The Stanford Experiment

Back in 1971, the United States Navy paid a Stanford University professor, Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, a substantial sum of money to research the social dynamics between guards and prisoners of the Navy and Marines (AKA the brig). You have probably heard of it. Zimbardo’s research has been the subject of several books, a movie, numerous documentaries, and a cautionary tale recounted in a broad variety of academic works.

What is now generally known as “The Stanford Experiment,” in short, took place during the university’s summer break and a group of 24 students committed to two weeks of participation in the study. The students were divided into two groups. One represented the “prisoners” and the other, the “guards.” On-campus facilities were used to emulate a jail-like atmosphere and the “guards” were charged with supervising and feeding the “prisoners.”

What’s noteworthy about the experiment is that only six days into the two-week study, behavior on both sides had deteriorated to the point where it had to be shut down. The students, it seems, embraced their roles with considerable gusto. Over the short six days, the guard group adopted progressively authoritarian measures and even psychological torture that would have made Lynndie England and her friends at Abu Ghraib blush. Understandably, the prisoner group wasn’t pleased with matters and they were showing signs of considerable stress as well. Realizing that they had no control over their situations, they stopped responding. They gave up. They accepted their roles as prisoners.

In the aftermath, it was claimed that all of the students had undergone prior psychological screening and were deemed to be mentally normal, if not healthy. Although there have been criticisms regarding the study’s methodologies, the conclusion of the work was that otherwise healthy, well-adjusted people can become power-drunk when given unchecked authority. Like the Milgram Experiment (also a movie) where participants believed they could apply painful electric shocks to other subjects, the overall argument was that the authoritative behavior was not predicted by the personality traits of the subjects, but by the situation.

As we flash forward to the events of 2020, it would be tempting to try to apply the lessons of the Stanford Experiment to the tragic death of George Floyd in Minnesota, but that situation is far more complicated. In addition to perceived racial implications, restraint techniques, police force policies, and the inaction of other officers is involved. There are also questions about prior interactions between the suspect-officer and Mr. Floyd.

I won’t tackle that here, except to say what any fifty-something, white, midwestern guy would be expected to say: Police Officers need to be able to do their jobs and deserve to go home to their families at night. They also need to wield power with care and respect the rights of the citizens and due process. The condemnation of this most recent tragedy has been nearly unanimous, and I would like to hope that we have reached a tipping point where we can have a fresh discussion of the use of restraint and non-lethal weapon technologies. Time will tell.

What’s more interesting to me is the comparison between the Stanford “prisoners” and the effects of the coronavirus lockdown. We have been exposed to an extraordinary assortment of stressors over the past three months, including the threat of personal ill health and the potential loss of loved ones. Our kids have been sent home from school which has disrupted our daily routines, and our economic lives have been upturned. Those of us who are lucky enough to still have jobs are prevented from any meaningful future planning for fear of a failing economy.

Our movements have been restricted, and what’s more compelling is that our traditional emotional relief valves have been taken away. People who value religion and spiritual comfort can’t attend church. Going to bars and restaurants and weddings and birthday parties; concerts, movie theaters, and shopping are all verboten. And spectator sports? Sorry folks.

Also, in the absence of any reasonable plausibility, sun and fresh air are out too. National, State, and local parks have partially or completely shut down and an already overweight and depressed nation has been confined to the sofa and artificial light.

Is it any wonder that people have taken to the streets in protest? Is it possible that this past week’s events were exacerbated by pent up frustrations? The situation in Minnesota, and in cities across the country is a serious one, but I can’t help but think that history will study our reaction to those events as it relates to the COVID lockdown for many years to come.