The Psychology of Evil

Psychology is a useful tool when attempting to understand interrogation and torture events in military prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.  It can help explain both the reasons behind the extreme torture at Abu Ghraib and the way in which the public perceives such occurrences.

Abu Ghraib Prison was a military detention center in Iraq that gained public attention in 2004 due to human rights violations that occurred when United States military aggressively and inappropriately tortured prisoners.  These tortures included beatings, sexual abuse, and rape.  Photographs were taken of the various interrogations and torture sessions, which were then circulated to the public.  Two important questions arise: 1. How could US military personnel become so corrupt as to brutally torture detainees without reason, and 2. How did the American public react to these pictures? Psychology serves as a useful tool in dissecting both of these questions.

How did the public react to the events at Abu Ghraib? In Hauser’s piece, “Quo Vadis America: National Conscience in Framing Prisoner Bodies at Abu Ghraib” psychology fits in nicely with his assessment of the way in which the American public viewed the tortures at Abu Ghraib within the frame of war.  The photos from the torture sessions at Abu Ghraib called into question the moral implications of America’s leaders.  However, because the photos arose during a time of war, or, within the “frame” of war, American citizens turned a blind eye to Abu Ghraib.  The authors write: “The images of tortured prisoners of Abu Ghraib should, by all rights, haunt the American conscience.  But that conscience is so permeated with aggressive self-righteousness that there is no room for reflection or remorse.”

The corruption of US military personnel is an interesting comparison to Philip Zimbardo’s famous Stanford Prison Experiment that tested the psychology of evil, or, “The Lucifer Effect.”

In 1972, Phillip Zimbardo conducted a social psychology experiment in which he created a prison environment in order to understand prison life.  Zimbardo randomly separated participants into guards and prisoners.  The study ended after 6 days because of the extreme corruption which arose within the guard group.  The guards forced prisoners to do humiliating chores, stripped them naked, and forced them to perform degrading sexual activities.

Zimbardo points out 7 Social Processes help “grease the Slippery Slope of Evil,” describing how good apples can become bad apples:

1.     Mindlessly taking the first small step

2.     Dehumanization of others

3.     De-individuation of self (anonymity)

4.     Diffusion of personal responsibility

5.     Blind obedience to authority

6.     Uncritical conformity to group norms

7.     Passive tolerance of evil through inaction, or indifference

In the case of Abu Ghraib, we can see many of these steps being taken by the guards of the prison.  The guards dehumanized the prisoners, diffused responsibility among one another, and abided commands to torture by other officers.

Zimbardo describes the Lucifer effect as “individuals and groups who usually act humanely can sometimes act otherwise in certain circumstances” and argues that 

“If you give people power without oversight it’s a prescription for abuse.” There was little to no oversight at Abu Ghraib, which is a large reason as to why these atrocities were allowed to continue. 

It seems then, that oversight, though not a cure for evil acts, is an important element in disallowing these kinds of horrendous events to occur.  Therefore, prisons such as Guantanamo Bay and other military prison facilities should be tightly regulated, only allowing qualified military personnel to guard the prisons.  These measures, as well as implementing enhanced oversight, will help to lessen the amount this occurs. 

Though Zimbardo’s study acts as parallel to help understand the events at Abu Ghraib, psychologists aren’t immune to becoming corrupt themselves.  Gregg Bloche and JonathanMarks write about the use of confidential detainee health information at Guantanamo Bay prison to the advantage of interrogators.  According to the authors, “Since late 2002, psychiatrists and psychologists have been part of a strategy that employs extreme stress, combined with behavior-shaping rewards, to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives.” In 2002, a Behavioral Science Consultation Team was created in order to make interrogation techniques more productive at Guantanamo.  Psychologists played a large role in creating techniques that would force detainees to give up information, using personal health information of the prisoners. Again, who is overseeing the legality of these actions?  

Though these situations paint a grim outlook on the way the United States treats military prisoners, it should act as a starting point to a revamping the system. The most important prescription is more emphasis on the military chain of command, and heightened oversight on all military related events.