• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

The Obedience Experiments (Chapter 12)

#41: Nov. - Dec. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Unread post

seeker wrote:So here are three different motives for acquiescing to the leadership of another: fear, trust, and the need for acceptance. Zimbardo's point seems to be that we do not adequately appreciate the power of the third (although the SPE also involved the first) to produce destructive behavior.
I'd say that the second probably also played a role. It seems entirely likely to me that the test subjects intuitively trusted the other participants to not take the experiment too far -- the inmates trusted the guards, and both trusted the people administering the test. Frankly, I'm not sure how to evaluate which of those three factors played the primary role.
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Unread post

MadArchitect wrote: I'd say that the second probably also played a role. It seems entirely likely to me that the test subjects intuitively trusted the other participants to not take the experiment too far -- the inmates trusted the guards, and both trusted the people administering the test. Frankly, I'm not sure how to evaluate which of those three factors played the primary role.
I did not pick up that the prisoners trusted the guards. After the first day there was a rebellion. Where did they trust the guards. Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation?


Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Unread post

misterpessimistic wrote:Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation?
It was a volunteer experiment, right? I doubt many of them would have volunteered if they hadn't assumed beforehand that the situation would be at least marginally safe.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Unread post

MadArchitect wrote:
misterpessimistic wrote:Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation?
It was a volunteer experiment, right? I doubt many of them would have volunteered if they hadn't assumed beforehand that the situation would be at least marginally safe.
hmm...not sure about that. I can agree that all these guys probably went in with "it is only an experiment" attitude (which we see the prisoners exhibiting in the beginning) but to say that that type of trust contributed to the prisoners bowing to the guards authority does not seem to follow from what I have read.

I tend to think it is more the fear factor...and plain old wear down tactics by the guards.

Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Unread post

I'm not reading the book just yet, so my interpretation could be way off base, but I really don't see how any of it could taken place without some trust, at least in the early stages.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Unread post

seeker: So here are three different motives for acquiescing to the leadership of another: fear, trust, and the need for acceptance. Zimbardo's point seems to be that we do not adequately appreciate the power of the third (although the SPE also involved the first) to produce destructive behavior.
I think all three are operative. Leaders provide direction and meaning through immediate dictate or personal example. The leader's audience is seeking leadership out of a combination of fear and hope and a desire for acceptance: they are influenced when a leader increases hope, decreases fear, and provides a meaningful role for the follower in whatever the project may be...thus, they trust the leader and submit to her direction.

Leaders offer a narrative that brings an audience into something meaningful and hopeful: their leadership is a matter of creating an identity for an audience that creates solidarity around particular values that lead to prescribed actions.

The leader's narrative is suited to the task at hand: mobilizing a crew to unload a truck, motivating a political party to endorse a divisive platform, energizing a classroom of students to complete a difficult task, or getting a group of volunteers to participate in a provocative experiment.

Leaders will encourage sacrifice for the greater cause, often using themselves as personal examples, or by threat of punishment: the punishment can be dismissal from the team, stigma and peer pressure, or physical assault.

So what is the greater cause to which these volunteers are working towards?
JulianTheApostate
Masters
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
18
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Unread post

misterpessimistic wrote:I can agree that all these guys probably went in with "it is only an experiment" attitude (which we see the prisoners exhibiting in the beginning) but to say that that type of trust contributed to the prisoners bowing to the guards authority does not seem to follow from what I have read.

I tend to think it is more the fear factor...and plain old wear down tactics by the guards.
As Mr. P says, trust wasn't much of factor once the experiment was underway. In fact, a strong mutual distrust emerged between the prisoners and the guards.

While the prisoners did fear the guards, conformance to the social role of prisoner was also a major influence.

Besides, the guard's actions, and the reasons for their cruelty, were the most prominent aspect of the SPE.
Post Reply

Return to “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil - by Philip Zimbardo”