to lead others, and they enjoy having power over others (2007). They do not have any qualms about objecting other people and breaking rules to advance individual ambition. These people have three characteristics in common: they opposed to equality are highly dominating and are committed to expanding owns power (Crim, 2009). These characteristics are accompanied by other unusual traits that make them distinct from other leaders. High-SDO individuals are often drawn to power and would seek it ruthlessly, and restlessly regardless of the consequences to others.
When we watch Hollywood films we see these characteristics among prison commanders, officers and wardens. These individuals conform to one rule and they do as the law says. The authoritarian leaders and followers dominate the prison department and the prisoners at the end of the day are affected adversely by their philosophies and quest for power(Crim, 2009). The reflection of the Hollywood films is not just mere theories but the sad realities behind our federal prisons. The prisoners have become victims of oppression and injustice behind bars. It is never enough to just put a prisoner behind bars and walk away (Haslam &Reicher, 2012). It is mandatory to make a follow up where the prisoner is going to be confined. It is apparent that there are also internal conflicts among prisoners and conflicts among wardens and prisoners. The weakest prisoner always becomes a victim of them all.
Authoritarian Power and Behavior
When one is a subject of authority, it is prudent to obey everything that is said and done especially when you have no power. Prisoners are often stripped of freedom rights by the state once they are charged with a crime (Konnikova et al., 2015). But one thing that it does not deprive the is the right to life. Prisoners become subjects of the authoritative nature of those who lead and guide them hence survival to them becomes a very difficult quest (Haslam &Reicher, 2012). Just as the Stanford Experiment concluded, prisoners find a coping strategy that either causes them to rebel, adapt or undergo depression. Authoritative leadership in prisons changes the behavior of prisoners both physically, socially and emotionally. They are given very limited space to exercise their limited rights, such as speech among each other and worship.
Consequently, as authoritarian power takes roots in the prison community so does the coping strategies of the victims. Prisoners’ behaviors get modified with changing social and the environmental they are subjected to in prisons. They start acting differently than usual as part of the coping strategy. The prison wardens often have to show to the prisoners that they are in control to avoid conflict and oppositions (Konnikova et al., 2015). It is a survival strategy for both sides. Prisoners, on the other hand, can choose to obey or rebel. The behaviors of prisoners are often as a result of what they go through. They become “inhuman” with constant brutality and oppression from the wardens and commanders. It is apparent that prison wardens, officers, and commanders do not respect prisoners and they do not sometimes refer them by their personal identities (Crew, 2009). This is often frequent in very maximum prisons where people with first-degree crimes are jailed. These people are often considered a threat to the correctional officers, warden officers and commanders and also a threat to themselves. They are not trusted, respected or nor considered rational.
The prisoners with time start adopting a behavior that suits their need to survive. Others become mean, cruel, antisocial, and worse intolerable within the prison. Prison is not an easy experience as explained by one of the Stanford experiment participants (Konnikova et al., 2015). It is not easy taking up commands from someone, doing as they say and at the same time having respect for them. One thing that is common among prisoners is that they do not respect their wardens nor their commanders and even themselves. Everybody lives according to the authoritarian rules of the prison and orders from the commander. According to Haslam &Reicher, the social, environmental, spiritual, and emotional behavior of these prisoners soon changes to more radicalized behavior to enhance their survival (2012).
Psychological Effects of Authoritarianism to the Prisoners
It is a basic fact that no one likes or even wants to be controlled. It is evident that authoritarian rulers control their followers or subjects (Crew, 2009). They dictate how they live their lives, what to do, give orders and demand the uttermost respect and power. In the Stanford experiment, the prisoners felt control by the prison officers. They felt like they were powerless, demoralized, and lacked any motivation in life. That alone had a very negative impact on them psychologically (Zimbardo, 2007). Other studies also support the experiment that prisoners or any other individual that is controlled and given limits to what he/she can or cannot do puts him or her to a form of psychological stress.
Psychological stress makes one vulnerable and delicate to life pressures. The experiment proved that stress can have very adverse psychological impacts to an individual, evident by a prisoner who cried, stopped eating and insisted he was sick and needed to see a doctor and not a priest (Crim, 2009). The other experiments such as the “The Experiment” documentary aired on BBC in the year 2002 showed that with time a person conforms to his or her identity as either a prisoner or a guard. It might not be easy for most of them but with time their positions sink in and they start conforming to their identities (Haslam &Reicher, 2012). Social identity also comes along with time, after the individuals start interacting with one another they begin to identify with one another and their psychological thoughts about each other starts changing.
Coping is a psychological, mental condition that makes one to start getting used to the situation him/her in as a survival mechanism (Crew, 2009). The mind has first to adjust to the environmental situation of that victim before that individual develops a survival mechanism. It might take days, months or even years for one to attain coping mechanism for a difficult situation (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Authoritarian leadership does not give subjects or followers freedom of choice expression or even to question certain authoritative measures. The psychological makeup of that individual slowly changes and begins to adapt to the authoritarian mechanisms.
The dualistic life patterns: Authoritative leadership style views the world as either black or white; the same effect it has on the subjects and followers of that leader. The prisoners and guards who are subjected to the authoritarian rule do not view the world and the individuals in different shades (Crew, 2009). They only know what is right and wrong and they do not give any room for possibilities or events that could have led to the occurrence of a certain phenomenon. Their minds become fixed to ideal situations that are often impossible to achieve (Haslam &Reicher, 2012). In the case of guards, they expect prisoners to behave perfectly and conform to the rules of the prison environment. Commanders, on the other hand, expect correctional officers to do the right things and ensure that they are punished the way the commanders want.
Authoritative power in prisons results in depression to both the guard and the prisoner. Depression develops as a result of unhygienic living conditions, harsh punishments, ruthlessness among the correctional officers among others (Crim, 2009). The long-term effects of depression are unimaginable as it could lead to mental illnesses such as schizophrenia among others. Studies such as the experiment documented by the BBC showed evidence of depression among prisoners subjected to authority. It was not easy for the prisoners to accept their new living conditions that were confined, dirty, and worse with all sorts of violence activities that could even go unreported(Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Studies suggest that these factors have a huge impact on an individual.
Research Methodology
The aim of the research was to examine the effects of the authoritative power of prisoners, the tyranny, and resistance that these individuals expressed while in the prison environment. It was an in-depth examination to find out the causes of conflict among correctional officers and the prisoners (Zimbardo, 2007). The experiment aimed to test the hypotheses that the cause of abusive behavior in prisons was the inherent personality traits possessed by guards and prisoners.
Participants and Design of the Study
A mock correctional facility was constructed t the basement of Stanford University. Adverts were placed in Palo Alto Times and Stanford Daily to recruit males for the study. The study participants consisted of twenty-four college student volunteers selected out the seventy-five respondents (The Study - the BBC Prison Study, 2016). The twenty-four males reckoned to be healthy and psychologically stable. They were persons from middle social class, with no criminal records, medical problems or any psychological impairment. They were to participate in a one to two-week experiment each paid fifteen dollars a day. The participants were then assigned roles of correctional officers and prisoner randomly (Zimbardo, 2007). The team consisted of eleven guards and ten prisoners. The guards were divided into three sets each set working in an in an 8-hour shift. Zimbardo took the role of a superintendent.
Materials and Procedures
There was a brief orientation to the guards not to inflict any physical pain to the prisoners, nor withhold food or drink. The guards were provided wooden batons to establish their status (Zimbardo, 2007). The clothing that resembled those of a real prison were provided to the guards, to avoid direct eye contact with prisoners mirrored sunglasses were used (The Study - The Bbc Prison Study , 2016). The guards were assigned numbers, sewn on uniforms instead of their names.
References
Crewe, B. (2009). The prisoner society: Power, adaptation, and social life in an English prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crim, B. (2009). Mental Illness in Prison: Inmate Rehabilitation &Correctional Officers in Crisis. Berkeley Journal Of Criminal Law, 14(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38JP6M
Haslam, S. &Reicher, S. (2012). When Prisoners Take Over the Prison: A Social Psychology of Resistance. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 154–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311419864
Konnikova, M., Lemann, N., &Konnikova, M. (2015). The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment - The New Yorker. The New Yorker. Retrieved 8 May 2016, from http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment
The Study - The BBC Prison Study. (2016). Bbcprisonstudy.org. Retrieved 9 May 2016, from http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/bbc-prison-study.php?p=19
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect. New York: Random House.
