Review Paper by:

Nicole Whitcomb

Advanced General Psychology

December 2010

Many have heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment from the 70’s, Milgram’s shock

experiment, and the more recent the events at Abu Ghraib. Within all of these

events seemingly average “good” people were influenced into taking part in evil

acts. Putting people into power situations or being put into a situation where they

are influenced by authority can cause a person to act out in evil ways. Some agree

with this statement and some disagree saying that all people are fully capable of

making decisions for themselves and power situations are no excuse.

What makes good people turn bad or do bad things? When seemingly average good people do unthinkable acts

this question comes up. This question has been researched by many psychologists and researchers; in particular Philip

Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram. In Philip Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect (2007) he discusses his Stanford Prison

Experiment in the 70’s that demonstrated good people doing bad things because they were put into a power situation.

Zimbardo (2007) also discusses the more recent events at Abu Ghraib which is believed to have been influenced by authorities.

This brings me to the prevailing argument which is that good average people do bad things because they are put into situations

where they are either influenced by authority (people of power) or are put into a power role. The other side of the argument

from skeptics is that good average people are fully capable of choosing whether or not to partake in “evil” acts, they may be

under the influence of a power trip or a person of power but that is no excuse. My hypothesis is that when ordinary good

people are put into either a power situation or situation where they are influenced by authorities they will often times go bad or

do bad things.

  The objective of this paper is to bring to light the problem of good people turning evil, in order to do this I will

research the work of Philip Zimbardo and others. This also includes looking at the Stanford Prison Experiment and the events

at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Along with the works of Zimbardo Stanley Milgram’s shock experiment will be examined as well.

Begley, S. (2009). Adventures in Good and Evil. Newsweek, 153(18), 46-48. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=38505821&site=ehost-live

Begley (2009) discusses what makes some of us saints and some of us sinners; this article brings to light Stanley

Milgram’s experiment with recruiting ordinary people to give an electric shock to a complete stranger as instructed by a

professional. This article shows that authoritative figures can persuade ordinary good people to do evil things, it goes into talk

about how some cope with these types of situations by either caving or standing up for how they feel and what’s right; virtues

and vices, (Begley, 2009). This article will bring to the topic at hand another experiment that shows people under the influence

of a higher authority and how it makes them act out in ways they may have never imagined. This article will contribute to my

paper by giving more examples of good going evil. The strengths of this article is that it gives many examples to back up its

reasoning, it also gives examples of ordinary nice people not being influenced by the hand of power and saying no and come

out as a hero. This article doesn’t seem to have any weaknesses because it shows both the side where people turn evil in power

situations and also shows people staying good.

Collins, L. (2000). Creating Gender Role Behavior: Demonstrating the Impact of Power Differentials. Teaching of Psychology, 27(1), 37-40. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=3348732&site=ehost-live

This article by Collins (2000) demonstrates a study that was done in order to show

parallels between the Zimbardo prison experiment and the impact that assignment to low and high

power roles can have on the behavior of men and women. This article will contribute to backing up

the topic at hand by showing a recent study, within the last 10 years, done on the effects of power

differentials, (Collins, 2000). The strength of this article is that it demonstrates its own study done on

college participants on the effects of a dominant figure on a subordinate, (Collins, 2000). This articles

weakness is that it doesn’t give an opposing view which would better back up the experiment that

was done.

Danchev, A. (2008). Bad apples, dead souls: understanding Abu Ghraib. International Affairs, 84(6), 1271-1280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00768.x. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=34828455&site=ehost-live

Danchev (2008) does a review of the events at Abu Ghraib in order to better understand

what went on. He discusses how the events at Abu Ghraib are “seeping” into mainstream media, so it

is making quite the impact in our society. This article will contribute by helping to better understand

the events that happened at Abu Ghraib and how they are affecting society today. The strength of this

article is that it gives the reader a good idea of the events at Abu Ghraib and the effects of what

happened. I don’t see any weaknesses of this article it explains a lot and was very informative.

Discover (2007). Think you're above doing evil? Think again. Discover, 28(4), 68-69. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=24413957&site=ehost-live

This article by Discover (2007), discusses Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, the Stanford

prison experiment was conducted in August of 1971 and included a group of normal average students; some were given

the role of a prisoner and the rest were given the role of a prison guard, (Discover, 2007). The article went on to discuss

the events at Abu Ghraib in May 2004, where a group of what seemed to be normal American men and women did

unimaginable acts to the prisoners they were supposed to be guarding, Discovery (2007). The article draws comparisons

from the two events and helps to better explain how good people go evil; it will greatly contribute to the topic at hand by

giving real world examples. The strength of this article is that is breaks down the events that happened during the

Stanford Prison Experiment and at Abu Ghraib, it shows how and the possible reasons why these seemingly ordinary

people turned evil. I don’t see any weaknesses with this article, it gives the facts of what happened during the two events,

it draws comparisons between the two events, and it gives reasoning behind why these people may have gone “wrong.”

Einolf, C. (2009). Explaining Abu Ghraib: A Review Essay. Journal of Human Rights, 8(1), 110-120. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=37154362&site=ehost-live

Einolf (2009) does a review of Abu Ghraib along with a review of four books that correlate or

have to do with the events at Abu Ghraib; The Trials at Abu Ghraib, The Lucifer Effect, Torture and the

Twilight of Empire, and Torture and Democracy. This article looks closely at how people should be

formally trained instead of being influenced to take part in acts that are seen as evil or morally wrong,

(Einolf, 2009). This will contribute to the proposed topic because it gives a review of four pieces of work

that have to do with the topic at hand, it will help to back up what is being hypothesized. One strength of

this article is that looks at the works of four books that were written by social scientists and are reviewed,

these are strong resources and help to back up Einolf’s overall review of Abu Ghraib. There are not any

weaknesses that I can see in this article, because overall it gives a strong argument.

Finkelstein, D.  (2009, December 2). Never, ever, believe that Demjanjuk is a ‘victim’: Some people claim that decent human beings can behave in an evil way just to conform. It is a pernicious argument. The Times. Retrieved November 7, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1913121951&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=82498&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Finkelstein (2009) discusses that criminal acts can not be excused just because a good

ordinary person was pressured into doing so. Finkelstein (2009) argues that everyone has the ability to

judge whether or not to be good or bad, every ordinary person has morals. He also discusses John

Demjanjuk, also known as Ivan the Terrible, who is on trial for committing Nazi crimes; his defense is

saying that John is a victim himself because he was forced by higher authorities, (Finkelstein, 2009). He

goes onto talk about the Milgram study and the Stanford Prison Experiment. This will contribute to the

proposed topic because it looks at the other side of the issue, someone who doesn’t believe that good

people turn bad just because of higher influences or a power trip. The strength of this article is that it

brings in a story that isn’t discussed in any of the other articles I obtained, the John Demjanjuk case is

one that I would have never thought of. Another strength is that he brings in Milgram’s study and

Zimbardo’s study and discusses those briefly. One weakness of the article is that a little more information

on Demjanjuk would have been nice, I had to do a little research on the internet to figure out what

Demjanjuk was being accused of.

Shermer, M. (2007, August). Bad Apples and Bad Barrels. Scientific American, pp. 34-36. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=25637969&site=ehost-live

Shermer (2007) is a skeptic of the “bad barrel” as explained by Zimbardo. Shermer (2007)

discusses the fact that ordinary people are more likely to obey an upper authority due to the fact that they

are ordinary and don’t rebel against a higher up. Shermer (2007) briefly discusses that all humans have an

evil side and a good side. The strength of this article is that it shows both sides of the argument; both the

agreeable side saying that it’s not the apple it the barrel the apple is in and the opposing side which is the

skeptic. The weakness of this article is that it doesn’t give much evidence backing up its skepticism. This

will contribute to the proposed issue by giving a brief look at what a skeptic has to say about the work of

Zimbardo and his beliefs.

Wallis, C., August, M., Bacon Jr., P., Billips, M., Crittle, S., Rawe, J., et al. (2004). WHY DID THEY DO IT?. Time, 163(20), 38-42. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=13051191&site=ehost-live

Wallis, August, Bacon, Billips, Crittle, Rawe, et al, (2004) give an inside look at the events that occurred at Abu

Ghraib, which include the “bad apples” in question which in this case are the soldiers that committed the acts of torment to the

Iraqi prisoners. It also briefly discusses both Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies on what happens in situations where people are

being influenced by authorities or when people are given power that they may have never had, (Wallis, 2004). This will

contribute to the topic of good people going evil by because it asks the question and discusses those who commit these horrible

acts a few bad apples or are they just like the rest of us, (Wallis, 2004). The strength of this article is that it goes into the lives

of those who were apart of the events at Abu Ghraib, it shows us that they seemed to be ordinary people and when put into a

situation where they were being given instructions they took a role in the heinous acts at Abu Ghraib. I don’t see any

weaknesses in this article because it shows that the people involved seemed like ordinary good people and then it goes into

supporting there view by discussing Milgram’s study of electric shock and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: a Lesson in the Power of Situation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B6-B7. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=25307670&site=ehost-live

Zimbardo (2007) revisits the experiment he conducted in the 70’s, which is

commonly known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. He explained how the study was

conducted and how the study only lasted six days before it was terminated due to the fact that

the experiment had gotten out of hand because the made up prison began to seem like a real

prison, (Zimbardo, 2007). He goes on to discuss good apples in bad barrels and bad barrel

makers, the power that good people are given can bring them to be evil, (Zimbardo, 2007).

This will greatly aid my research because we are going right to the source, the man who

conducted the infamous experiment almost 40 years ago. The strengths of this article are that

it summarizes what happened during the experiment from the experimenter himself and it

shows the study’s current relevance in society today. I don’t see any weaknesses in this article

because it is a review of the Stanford Prison Experiment and it did just that review.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House Trade Paperback.

The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo (2007) is a book devoted to trying to

reason why good people do bad things; Zimbardo explains how and why we are all

susceptible to the lure of the “dark side.” Zimbardo (2007) looks into his renowned

Stanford Prison Experiment, the events at Abu Ghraib, and other times when ordinary

good people did bad things. This book will contribute greatly to the problem of good

people do bad things because it is a thorough look into the events that show good

people going bad and try to put reasoning behind it. The contribution that it will make

to the research is the strength that this book has along with the professional writings of

Zimbardo who is a well known social psychologist. There are no weaknesses in this

book as far as I’m concerned because as I mentioned before this is a thorough review of

the topic at hand.

 

Begley’s (2009) article tries to explain why good people do bad things; it asks what makes some of us saints and some of us sinners?

Collins’s (2000) article also tries to explain why good people do bad things by demonstrating its own experiment done in order to show the impact of

power differentials. Danchev’s (2008) article reviews the events at Abu Ghraib trying to better understand why good people do evil things, looks into

the disturbing acts that humans can be a part of. Discover’s article puts into perspective the fact that all people are capable of doing evil even when they

don’t think they are, this is a supporting article. Einolf’s (2009) article reviews four books trying ot better understand why good people do evil things,

whether being influenced by authorities or having a power trip. Shermer’s (2007) articles looks into the Stanford prison experiment and Abu Ghraib,

trying to make sense of why good people turn evil. Wallis’s (2004) article discusses whether the people who took part in the Abu Ghraib events are a

few bad apples or are they just like the rest of us. Zimbardo’s (2007) review of the Stanford Prison experiment and his book called The Lucifer Effect

(2007) looks into the power that people can be sucked into and it can become out of control; along with the influence higher ups can put on ordinary

people to do bad things. The articles listed above all support one another by looking into why good people do bad things, they look into the possibility

being that they are influenced to things they may have never imagined or are put into a power situation that makes them act out in evil/bad ways. The

article that contrasts from the rest is Finkelstein’s article which thinks that people have there own moral reasoning and are very capable of not taking

part in horrible acts, in other words there is no excuse.

So far the evidence from these articles are telling us that many psychologists or people in general believe that ordinary good people

are influenced by outer forces; such as authorities or being put into a power situation, which in turn brings them to take part in disturbing acts that they

thought they would never take part in. The evidence backing this up is overwhelming, why else would ordinary good people all of a sudden do these

criminal acts?

One research question that could be asked in order to further develop this area of study is,

what amount of influence and what type of authority is needed in order to make an average person do

bad things? I feel as if this question is important because it would bring to light a better understanding

of why good people go bad; does it take a lot of influence in order to make a person act out of

character or is it just that easy to make a person act out? I believe that it would add to the research

already done. Another research question would be, what type of person is more influenced into doing

terrible acts, are they shy, confident, sympathetic, etc? This question is important because it makes it

more clear what type of people are likely to be bad in power situations/under the influence of an

authority and what type of people are likely to become heroes in the same situations. As with the

events at Abu Ghraib some of those soldiers became evil while one or two became heroes (Zimbardo,

2007). Do those people who took part in the events at Abu Ghraib, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and

Milgram’s experiment feel as if prior to those events that they were capable of such acts? This question

is important to the current work being done because this would help answer whether these ordinary

good people were already in the mind set that they could act out in such a way, thus making them

more probable to be easily influenced. This is compared to those who felt as if they would never act out

in such a way. These research questions would help to better understand the finer details of why good

people do bad things when under the influence of authority or a power situation.

My main research question as given above, what makes good people turn bad or do bad

things is supported by the research that I have found with the exception of a skeptic Finkelstein

(2009). The resources found offer a legitimate amount of evidence to back up the argument that good

people turn bad because they are put into “tough” situations where they may be influenced by an

authority or are put into a power situation. The resources discuss events where people were put into

this type of situation and the result of it; the resources give details of each event which further backs

up the argument. The main research question along with the other formulated research questions fit

right in with the research that has been done, the overall goal is to solve why good people do bad

things? And this research question asks just that. The below information is a review of the events that

back up the argument as given by the resources/research.

Wallis (2004) describes the events of Abu Ghraib, “Psychologists and historians who study torture give what is

probably the most disturbing explanation of all: they are us.” This quote alone gives the impression that good ordinary people

are capable of almost anything as explained by Wallis (2004) under certain circumstances almost anyone is capable of

committing the same horrible things done at Abu Ghraib. In a brief explanation of the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib here

is a brief description as given by Discover (2007), in May 2004 the world saw images of American men and women taking part

in horrific forms of torture against civilians they were supposed to be guarding; these images include the American men and

women punching, slapping, kicking, stacking the civilians into naked piles, and many other acts that are seen as horrible/evil.

Wallis (2004) goes into detail about how the American men and women were who did these horrible things, this gives us a

better view into how good/ordinary they were which backs us the argument of good people doing bad things.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is best explained by its creator Philip Zimbardo, in his 2007 peer-reviewed

article named Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: a Lesson in the Power of Situation. This article backs up the

argument by giving a detailed overview of the experiment done in the 1970’s that involved 24 participants that were physically

and mentally healthy, with no history of crime or violence this made it sure that the participants were all “good apples,”

(Zimbardo, 2007). In Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect (2007) and the article given above (2007) it shows the effects of the

experiment on the participants or in other words the “good apples” within days the prisoners had been exposed to extreme

stress and the guards had begun to act out in outrageous behaviors such as abusing the “prisoners.” “The situational forces in

that bad barrel had overwhelmed the goodness of most of those infected by their viral power,” (Zimbardo, 2007). This backs up

the argument given, why good people do bad things in this case being put into a power situation.

Stanley Milgram’s experiment with electric shock is very well known and the

experiment is centered on what people will do when influenced by an authority, (Begley,

2009). Milgram’s experiment showed that even when the “learner” is screaming in pain

the “teacher” or the participant (volunteer) continues to increase the voltage of the

electric shock because the authority (scientist/experimenter) tells the “teacher” that they

have to continue, (Begley, 2009). This backs up the argument that good people do evil

things when influenced by an authority.

Conclusion

Through this research paper I believe that there are extensive resources to prove the

hypothesis when ordinary good people are put into either a power situation or situation where

they are influenced by authorities they will often times go bad or do bad things. This research

paper has truly opened my eyes to why good people do evil things even when they believe that

they may never be capable of such acts. It is scary think that being put into a power situation or

being influenced by an authority can bring a seemingly average good person to be so evil to

others.