Is Abu Ghraib : How Good People Turn Evil?

In the movie, “A Few Good Men”, two types of reactions are shown in response to being part of a person’s wrongful death. Philip Zimbardo in his work, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, provides the perspective of the guards who initiated a harsh prison environment and how they reflected upon the experience. Meanwhile a real-life scandal is analyzed by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak in “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism”. This piece reviews the actions of soldiers in controversial situations shortly after the infamous 9-11 attacks. Repeating the military topic, Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton addressed Lt. Calley’s steadfast belief that he did no wrong in the Vietnam War scandal in “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of

In “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak informs the reader of the situation United States guards caused against Iraqi detainees. Under Bush’s presidency, United States soldiers brought physical abuse and humiliation upon the Abu Ghraib Prison. Szegedy-Maszak briefly analyzes the situation and compares the abuse to further scientific experiments in which test obedience. One of the experiments was the topic of another article titled, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” written by Philip G. Zimbardo. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the experiment he held at Stanford University. A group of male students from the university were paid to participate in an experiment held in a mock prison. Half of the group

8. In 2003 U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, 20 miles west of Baghdad. The prisoners were stripped, made to wear bags over their heads, and sexually humiliated while the guards laughed and took photographs. How is this abuse similar to or different from what took place in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

citizens, but it was the researchers afterwards that contributed the most startling idea. Zimbardo, the same man who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Prisons tend to be brutal and abusive places unless great effort is made to control the guards’ base impulses. It’s not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches” (Swhwartz, 2004 p. 2). A professor of Law at Loyola University, Marcy Strauss, studies criminal procedure and wrote a forty-two page manuscript on the lessons that should be discussed beyond news articles. Strauss said of Abu Ghraib, “Undoubtedly, these factors [poor training of guards, poor oversight and horrendous conditions] played a major role in facilitating the abuse. Correcting these conditions is imperative. But, to end the introspection there would be a mistake” (Strauss, 2005 p.9). The idea that people could be malignant under specific circumstances has been proven by Milgrams’ studies and this idea is now apparent in real life. Thus, the concern for prisons, as pointed out by both Zimbardo and Strauss, cannot simply be that the guards or correctional officers do not abuse people in the future. The issue is that the maltreatment and indignity in Abu Ghraib was a result of the poor foundation of the U.S. correctional system (Strauss,

People have many questions about the experiment, anyone would if they read just one article about it. “What were students told before they started the study?” “How were the students assigned their specific role?” “Were prisoners allowed to quit at any time?” etc. Well luckily for you all, I have read over 20 articles, watched the movie produced by Brent Emery, and read The Lucifer Effect written by the man himself, Philip Zimbardo. I can officially say I can pretty much answer any question thrown at me and that is what I am going to do here today in this essay. First let’s start with the most common question I have seen. Who funded the whole experiment you might be wondering? Well, the study was funded by a government grant from the office of the Naval Research to study antisocial behavior. People ask if the Office of the Naval Research had anything to say, but they didn’t. Zimbardo did not do anything wrong technically, he let everyone involve know the point of the experiment and what it could possible lead to.

During the Iraq war that between 2003 and 2006, the united states army committed a series of human rights violations against prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Bagdad. The violations included murder, sexual and physical abuse, rape, torturer, sodomy, humiliating and dehumanizing prisoners. In 2004 the abuse that was carried out was exposed by the publication of images that were taken by the soldiers that carried out the violations. This paper will be looking at what social psychology can teach us about what happened at Abu Ghraib.

In this paper I will illustrate how the lessons learned from the Stanford Experiment apply to understanding the dynamics of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Stanford Experiment demonstrates how social influence can persuade one’s behavior and shape their conformity. The experiment and the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib exemplify the power of authority by utilizing their positions and uniforms to control and overrule the prisoners.

The prisoners in Abu Ghraib subjected to the torture of the 800th MP Brigade were so treated initially because of perceived differences. In social psychology, it is a natural behavior to attribute bad feelings towards someone that is believed to be different. The MPs were thousands of miles away from home running a prison in a country some believed was planning to hurt American and her allies using weapons of mass destruction. A study notes that, in 2004, the average American saw the Arabs as “…not especially sincere, honest, friendly, or warm.” The MPs casted these Arabs in an outgroup and their prejudices against the

She begins recounting the notorious details, how innocent college students labeled prisoners and guards displayed psychological abuse after only six days of confinement, and makes reference to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and Abu Ghraib, where similar maltreatment, perceived or real, was conducted on civilians by civilians. She addresses and refutes the accepted belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could become a tyrant when given or instructed by a source of authority. Instead, she suggests that Zimbardo’s inquiry points toward but does not land on one exact conclusion. She explains the influence of the setting, the presentation of the roles, Zimbardo’s participation, and perhaps a sense of expectation felt, all of which can be reflected in the shocking behavior of a few guards. She argues that it should not have been so shocking. Konnikova discredits the neutrality of Zimbardo’s experiment by insisting that people who would respond to an ad for a psychological study of prison life were not “normal” people. However, with her diction and choice of evidence she displaces the study's culpability in a way that ultimately blurs and undermines her claim.

Though this was just an experiment many of the test subjects were quickly pushed to their limits and the ones in authority took their roles to the extreme. Eventually, this caused an early shut down of the experiment. There was a total of 9 students who were willing to be the prisoners in this experiment. The study issued that the guards would be forced to give brutal and cruel torture upon the prisoner. The experiment was known as one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology because even though it was an experiment, the prisoners went through major psychological changes and one prisoner even succumbed to a short period of insanity. Through deindividualized torture, exploitation and manipulation many of the test subjects underwent the same torture as those who were imprisoned at Abu Ghraib. It was finally shut down by a woman by the name of Christina Maslach but similarly to Abu Ghraib no one was held accountable for the short period of torture. Also like Abu Ghraib, the men who played the role of the guards in The Stanford Prison Experiment underwent psychological changes where they became evil, relentless and manipulative all while blaming it on the fact that they’re “just following orders.” In many cases when a person is given authority, they abuse it

The experimentors proposed that these reactions were caused by a loss of personal identity, dependency, emasculation and acceptance sadistic treatment from the guards and the unpredictable and arbitrary control of the prison system.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was to determine how conformity and obedience could result in people behaving in ways that are counter to how they would at on their own. The main goal of the experiment was to see how social norms and social convections might influence the behavior of participants who are playing the roles of prisoners and prison guards. The study really elaborates on the relationship between the abuser and the abused. It is interesting to see how easily the human psyche gives repetitive abuse and is conditioned to receive it and accept it. This paper will discuss the motives, procedures, findings, ethical issues, and informed consent the Stanford Prison Experiment concluded on.

Specific techniques that were used to bring about the destruction of self-awareness among the prisoners included, physical privation, prolonged interrogation, total isolation from former relationships, detailed regimentation of all daily activities, humiliation, degradation and social alienation by “thought reform” group (s).

Sometimes we wonder why people do things. Is it because they were forced to? Maybe they were pressured into it, or maybe they thought it was the right thing to do. In the book The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo he studies the psychological motives of humans and situational personalities. Zimbardo produced an experiment called the “Stanford prison experiment” which put one group of students as guards and another as the prisoners. The main point of the experiment was to watch the prisoners and see how they reacted to being detained; however, when the experiment was conducted it was the guards who were more interesting to study.

Hardiness/resilience is a personality characteristic originally identified by Suzanne Kobasa (1979) and redefined in further studies by Kobasa, Maddi, and Kahn (1982), and many others, as cited in (Schafer, 2000; Morris & Maisto, 2005). It was established in these studies, that participants who displayed the