Output Behaviors:

1. Behavior emitted is emotional, impulsive, irrational, regressive, with intensity
2. Not under the controlling influence of usual external discriminative stimuli
3. Behavior is self-reinforcing and is intensified, amplified with repeated expressions of it
4. Difficult to terminate
5. Possible memory impairments; some amnesia for act
6. Perceptual distortion—insensitive to incidental stimuli and to relating actions to other actors
7. Hyper-responsiveness—"contagious plasticity" to behavior of proximal, active others
8. Unresponsiveness to distal reference groups
9. Greater liking for group or situation associated with "released" behavior
10. At extreme levels, the group dissolves as its members become autistic in their impulse gratification
11. Destruction of traditional forms and structures

The model of deindividuation has been used to explain mob violence, riots, military massacres, police brutality, prison violence, and, with some modification of the model, spousal abuse.

Of his experiments to test this theory, on is fairly well known and one is widely known. We will first look at the lesser-known vandalism experiment. In 1969, Zimbardo placed one 1959 Oldsmobile auto on a street across from the Bronx campus of New York University (a ghetto area), and one on a street in Palo Alto, California near the Stanford University campus (a rather affluent area). "The license plates of both cars were removed and the hoods opened to provide the necessary releaser signals (Zimbardo, 1969)." Within three days, the car in the Bronx was completely stripped, the result of 23 separate incidents of vandalism. The car in Palo Alto sat unmolested for over a week. Zimbardo and two of his graduate students decided to provide an example by using a sledgehammer to bash the car. They found that after they had taken the first blow, it was extremely difficult to stop. Observers, who were shouting encouragement, finally joined in the vandalism until the car was completely wrecked.

This experiment is the basis of James Q. Wilson’s Broken Windows Theory. "The thesis states that human behavior is strongly influenced by symbols of order and disorder. [In a neighborhood] one unrepaired broken window can signal that no one cares, [so that] citizens give in and give up (Wilson, P. L., 1997)." Therefore, the objective for preventing street crimes is to prevent the first window from getting broken, or prevent the first graffiti marks, or prevent the first drunkard from a public display. This has led to Neighborhood Watch programs and increased police foot patrols. These measures have not had a significant impact on crime, but they have succeeded in making neighborhood residents feel safer.

In this experiment, Zimbardo wished to discover what happens to "normal" people who are placed in an "evil" environment. "No specific hypotheses were advanced other that the general one that assignment to the treatment of ‘guard’ or ‘prisoner’ would result in significantly different reactions on behavioral measures of interaction, emotional measures of mood state and pathology, attitudes toward self, as well as other indices of coping and adaptation to this novel situation (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973)." Zimbardo placed an ad in a local newspaper requesting male volunteers for a psychological study of "prison life." In return, the volunteers would be paid $15 a day for up to two weeks. Of the 75 respondents, "the 24 subjects who were judged to be most stable (physically and mentally), most mature, and least involved in anti-social behavior were selected to participate in the study (Haney, et al., 1973)." The respondents were judged on the basis of extensive psychological tests and questionnaires. Half of the subjects were randomly assigned to the role of "guard" and half to the role of "prisoner." Two prisoners and one guard were kept out on stand-by status, in case they were needed later, so that the experiment involved ten prisoners and eleven guards. Zimbardo took the role of superintendent of the prison.

The prison was built in a hall in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The prison consisted of three very small cells, an even smaller solitary confinement cell, and several rooms for the guards to change in or watch TV in. The prisoners remained in the prison 24 hours per day throughout the study. The guards were split into three eight-hour shifts and allowed to go about their lives as normal when not on duty. Guards were given no explicit instructions. They were told simply to "maintain the reasonable degree of order within the prison necessary for its effective functioning (Haney, et al. 1973)." They were, however, explicitly prohibited from using physical punishment or aggression against the prisoners.

Each group was issued identical uniforms to promote anonymity and group identity. Guards wore khaki uniforms, a whistle and wooden baton (symbols of power), and reflecting sunglasses which prohibited eye contact (anonymity). Prisoners wore plain, loose-fitting smocks/dresses with their ID number on front and back. They wore no underwear beneath these dresses (emasculation). They wore a lock and chain around one ankle as a reminder of their confinement, and a stocking cap on their heads to reduce individuality.

Prisoners were arrested at their homes, taken to the local police station (the real one!), and subjected to the standard procedures as they were "booked" on suspicion of burglary or armed robbery. At the prison, they were put through the routine stripping, delousing, uniform assignment, and mug shot.

The entire experiment was video- and audiotaped. During the study, every subject responded to various questionnaires and checklists.

The subjects quickly slipped into their roles of guard and prisoner. To deal with "disrespect" and "disobedient" prisoners, the guards used verbal abuse, extended the counts (a line-up to count prisoners and test their knowledge of prison rules and their ID numbers) to several hours of duration, arbitrarily administered punishment (push-ups and chores), and reduced privileges (showers, emptying waste buckets-toilets). "Prisoners immediately adopted a generally passive response mode while guards assumed a very active initiating role in all interactions (Haney, et al. 1973)."

Although the study was intended to last for two weeks, after 6 days it became clear that the experiment was out of control. Prisoners had tried to rebel and some had started breaking down emotionally. Five prisoners had to be released early due to severe psychological distress. Guards crushed any attempt show of rebellion with increased and arbitrary punishment. "In general, guards and prisoners showed a marked tendency toward increased negativity of affect and their overall outlook became increasingly negative. Despite the fact that guards and prisoners were essentially free to engage in any for of interaction . . . the characteristic nature of their encounters tended to be negative, hostile, affrontive and dehumanising (Haney, et al. 1973)." Zimbardo himself realized that he was caught up in it just as deeply as the subjects were. He later realized that he made a mistake in assuming the role of superintendent and experimenter.

After the study was terminated, Zimbardo held extensive debriefing sessions to allow the subjects to talk about the experiment as peers, instead of as guards and prisoners. All subjects were judged to be back to normal, based on psychological testing, shortly after the study ended. Zimbardo said, "because they all had ‘normal foundations,’ they were able to ‘bounce back quickly’ (Elghobashi, 1996)." So, what happened during the study to cause such "normal" people to behave in such an uncharacteristic manner? Referring back to the model of deindividuation, we can clearly see that most of the input variables were present in this study. Each group had a sense of anonymity induced by their uniforms. Responsibility for actions was shared and diffused at different times for each group. The prison definitely offered a novel situation to all subjects. Guards and prisoners had physical involvement in the acts of punishment and in all other daily routines. Prisoners were routinely sleep deprived. And guards may have had some sensory input overload induced by their first taste of power, while prisoners had it from the constant yelling and physical punishments.

Based on "Mischel’s social-learning analysis of the power of situational variables to shape complex social behavior (Haney, et al. 1973)," and Milgram’s obedience experiments, Zimbardo concluded a situational attribution rather than a dispositional attribution. In other words, the force of the situation, not the individual’s personality, was the cause of the observed behavior.

Obviously this type of experiment would never get approval from a review board today, just as Milgram’s obedience study would not. Clearly, those types of experiments are unethical. However, they have provided a wealth of knowledge about human behavior. Commenting on his and Milgram’s studies, Zimbardo (1974) noted the three major research themes in each:

1. that obedience to authority requires each of us to first participate in the myth-making process of creating authority figures who then must legitimize their authority through the evidence of our submission and obedience to them;
2. that the reason we can be manipulated so readily is precisely because we maintain an illusion of personal invulnerability and personal control, all the time being insensitive to the power of social forces and ‘discriminable’ stimuli within the situation, which are in fact the potent determinants of action; and
3. that evil deeds are rarely the product of evil people action from evil motives, but are the product of good bureaucrats simply doing their job.

Zimbardo has taken this model one step further in his research on religious cults

and mind control. Referring to the core of human choice being volition, commitment, and responsibility, Zimbardo argues that mind control is similar in function to socialization, but with a different method. "When information is systematically hidden, withheld, or distorted, people may end up making biased decisions, even though they believe that they are freely ‘choosing’ to act (Andersen & Zimbardo, 1984)." Therefore, deception is the key difference. Mind control is most effective when one with social power practices it. There are six types of social power:

1. Coercive—ability to punish
2. Reward—ability to reward
3. Legitimate—due to status/role
4. Expert—having expertise/knowledge
5. Referent—being liked/respected
6. Informative—having information others do not have

Almost everyone we know has some type of social power. Police, bosses, parents, teachers, friends, etc. all have some influence on our actions and ideas. And it is through this social power that one can be led into cults. In his research and work with former cult members, Zimbardo has come up with some strategies for avoiding cult recruitment. Although some may find humor with the whole idea, his strategies can also be useful in everyday life for avoiding unwanted and potentially dangerous influence from others. Zimbardo’s (1974) strategies include:

1. Develop a critical eye and be vigilant to discontinuities between the ideals people espouse and their concrete actions.
2. Practice "seeing through" programmed responses to authority. Be aware of who is controlling whom in social situations, to what extent, and at what cost.
3. Paraphrase other people’s thoughts both aloud and to yourself to see if you are understanding clearly.
4. Seek outside information and criticisms. Be willing to take new information into account.
5. Train yourself and your children to notice the "tricks" in advertising.
6. Work for increased self-esteem. Be willing to look foolish now and then.
7. Avoid making decisions when under stress, particularly in the presence of the person who has triggered the emotional reaction.
8. Don’t let people make you fell indebted to them.
9. Refuse to accept the "we-they" dichotomy that cuts you off from outsiders.
10. Maintain strong social supports in family and friends.

Although these strategies are given to avoid cults, they can be very useful in teaching kids about gangs. (Aren’t they almost the same things?) And since much crime does start with gangs and peer pressure in general, maybe these strategies could help prevent criminal behavior from ever starting.

Even though crime is not Zimbardo’s life work, his research does give us insight on the situational factors that can provoke criminal behavior.

Andersen, S. M. & Zimbardo, P. G., (1984). On resisting social influence. Cultic Studies Journal, 1, (2), Fall/Winter, 196-219.

Colloff, P., (1997). James Q. Wilson (interview). OnPatrol [online]. Available: http://eagle.onr.com/onpatrol/wilsonint.html

Dutton, D., Fehr, B., & McEwen, H., (1982). Severe wife battering as deindividuated violence. Victimology, 7 (1-4), 13-23.

Elghobashi, N., (1996, May 14). Zimbardo’s prison—Renowned psychology professor calls 1970s prison experiment unethical. The Stanford Daily Online: News, 209. Available: http://daily.stanford.org/5-14-96/NEWzimbardo14.html

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P., (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology & Penology, 1(1), 69-97.

Pawlak, K., (1997). Philip Zimbardo: Much yet to write. Text and Academic Authors [online]. Available: http://www.winonanet.com/taa/NOTABLE/zimbardo.html

Stanford Prison Experiment Slide Show [online]. Available: http://www.ed.ac.uk/~mlc/marble/psycho/prison/prison.htm

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L., (1982,March). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly [online]. Available: http://www3.theatlantic.com/election/connection/crime/windows.htm

Wilson, P. L., (1997, October). Targeting nuisance crime. San Diego Metropolitan Magazine [online]. Available: http://208.137.250.202/1997/oct/legally.htm

Zimbardo, P. G., (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237-307.

Zimbardo, P. G., (1974). On "obedience to authority." American Psychologist, 29 (7), 566-567.

Zimbardo, P. G. [online homepage]. Available: http://zim.metanet.com/zimnet/