How Can The Stanford Prison Experiment Be Explained By Deindividuation?

INTRODUCTION:
In 1971, psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, conducted a psychological experiment on Stanford University students sought to investigate the psychological effects of perceived roles and conformity to social expectations in a prison stimulating setting (Jeff Breil, Scott Plous, & David Jensenius, 2015). Participants were recruited through a newspaper ad, offering a $15 pay a day, and were picked up by California police officers. Participants were all young, college boys, who were randomly assigned the role of “guard” or “prisoner”. As soon as 24 hours within the study both prisoners and guards began showing extreme behaviors of aggression, abuse, and rebellion. Upon the first night of the study, guards began to abuse their power
For example, they began confiscating their beds, not allowing them to eat, forcing them to defecate and urine in a bucket, and other inhumane actions. Guards, however, were never trained or instructed on how they should treat prisoners and enforce law & order in the prison, yet they exhibited harsh and hostile behavior(Breil et al, 2015). This brings to question; how can the behaviour of the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment be explained by the theory of deindividuation? Upon explaining this theory, 3 main factors need to be taken into account – anonymity, group size and diffused responsibility. Therefore these factors act as a guideline throughout this report. The report will begin with a brief description of the theory of deindividuation followed by analysis of the 3 main factors that contribute to it (anonymity, group size, and diffused responsibility) and its link to the Stanford Prison
Doing so, individuals lose the tendency/need to follow societal norms of behavior and thus may deviate from the set “acceptable” social behaviors (Jenna Chang, 2008). In fact, a study conducted by Chen-Bo Zhong, Vanessa K. Bohns, and Francesca Gino (2010) aiming to investigate the influence of illusory anonymity on dishonest and self-interested behavior, found that the mere illusion of anonymity (glasses and/or darkness) enhances deviant behaviors. In another study conducted by Edward Diener, Scott C. Fraser, Arthur L. Beaman, and Roger T. Kelem (1976), researchers found that children either in a costume, concealing their identity, or within a group were more likely to steal when left alone with a bowl of candy, than those who went trick-or-treating alone. In the SPE guards were given reflective sunglasses to wear throughout the experiment, which, according to the aforementioned study, increases their sense of anonymity. This may form an explanation for their abusive and facist actions towards the prisoners. Furthermore, in the experiment the names of the guards were unknown to the prisoners and were always referred to as “Mr. Correctional officer, Sir” by the prisoners (Zimbardo, 1973). This and the fact that they were always in identical uniforms, which may be seen as a type of costume, further