Name 1
Student Name
Mrs. Kirby
ACP W13, 7
October 30, 2012
Comparative Critique
People are faced with decisions every day, varying from simple issues to those that are
more complex. Invariably, situations effect individual decisions, and some would agree that an
individual’s personality would overpower the situational variable. In “Psychology of Evil,” Phil
Zimbardo claims that evil lives in everyone; however, it only thrives in a malevolent situation.
Thus, according to Zimbardo, honorable individuals can perpetrate evil if placed in a morally
ambiguous situation. Similarly, Lee Ross and Richard E Nisbett, in their article “The Power of
Situations” claim that when predicting an individual’s actions or a specific outcome, the situation
is more powerful than an individual’s personality. All three authors were, at some point,
psychology professors at Stanford University, and through their agreement of the “situational
variable,” they assume that any aspect of the setting can change its outcome. However, Zimbardo
focuses more on the potential dangers of that situation by incorporating three dynamic factors:
the disposition, the situation, and the system; in contrast, Ross and Nisbett center their text on the
manipulation of the situation. As a result, Ross and Nibsett condone the systematic variable, yet
Zimbardo claims all three of those factors impact each other, thereby illustrating why good
people have the potential to turn evil.
Coauthors Ross and Nisbett introduce two variables that alter outcomes: the person and
the situation. They contend that an individual’s altruism and the situation are the most important
factors when predicting an outcome (Ross and Nisbett). In fact, they claim “The situational
Name 2
variable makes quite a bit of difference… nearly all the difference” in how a person reacts to
authority (Ross and Nisbett). However, they claim that an individual’s personality has little value
or importance to the outcome compared to the situation. Similarly, in Zimbardo’s lecture, he
argues “there are no bad apples, just bad barrels,” which supports the assertion of Ross and
Nisbett. Furthering his argument, Zimbardo assures the audience that all three variables (the
person, the situation, and the system) are interconnected and are of equal importance when
predicting an outcome. Yet, this differs from Ross and Nisbett because they focus on the power
of a situation and the different outcomes of a manipulated situation. Furthermore, Zimbardo
showcases that those three factors are potentially dangerous under authority and calls this
phenomenon the “Lucifer effect”.
Zimbardo convinces the audience that the “Lucifer Effect” manipulates what a person
could become, but not who the person really is. In addition, he explains how this happens
through a series of factor and amplifies his claims with a specific example: the Abu Ghraib
prison scandal in Iraq. Zimbardo participated as an expert witness and assisted in psychological
research on American soldiers who tortured and murdered Iraqi Citizens. After analyzing the
behavior of the soldiers Zimbardo concluded that “The system creates the situation that corrupts
the individuals… And this is where the power is of the bad-barrel makers” (Zimbardo). Thus
Zimbardo believes the individual is not evil but is responsible, and it is the situation that
manipulates individual actions. Altogether the system at Abu Ghraib prison contained evil
doings, such as torture and murder; furthermore, it was this setting that lead to the horrific
outcome. Ross and Nisbett claim that when someone tampers with a situation, the outcome can
be unexpected and, as Zimbardo discovered, potentially dangerous. All three authors denote that
the manipulation of a situation can cause different, unexpected outcomes. Initially, most people
Name 3
don’t promote evil or evil doings but when they’re put in a situation the outcome could cause the
person to ignore their morals and beliefs.
While Ross and Nisbett disregard the systematic variable, Zimbardo includes it to
strengthen his claim. Without a system, the outcome doesn’t remain constant. It changes. As
Ross and Nisbett argue, the outcome of a situation is unpredictable when it changes. This is true;
however, their argument doesn’t account for the consistency of the situation as Zimbardo
explains in the Stanford Prison Experiment. In this experiment, Zimbardo took Stanford college
students to test their reactions under authority in a situation that was potentially evil. Everyone
involved the situation, the atmosphere etc. made up the “system”. Until someone outside of the
system approached Zimbardo to explain to him how inhumane it was to test on students and that
corrupt their relationships with their peers in the experiment, he thought followed his experiment
as planned. This proved that the whole system itself interplays as a variable with a potential
dangerous situation. Furthermore, this explains why a system is equally as powerful as the
situation.
Throughout both articles, Ross and Nisbett and Zimbardo claim believe that the situation
is a powerful factor when determining an outcome; however, Zimbardo furthers his argument by
explaining how the person’s disposition, the situation, and the system are equally key variables
that manipulate the outcome. Beyond what either say directly, they imply that the potential
danger can be provoked during any situation. The possibility of evil in people is not affected by
their personal beliefs, but affected by anything surrounding them. The research and investigation
of this proves to be correct, which makes the value of their text apparent. Individuals are not
sheltered from evil. Instead their minds are exposed to passive tolerance in a new or unfamiliar
situation causing their personality and morality to disengage (Zimbardo). Therefore, as Zimbardo
Name 4
correctly points out, anyone, regardless or individual morals, at any given moment could be on
the brink of evil. Furthermore, anyone’s beliefs could be distorted given a certain pressure or
power. Evil, which has been the catalyst of atrocities and genocide, invariably exists among
humanity. Thus, the sooner society recognizes its inclination toward immoral behavior within a
specific setting, the more quickly it can be successfully addressed.
Works Cited
Ross, Lee and Nisbett, Richard E. “The Power of Situations.” Writing and Reading Across the
Curriculum. 11th ed. Eds, Laurence Behrens and Leonard J Rosen. Boston: Longman,
2011. 688-691. Print
Zimbardo, Philip G. “The Psychology of Evil.” TED Talk. Feb. 2008. Technology,
Entertainment, Design. 16 Oct. 2012. Print