COMMENT BOOKS & ARTS MAGNOLIA PICTURES MAGNOLIA Peter Sarsgaard plays psychologist Stanley Milgram in Experimenter. EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY The anatomy of obedience Brendan Maher reviews two films probing notorious US psychological experiments. ould you rather be a prisoner or whose unsuccessful defence was that he was The Stanford Prison Experiment a guard? In 1971, many of the following orders. Zimbardo’s experiment DIRECTOR: KYLE PATRICK ALVAREZ 24 volunteers for an unusual psy- took place as reports of atrocities by US sol- Sandbar Pictures/Abandon/Coup d’Etat: 2015 Wchological experiment at Stanford University diers filtered back from the Vietnam War. Experimenter in California said that they would prefer the Interpretations have long been debated, but DIRECTOR: MICHAEL ALMEREYDA former. “Nobody likes guards,” answered both experiments haunt the imagination by BB Film/FJ Productions/Intrinsic Value/Jeff Rice/2B: one. Ultimately, a coin flip determined the putting extreme behaviour on display. 2015. roles that these students took in the Stanford The Stanford Prison Experiment is stark Prison Experiment, a notorious investigation and claustrophobic, much like the makeshift the hair, the polyester and the lax research of obedience and power run by psychologist ‘prison’ that Zimbardo and his colleagues con- oversight. There are also subtle emotional Philip Zimbardo and commissioned by the structed in the Stanford psychology depart- moments, such as when cocksure humour US Office of Naval Research. A chilling film ment’s basement. The screenplay is adapted drains from the face of ‘prisoner 8612’ as he is of the same name, directed by Kyle Patrick from Zimbardo’s The Lucifer Effect (Random instructed to strip naked for delousing. Alvarez, is now on limited release. Meanwhile, House, 2007), which aimed to explain how Zimbardo intended to explore how prison- Michael Almereyda’s Experimenter explores situations and group effects can bring about ers adapt to powerlessness, but he has con- the work of social psychologist Stanley evil behaviours. The film traces the experi- tended that the experiment demonstrates Milgram, whose infamous 1961 experiment ment from volunteer recruitment until day how swiftly arbitrary assignment of power on obedience to authority stands as a shock- six, when Zimbardo, concerned for the pris- can lead to abuse. It has been invoked as par- ing example of how well-intentioned people oners’ well-being, shut it down prematurely. alleling the harm done to Iraqi detainees at the can be convinced to harm others. A handful of documentaries have explored US-run Abu Ghraib prison in 2003: several These experiments spanned a decade the study’s findings and legacy, but Alvarez guards in the film verbally taunt prisoners, of US political upheaval. Milgram’s was a captures something intimate and atmospheric restrict access to basic necessities and resort response to the trial of Adolf Eichmann, that cannot be gleaned from grainy videos or to sexual humiliation. One guard, nicknamed one of the prime organizers of the Holocaust, interviews. The 1970s are certainly there: John Wayne, adopts the affect and southern 408 | NATURE | VOL 523 | 23 JULY 2015 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT STEVE DIETL/IFC FILMS DIETL/IFC STEVE Tensions rise between ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners’ in The Stanford Prison Experiment. drawl of the sadistic prison captain in the 1967 findings came at the expense of human suffer- Almereyda playfully gives the audience a film Cool Hand Luke, preying un­deterred on ing”. He wrote, “I am sorry for that and to this backseat view of the psychologist’s approach. the weaknesses of 8612 in particular. day apologize for contributing to this inhu- There are scenes in which Peter Sarsgaard, The prisoners, at first rebellious, are bro- manity.” The study was subsequently deemed playing Milgram, speaks directly to camera ken by the guards and pitted against one to fall within existing ethical guidelines. — an homage to Milgram’s own films explain- another; the experimenters themselves lose Others have wondered, however, whether ing his experiments. This is a work, as the title perspective. When 8612 begs to be released, Zimbardo oversold the results. When I implies, much more about the experimenter Zimbardo and his colleagues initially refuse, contacted the real-life ‘John Wayne’, Dave than about the experiment. Zimbardo has convinced that he is faking his distress — Eshelman, he said that the experiment reveals spoken of meeting Milgram, who “embraced even though that should not override the no generalizable truths about humans’ pro- me and said, ‘I’m so happy you did this voluntary nature of the experiment. Several pensity for evil, and that he was playing a part, because now you can take off some of the heat subjects, all screened as emotionally well running his own experiment to see how far of having done the most unethical study’.” grounded, have breakdowns; rather than he could push people. “I figured I was doing The shared legacies of the researchers can fear for their well-being, Zimbardo devel- them a favour by trying to force some results.” be seen in updated regulations for psycho- ops a paranoid belief that outside forces will At least one other guard has said that Zim- logical research on human subjects, which shut “his prison”. Finally, psychology PhD bardo went out of his way to create tension. prevent the kind of deception that Milgram student Christina Maslach (later Zimbardo’s Milgram, too, has a complex legacy, as perpetrated and the unstructured opportu- wife) persuades him to change his mind after Experimenter reveals. Through an imagina- nity for abuse that Zimbardo created. But seeing the prisoners, half-naked and chained tive structure, the film explores several of his their experiments will always hold captive a together, with bags over their heads, on a trip contributions to behavioural psychology. dark part of the human imagination as we to the toilet. She tells Zimbardo: “Those are But he is best known for his electroshock wonder just what kind of pain we would be boys, and you are harming them.” The next experiments at Yale University in New Haven, willing to inflict on other human beings. ■ day, as guards force prisoners to pantomime Connecticut, a decade before Zimbardo’s sexual intercourse, Zimbardo tells them that experiment. In them, an authority figure Brendan Maher is biology features editor at it is time to go home. asked volunteers to administer what they Nature. Additional reporting by Monya Baker. The film pulls few punches regarding were told were increasingly painful electric Zimbardo’s behaviour. This is consistent shocks to an actor who they believed was with his confession, in another volunteer. Two-thirds maxed out CORRECTION The Lucifer Effect, that NATURE.COM the voltage despite the actor’s anguished cries. The review ‘Space-rock alert’ (Nature 522, he failed to provide For more on science It was difficult for many to come to terms 418; 2015) gave an incorrect affiliation “adequate oversight in culture see: with the results — including some of the for Peter Jenniskens. He is at the SETI and surveillance when nature.com/ research subjects, who were unhappy about Institute in Mountain View, California. it was required ... the booksandarts the deception (Milgram preferred “illusion”). 23 JULY 2015 | VOL 523 | NATURE | 409 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.