Product Description
What makes good people do bad things? How can moral people be seduced to act immorally? Where is the line separating good from evil, and who is in danger of crossing it?

Renowned social psychologist Philip Zimbardo has the answers, and in The Lucifer Effect he explains how–and the myriad reasons why–we are all susceptible to the lure of “the dark side.” Drawing on examples from history as well as his own trailblazing research, Zimbardo details how situational forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make monsters out of decent men and women.

Zimbardo is perhaps best known as the creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Here, for the first time and in detail, he tells the full story of this landmark study, in which a group of college-student volunteers was randomly divided into “guards” and “inmates” and then placed in a mock prison environment. Within a week the study was abandoned, as ordinary college students were transformed into either brutal, sadistic guards or emotionally broken prisoners.

By illuminating the psychological causes behind such disturbing metamorphoses, Zimbardo enables us to better understand a variety of harrowing phenomena, from corporate malfeasance to organized genocide to how once upstanding American soldiers came to abuse and torture Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. He replaces the long-held notion of the “bad apple” with that of the “bad barrel”–the idea that the social setting and the system contaminate the individual, rather than the other way around.

This is a book that dares to hold a mirror up to mankind, showing us that we might not be who we think we are. While forcing us to reexamine what we are capable of doing when caught up in the crucible of behavioral dynamics, though, Zimbardo also offers hope. We are capable of resisting evil, he argues, and can even teach ourselves to act heroically. Like Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem and Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, The Lucifer Effect is a shocking, engrossing study that will change the way we view human behavior.

From the Hardcover edition.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 4.0 based on 62 reviews)

Men are accomplices to that which leaves them indifferent -George Steiner

The beginning of the book wasn't very encouraging, as Zimbardo describes in graphic details the "rape of Rwanda" in 1994, when the Tutsis were slaughtered by their former neighbors, the Hutus. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, a former social worker, who was supposed to be the only hope left for the Tutsi village of Butare, had promised food and shelter sent by the Red Cross to the people of the village. Instead, Pauline arranged for Hutu thugs to rape and kill the Tutsis. Pauline ordered the rape of the women before having most Tutsis killed in a massacre that was one of the most barbaric incidents in history. Zimbardo provided a combination of history and social psychology to explain how Pauline turned into a special kind of a murderer and even provides a comment by Nicole Bergevin; Pauline's lawyer which summarizes the fact that all humans are SUSCEPTIBLE to evil under certain circumstances.

I can't help but wondering, how can a person like Pauline who intentionally tricked the Tutsis and planned one of the most savage, torturous and sadistic attacks in history be used as an example of how good people can turn evil under situational pressure? EITHER WORDS HAVE MEANINGS, OR NOT. At this point I had to recheck if Zimbardo was an attorney not a psychologist (to be able to find many unreasonable possibilities for the obvious), but I was wrong, he's for sure not an attorney. I still think, with all due respect though, that Zimbardo can make a great criminal defense attorney.
Zimbardo uses other examples of war where morality is disengaged and barbaric behavior is directed against any body considered to be the enemy, because of the power of situational forces over individual behavior. At this point, I wanted to stop reading but Zimbardo promises to reverse the question at the end of his research, which is asking if we are capable of becoming heroes after analyzing why we can become capable of evil.

I had nearly fixed in my mind my interpretation of this book; I believe that any body can turn into a killer when it comes to protecting loved ones (i.e. in self defense), but the idea that we can become evil just because others are, is beyond me. Even as kids, some kids will set the limits and refuse to gang up with bullies against the weak easy target. Even in war and crisis, people with basic concepts of morality will have mercy on the enemies when meeting as two humans on the battlefield (if that even exist any more), or when it comes to killing civilians.
I believe that good is the rule and evil is the exception, so with the slight hope promised by the author of reversing the question, I was willing to take the risk of spending more time on this book.

Doubtful, but willing to explore, I started reading about Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment:
An experiment Zimbardo conducted in 1971 on some college students, who were asked to play the roles of guards and prisoners
The detailed behavioral analysis of the teams of volunteers, who very quickly turn into abused and abusers, such that the experiment had to be interrupted within a week, was unnecessarily long, but I was still curious.

Personally, the experiment does not sound scientific to me, especially when it doesn't provide any emotional or psychological history of the participants. Also, the idea of a professional, watching and hearing the verbal and semi-sexual abuse that the prisoners experienced is a skate across very thin ethical ice.
At one point in the book, Zimbardo used the results of the Stanford prison experiment, when he was called as an expert witness in the trial of Sergeant Frederick, one of the defendants in "Abu Ghraib" trial. Also, later in the book, Zimbardo's analysis was compared to many documented historical incidents of prison cruelty and other cruel acts committed during wars.

My conclusion is that I'm happy I took the time to listen to the other point of view.
I admire the author for his 30 years of persistence and devotion to the study of a concept in which he has faith. Likewise, I respect his courage in blaming the Bush administration as accomplices for the torture interrogation in Iraq. Also, Zimbardo's brutally honest telling of the Abou Ghraib trial's details supports my belief about the insidious corruption in the legal system

Despite my understanding of the "us versus them" concept, there is no detail in the book of a study that shows examples of a previous good history of these soldiers/people "going bad". ". The Stanford prison experiment itself focused on a number of volunteers with no analysis of their characters. Here I can't help but asking a simple question that also takes us back to Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and the rape of Rwanda: what if these people are actually evil, who just like sadistic individuals simply don't feel the pain of others if it's separated from their own body? Where is the proof that they were good people previous to the new situation???. I don't have any facts to support my theory here, but just like kids who are not joining bullies hurting other kids, I can see other soldiers in Abou Ghraib saying no to the other "bad" soldiers, and others dying on the battle field trying to save some civilian enemy. It's not a result of a physiological research, but a simple romantic hope for goodness in people.

Aside from all my objections, Zimbardo, who fulfilled his promise of reversing the question and provided some instructions to resist the power of social/political pressure and to not join the "herd", did a reasonably good job.

October 09, 2008

Evil and heroism

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil
I may call this book "the book of Evil and Heroism," but whatever the title, `The Lucifer Effect', is an excellent insightful piece of research in a very needed subject. "The Lucifer Effect' is sceientific, analytical and practical book that give us insights about the roots of evil, namely why, how, and what makes normal people, just like you and me, to act wickedly, maliciously and can easily align with the systems and situations that foster evil, practice torture, and oppress innocent others? The troubling answers presenting in the 16 chapters of this book is that almost any one under certain social situational conditions can be made maliciously evil.
The author of this book is Psychologist Zimbardo who is best known as the creator of the 1971 "Stanford Prison Experiment." That year of the 1971, he used a simulated prison populated with student volunteers, dividing them into two groups: 'guards' and 'prisoners'. That experiment showed us levels of cruelty we would never imagine. Although the 'guards' knew they are involved in an experiment done by the Department of Psychology in a well known university and that the student in the prisoners group had done nothing criminally wrong to deserve their lowly status', he writes in his new book `The Lucifer Effect', ' some ... were transformed into evil doers'. The experiment taught him that 'most of us can undergo significant character transformations if we are subjected to severe social forces'.
You need a good current example validating Zimbardo's theory? Remember Iraq's Abughraib," just recently. The images in the so called "Abughraib Concentration Prison" as picked up by the CNN and the world's media showed the naked Iraqi prisoners stacked in a human pyramid, presided over by grinning US soldiers; with Linda England the young American female soldier leading a naked Iraqi around by a leash; and other prisoners forced to simulate sodomy with one another
It is to answer the question of 'why and how good people turn evil' that Zimbardo has written the Lucifer Effect, a formidable piece of research into the nature of evil and the systems and situations that foster it. The answers presented by `the Lucifer Effect' are shocking in the sense that it raises a fundamental question about the nature of human nature: How is it possible for ordinary, average, even good people to become committed to criminally and morally wrong deeds (including exerting pain on others, and in extreme cases, torturing and even murdering innocent people?).
The Lucifer Effect tells you that you lie to yourself if you believe that you are immune of evil genetically or by your personality and character. All of us, given the right, or the wrong, circumstances, are capable of monstrous acts or to heroism.
Immunity from evil pressure, though difficult to achieve, is, however, possible and can be done following both individual attempts, and social censorship. To my understanding, the comparison between the Stanford Prison Experiment and the social dynamics of the Abughraib prison in Iraq and, in fact for this matter, all other atrocities all over the world including torturing prisoners, political concentration camps, abusing our children and wives in the name of religion, practicing institutional terrorism on political prisoners in the middle East, China, Guantanamo is one of the core messages as rooted in the extended discussion of the situational influences outlined in " the Lucifer Effect."
In a chapter celebrating heroism and calling for greater social bravery to resist the temptation of cruelty, confront, or to the least blow the whistles, the author of "the Lucifer Effect" reminds us that we all are impacted by situational forces; it is the minority, the rare persons, who resists who are considered the heroes. And again he reminds us that it may be a mistake to understand heroism by just focusing exclusively on the inner determinants of genes, personality, and character. He challenges us to reflect on how well we really know ourselves, and how much confidence we have in what we would or would not ever do when put into new socio-behavioral settings.
In 16 chapters, this magnificent book explains to us the sources and seeds of evil; what drives some toward evil; while others resist and prefer instead to condone and look the other way in the presence of evil doers, while others act heroically on behalf of those in need or suffer unjustly. It is vital, Zimbardo argues, for every society to have its institutions teach heroism, building into such teachings the importance of mentally rehearsing taking heroic action--thus to be ready to act when called to service for a moral cause or just to help a victim in distress. With that in mind, Zimbardo was able to give us a winning argument optimism is around the corner and that social peace and rationality can be cultivated by few people who are whistle blowers and thus capable to confront and stand up to more optimistic outcome.
In the final chapter 16, some optimist insights were made to shine. The author reminds us that although most people succumb and give in to the power of situational evil forces, not all of do so. Yes, those who refuse may be few and in fact they are the minority in every setting, but they resist and refuse. How do they resist social influence? What kinds of strategies might help us to become immune against unwanted attempts to conform, complies, obey, and yield? He outlines a 10-step generic program to build resistance to mind control strategies and tactics. He also presents a thought experiment to involve people in engaging in progressively greater degrees of altruistic deeds that promote civic virtue and heroism hat may make some to come to help others in need when situational demands give us that rare opportunity. As a consequence, Zimabrdo began to focus on the positive side of human nature- the heroic side--He bagan new research designed to understand the heroic decision at the time of taking a heroic stand against unjust authority; and also to develop a new web site devoted to celebrating heroes and heroism. Thank you Dr. Zimbardo!!!!

October 06, 2008

Or the Angelic effect?

In 1971 Dr. Phillip Zimbardo joined the likes of Milgram and Munoz as being perhaps one of the most dubious researchers at the edge of psychology. This is because he engaged in a two week experiment to test the reactions of students to being placed in an artificial prison to see what their reactions would be.

Though the project had been scheduled for a mere two weeks, a stunned Zimbardo quickly discovered that he had to bring the project to an early close owing the exceeding brutal nature of the treatment imposed on the randomly chosen "prisoners" by the equally randomly chosen "guards."

What he found was that when the untrained were placed in controlled of the unempowered, terror could result. In this way, Zimbardo heard echoes of Nazi state, Mai Lai, and even Abugarab in the pleas of his "prisoners."

And in this regard his work significantly advances the cause of instructing just societies to establish just penal systems. By carefully comparing the excesses of his "guards" to other brutalizers Zimbardo admirably does a good job of outlining the dos and don'ts of operating a just and safe prison.

However, and this is why I entitled this review Or the Angelic effect?, Zimbardo also goes on to discuss ways in which we might through our public policy encourage that other side of human behavior...the good, the ultruistic and the laudable. Though admittedly Zimbardo walks on less sure footing as to these issues I think perhaps this part of his book may yet be the catalist for important discussions...though frankly I'm not optimistic.

Like Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan or more recently Harvard's Steven Pinker in any of his works but perhaps most notably The Blank Slate, I am not certain social engineering can do much to either encourage or discourage human behavior. In this regard I tend to suspect that in ANY situation, you will find those predictable segments of the population that will either capitalize on the event for personal benefit or alternatively rise and make it an occassion for yet another exhibition of ultruism...the choice being more the product of what's in them than what's outside of them.

However, none of this analysis takes away from the fact that this is a really good book and worth reading.
September 04, 2008

Social psychology, advocacy and impact

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was conducted over thirty five years ago and still its results reverberate in the consciousness of academics and policy makers. Its relevance to the present can at times appear uncanny; how could an experiment conducted in a conventional, privileged,middle class university environment using volunteer college undergraduates as participants have relevance for the ways in which the people view its President and its armed forces? Zimbardo, who conducted this experiment with passion and insight many years ago, can again take the centre stage and discuss the impact of his work on how a military system can be responsible for what can be seen to be barbaric behavior towards those who are supposed to be helped, through their hearts and minds, to see the United States as a benevolent force for good and justice. This book has been described as tedious and over-long. The descriptions of the conduct of the SPE and of the processes in the military trials are, however, to this reader, essential in getting across the gradual and virulent nature of the processes whereby the situation can gain control over the behavior of people, on both sides, caught in the thrall of the system of the military and justice. This book is essential reading for social psychologists. It is also quite clearly important for journalists, politicians and public servants, all of whom tend to see themselves as somehow immune to the demands of the situation in which they are to behave. Recent criticisms coming from the United Kinbgdom about the theory behind and the results of the SPE are largely irrelevant to the thrust of the argument of this book. Evil can still be engendered in people who seem good but who are unable to escape the powerful forces inherent in any modren system. Whereby the SPE was concerned with essentially mild and non-powerful settings, the organisatiuons of today have far more powerful control over the workers and the citizens. The message from the SPE is not that things are getting better in our understanding of the forces that govern social behaviour; rather they are getting worse.
August 28, 2008

How good people turn evil.

In the classic Stanford Prison Experiment
Philip Zimbardo took a group of ordinary students
and placed them in a mock prison, guarded by fellow
students. In less than a week, the study had
to be terminated, when the "guards" became
increasingly sadistic and the "prisoner" pathological.
Raising fundamental questions on good and evil.
Apparently most of us can be initiated
into the ranks of evil doers.

The book, the Lucifer effect, explores
how good people becomes bad.

Lucifer has of course done his job over
the centuries. In the middle ages we had
the inquisition. Where Philip Zimbardo
gives us thought provoking examples on how
good becomes bad.
I.e. The Malleus Maleficarum was required reading for
the judges of the inquisition. It begins
with a problem. How can evil exists in a world
created and governed by an all-good, all powerful
God? The answer is (was) that the Creator
allows evil to test the souls of man. Yield
to the temptations - and go to hell. Resist,
and be invited into heaven.
So to do good - evil had to be found and eliminated.
Especially, find witches and heretics and burn
them on the stake. The ardent and sincere desire to combat evil
generated evil on a larger scale than
ever seen before.

To Philip Zimbardo much of it starts when
human relationships becomes "I - it".
Humanized relationships are "I - Thou",
while dehumanized relationships are "I - It",
The misperception of certain humans
as subhuman, bad humans, inhuman, dispensable,
is facilitated with labels. stereotypes and slogans -
and most importantly - when others are treated as "it".
The Stanford prison experiment created an ecology
of dehumanization. It started with loss of freedom,
loss of privacy, and finally loss of personal identity.
It separated inmates from their past, their families etc.
Eventually, external coercive rules and arbitrary rules by guards
dictated the prisoners behaviour. Prisoners who just one week
before had been average students.
Tender caring emotions were absent among guards and
prisoners after only a few days.

"Proof" of sorts that Zimbardos thesis , that
external situations decides much of what is good
and evil, - is in fact true.

If one wants to defend human decency by saying that
the students in the Stanford Prison Experiment
were not average - Zimbardo tells you that
they were exactly that. Average.
Even though noone likes to think of themselves as average.
I.e. In a study - 86 percent of Australians rate their
job performance as above average. And 90 percent
of american business managers rate their performance
as superior to that of their average peer.

Worse - it follows that evil is within everyone:
An inventive teacher, Ron Jones, would teach
his high school students something about
Hitlers Nazi regime. Despite his forewarning to
the class about all of this - he quickly established
a new rigid classroom rule, that should be obeyed
without question.
All answers must be limited to three words or less and
preceded by "sir". When noone challenged this or other
arbitrary rules - the classroom atmosphere began to change.
The verbally fluent students lost their positions and
the less verbal, more physically assertative took
over.
The classroom movement was named the third wave.
Each day there was a new slogan. like - "strength through
discipline", "strength through action", "strength
through pride". And there would eventually be
more than 100 kids attending "a third wave rally"
outside the classroom.
When Jones finally told his students what he had
been up to - and what he wanted to demonstrate -
noone ever admitted to attenting the rally.

Another teacher, Jane Elliott, created third grade hell, when she
divided the class into blue eyed and brown eyed kids and began
telling stories about what blue eyed kids or brown eyed
kids really are like.

In Zimbados words -
Our personal identities are socially situated.
we are what we live, eat, work. It is possible to predict
a wide range of your attitudes and behaviour from
knowing your status factors - your ethnicity, social class,
education, and religion.

But still - not all is said. Occasional
a hero comes along - and can not be bullied
into accepting evil. It might be a John McCain
in Vietnamese prison that will not rat on his
country. Or it might be a Nelson Mandela
that will not answer violence with violence.

Evil does not always have the last word.
and most people eventually know what is right and
what is wrong -
But the immature, it be one prison guard, or an entire nation,
you can apparently always trick into being evil by
creating a "lucifer situation" - where evil is
"ok".

I would have given the book 5 stars had there be
more on teaching us all to be Jedi in the
face of evil - as it is, to me, it only demonstrates
that circumstance plays a big part in making
average people evil. I dont think
Zimbardo is out there to explain away evil and
take responsibility away from the individual.
But he should be far more concrete and have much more
focus on all of this.

-Simon

August 03, 2008

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
by Carol Tavris, Elliot Aronson

Obedience to Authority
by Stanley Milgram

Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking
by Thomas E. Kida

A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives
by Cordelia Fine

Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things
by Madeleine L. Van Hecke