Helpful Score: 2
As I read the first third of this book, I found myself entranced and absorbed into the Standford Prison Experiment, a project Dr. Zimbargo ran in 1971 to study the effects of deindividuation -- individuals losing their self-identity in a group. About 2 dozen students who underwent psychological evaluations to ensure they would bring inherently bad people into the experiment, i.e. the "bad apples" were filtered out to ensure the experiment was not corrupted, were recruited to play guards and prisoners. These were regular college men, many from top universities. The group was randomly divided into their new roles to form the Stanford Prison (Experiment), aka SPE.
When Zimbargo started the study, it was in search for deindividuation in the prisoners, however, he found it to be an influential quality in the guards as well in addition to other influences. During this first third of the book, the effects not of "bad apples" but of a "bad barrel" (a poorly run fake prison) corrupting the good apples within. What ensued was abuse, inhumane treatment, and well over two dozen people sucked into a fake prison that became all too real.
The remainder of the book investigates how and why the Standford Prison Experiment evolved the way it did. Why did college men from prestigious schools turned into sadistic "correctional officers"? Zimbargo leads the reader through many interesting -- and disturbing -- studies and historical instances that outline how regular people come to do evil deeds. The mountain of studies shows the SPE was no abnormality in how people behave
This book will (should) leave the reader asking several questions. What would I have done in each these situations? Would I be one of the small percentage of people who is resistant to the tendencies to fall into evil practices under the right (wrong) circumstances or would I fall in the majority that can lose their moral compass? Just as one of the many prisoners who endured abuse in the Stanford Prison Experiment admitted, we don't really know how we would act unless we were in that particular scenario. So instead of dwelling on this question we cannot answer, Zimbargo wants us to ask another question.
How can we make ourselves more resistant to a "bad barrel" that might turn us into "bad apples"? In the last chapter, Dr. Zimbargo describes several heroes who serve as examples, and he uses these to answer this final and important question about how we each can be both more resistant to the pressures that make ordinary people do bad things and how we can stand our ground to retain our moral.
When Zimbargo started the study, it was in search for deindividuation in the prisoners, however, he found it to be an influential quality in the guards as well in addition to other influences. During this first third of the book, the effects not of "bad apples" but of a "bad barrel" (a poorly run fake prison) corrupting the good apples within. What ensued was abuse, inhumane treatment, and well over two dozen people sucked into a fake prison that became all too real.
The remainder of the book investigates how and why the Standford Prison Experiment evolved the way it did. Why did college men from prestigious schools turned into sadistic "correctional officers"? Zimbargo leads the reader through many interesting -- and disturbing -- studies and historical instances that outline how regular people come to do evil deeds. The mountain of studies shows the SPE was no abnormality in how people behave
This book will (should) leave the reader asking several questions. What would I have done in each these situations? Would I be one of the small percentage of people who is resistant to the tendencies to fall into evil practices under the right (wrong) circumstances or would I fall in the majority that can lose their moral compass? Just as one of the many prisoners who endured abuse in the Stanford Prison Experiment admitted, we don't really know how we would act unless we were in that particular scenario. So instead of dwelling on this question we cannot answer, Zimbargo wants us to ask another question.
How can we make ourselves more resistant to a "bad barrel" that might turn us into "bad apples"? In the last chapter, Dr. Zimbargo describes several heroes who serve as examples, and he uses these to answer this final and important question about how we each can be both more resistant to the pressures that make ordinary people do bad things and how we can stand our ground to retain our moral.
Joe S. reviewed The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil on + 2 more book reviews
Helpful Score: 1
Zimbardo wrote an excellent book here. Potential readers should be warned that he really goes into details on several topics, notably his Stanford Prison Experiment, so look elsewhere if you want a short text on this interesting question posed by the book's title.
miss-zuzu -
Helpful Score: 1
I loved it! The results he gets from doing this expirment had me floored ... and the truth behind what he finds is so shocking, you'll wonder why you never thought about this before!! I don't want to say too much ... but if you are interested in learning about power, control, and the effects these (and other things) have when operating a group of "prisioners" ... THAN READ THIS BOOK!! It's SHOCKING!! I look at cops very differently, now, and i'm not sure that's always a good thing lol :)
Elizabeth R. (esjro) -
I have mixed feelings about this book. On the plus side, it is very long and essentially two books in one, so you definitely get your money's worth! The first half or so is about the Stanford Prison Experiment, for which the author was the PI. Events are described in great detail. The author acknowledges repeatedly his complicity in allowing verbal and emotional abuse of the "prisoners", and only after the woman who later becomes his wife snaps him out of it does he end the study sooner than planned. The rest of the book addresses the title topic more broadly then the prison experiment, and often reads like a mea culpa: the author repeatedly acknowldges his mistakes, but goes on to site example after example of how despite its questionable ethics his research contributed to the understanding of how people change their behavior in novel and pressure-filled situations. He also points out quite often that his wife was right.
There is a lot of interesing content in this book. The chapter about Abu Ghraib was particularly fascinating. However, it was long and really dragged in places. This book would have benefited from tighter editing as it went on side tangents (again, in great detail) about particular people and other research studies, and some of the content was repetitive. (For example, a school experiment in which blue versus brown eyed students were favored and the roles then reversed was discussed at length twice). Nonetheless, it is worth a read by people interested in human behavior in group situations, if the reader allows themself the liberty of skimming some parts.
There is a lot of interesing content in this book. The chapter about Abu Ghraib was particularly fascinating. However, it was long and really dragged in places. This book would have benefited from tighter editing as it went on side tangents (again, in great detail) about particular people and other research studies, and some of the content was repetitive. (For example, a school experiment in which blue versus brown eyed students were favored and the roles then reversed was discussed at length twice). Nonetheless, it is worth a read by people interested in human behavior in group situations, if the reader allows themself the liberty of skimming some parts.
