Philip G. ZimbardoReviews

Very difficult read; you will come away with a gloomy view of humankind, in spite of the authors attempts to mitigate the message that we are all capable of great evil under the right circumstances

the start of this book is very interesting. i think that is this book's only redeeming quality. I was very excited to read it and it was no longer interesting to me, which is why I gave it one star. I truly can't imagine anyone reading this book and enjoying it unless it has to be read for school purposes. I stopped reading about halfway- but it felt like an eternity. This book is not at all what you think it's going to be.

Pretty good book on Shyness, but I guess it's outdated now. I was trying to solve my problem and it helped me to understand it, at least.

This book was full of good content that was lost in the presentation. Even when I first got the book (as a promotional item), I was suspicious of it. The title and the reviews on the back work together to make it sound more self help oriented than science oriented. The content supported this instinct. The opening chapters on the different time perspectives are well written, but the rest of the book contains a bunch of loosely related ways to use time perspectives to improve your life. They would have made for great blog posts, but they only made for an okay book.

That said, unlike a lot of self-help books, this book at least has the advantage of being based on real and interesting science. Zimbardo and Boyd both have backgrounds as researchers who have studied time perspectives. Citations abound, and the authors do a good job of making the research accessible. This could have been a great book, and I was quite disappointed that it turned out to be only an okay book.

Zimbardo and Boyd have found time perspectives can explain a lot about behavior. In some ways, this is just yet another way of slicing and dicing people to understand how they behave (that's a good thing; every new perspective gives insight). However, time perspectives have an advantage over many of the currently popular ways of slicing and dicing: they can be changed. Thus, the authors spend a fair amount of time discussing the different time perspectives and outlining the "ideal" time perspective.

Zimbardo and Boyd have found six major time perspectives. The time perspective of an individual is a mixture of these six types. The time perspectives they present are:

Past positive: strong positive feelings associated with the past. Family and group oriented. Fond of tradition.

Past negative: strong negative feelings associated with the past. May have feelings of guilt, resentment toward the past. Feels trapped by their past.

Present hedonistic: focuses on the present, rather than on the past or the future. Committed to enjoying themselves. May be perceived as irresponsible.

Present fatalistic: believes they cannot escape their present. Subject to depression that is made worse by the feeling that it is inevitable.

Future oriented: focuses on outcomes, consequences, planning and saving. Sacrifices in the present for the future. Subject to stress.

Future transcendental: focuses on the distant, impersonal future whether through religion or a concern for future generations.

Zimbardo and Boyd believe that the ideal time perspective is high on past positive, fairly high and balanced on present hedonistic and future, moderately high on transcendental future, and low on the negative perspectives. They authors spend a fair amount of time going into why this is a good time perspective, but their suggestions are, largely, consistent with common sense. Overall, I found this book a useful read, although I could have got by with skipping the second half of the book.

Well, I bought this book when it was just out, so it was this huge hardback. I got to like halfway (because it was really interesting) and then it got left for many years. Because it was too heavy to carry around. Once I got kindle I finally bought a kindle version and now I've read it!

I first got interested in Stanford Prison Experiment when I was about 10 and was devouring Reader's Digest. There was a story about the experiment and it fascinated me. I think this was about the first time I realized people are usually not good or evil. As in, it's not black and white. So, when I heard Zimbardo's interview about the book on Skepticality podcast, I knew I needed to read this book. And it was so interesting. I would've given 5 stars for the subject matter, but I think the writing was a bit long-winded, so that's the reason I came down to 4. But I think Zimbardo really challenges you to think about who you are and what you would do in that situation. And if you think you know, think again.

I read about the infamous prison experiment many times but never in such detail - half of the book is a step by step first hand account. Further into the book it also includes other experiments to support its thesis of the extent of systems' shaping people's behaviour being far stronger than anyone anticipates.

I tend to agree but I think the prison experiment itself is of dubious merit. Aside from many technical failures, if anything it shows how far a group of youngsters will go to earn some money. If you compare it to the Milgram obedience experiment (which the book cites extensively as well) it's not even in the same category of validity - there's no analogy absurd enough to illustrate that.

The rest of the book is Zimbardo getting political urging jailtime for generals and politicians for creating these systems. I think it's fair although his zeal is disturbing, clearly not a fan of the American government. He is a fan of mother Theresa though which makes me question his moral judgements.

One interesting thing I didn't know about the prison experiment was that he only called an end to it because he wanted to sleep with the attractive young woman who showed disapproval for what he was doing. Well, that puts an unexpected spin on it. Love is the key to saving our humanity?

The Lucifer Effect is an interesting but grossly overwrought and ponderous study of relative good and evil in the human psyche. Philip Zimbardo's thesis is that, regardless of background, belief structure or personal traits, everyone has within them the capacity for good and evil and that whichever of these is brought out is determined by the situation they find themselves in and the system by which they operate. Zimbardo was the psychologist in charge of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971, when a group of ordinary people volunteering for a university study were split into two groups: prisoners and guards. The project was abandoned less than a week in, as 'guards' became increasingly abusive and 'prisoners' alarmingly pathological. Zimbardo's experiences in this infamous psychological experiment are recounted in (excruciating) detail in a narrative that forms the first part of this book. The second part deals with the lessons learned from this experiment, in which Zimbardo's thesis and conclusions are expanded on. The third part applies the lessons of Stanford to the abuses which occurred at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003-4, and a fourth, much shorter part deals with the 'banality' of everyday heroism and goodness (which seems like a fillip, after the previous 400 pages of examples of human cruelty and misery, of reminding us that we're not all bad all of the time).

The stuff Zimbardo is discussing can be quite arresting and despite the numerous flaws in The Lucifer Effect (which I shall come onto) this look into the human abyss did maintain my interest. The acknowledgement, backed up by empirical data and psychological analysis, that humans are capable of both good and evil is an important one. Even in our supposedly enlightened modern age, we too often rely on the crutch of absolute good and evil when explaining people's actions. Zimbardo not only provides conclusive (if exhaustive) proof that this is a fallacy, but also touches on why this is dangerous. Very early on, he notes how the traditional view lets 'good' people off the responsibility hook" when bad things happen (pp 6-7), discouraging reform and change as 'nothing could have been done to stop them – they're just evil'. It encourages ignorance, injustice and complicity. Nevertheless, he is keen to note that acknowledging the role of 'the System' in creating a situation that allows people to do bad things does not make him an apologist for evil, only that we should be realistic in acknowledging how unusual and stressful circumstances can change psychological behaviour and how lazy systemic operating practices can permit or even encourage abuses. As he says with regards to Abu Ghraib, had the American civil and military authorities invested even "a fraction of that attention, concern and resources" to oversight and administration of the Iraqi prison system that they did to the disciplining of the crude jailors after the horse had bolted, there would have been no need for any trials (pg. 370).

Nevertheless, despite the importance of the topic and the strength of Zimbardo's argument, there were significant flaws in the book. The writing style is quite dry and clinical – like an academic monograph – and there is little discrimination in the examples provided (i.e. rather than choose between two suitable case studies to illustrate his point, he just gives us both). To exacerbate this, the author repeats himself ad nauseam, drumming his arguments into the reader with the same phrases, examples and quotations over and over like a broken record player. I only read The Lucifer Effect once, but by the time I closed it I felt like I had read it five times. Part of me wonders whether Zimbardo was mischievously conducting his own psychological experiment into the effects of déjà vu.

I also found Zimbardo's discussion of heroism towards the end of the book rather weak. He is less intellectually rigorous in analysing this than he was in discussing evil and the section seems like an afterthought, as if it were a fillip after the previous 400 pages of examples of human cruelty and misery to remind us that we're not all bad all of the time. His 'heroes' are chosen with obvious and unscientific bias, and include the dogmatic puritan Mother Teresa and his own wife. Mother Teresa is here apparently only on reputation, which was built up by an uncritical Western media which ignored (and continues to ignore) the more unsavoury aspects of her life's work (I don't find it a coincidence that Zimbardo was raised a Catholic). His wife – the psychologist Christina Maslach – was the one who dissented when the Stanford Prison Experiment got out of control, which persuaded Zimbardo to belatedly pull the plug on the whole thing. This makes her a woman of integrity, to be sure, but hardly a hero. When Zimbardo dedicates the book at the start to his "serene heroine" wife I took it to be husbandly affection. Yet he uses this label whenever her name pops up throughout the book, so much so that part of me wonders whether Zimbardo was mischievously conducting his own psychological experiment into the effects of déjà vu...

A further flaw in The Lucifer Effect is that it becomes intensely political. Early on, Zimbardo is patting himself on the back for his involvement in left-wing, anti-war student activism in the Sixties and Seventies. I accepted this as an authorial affectation but later on, after discussing Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo begins to go wildly beyond his remit for the book. He starts imagining Bush Administration officials on trial for crimes against humanity, styling himself as an investigative reporter (even though, as he admits, he repeatedly refused to take an active part in the Abu Ghraib investigations as he was scared of entering the Iraq war-zone). By the time he suggests Jonestown was sponsored by the CIA (pg. 479), I was well and truly ready to be done with his book. It doesn't matter if you agree with his views – and, in some respects, I do (about Abu Ghraib) – but he's not being objective in his thesis by this point. His left-wing activist bias has broken through and started to set fire to the wagons and you do begin to wonder... When he's talking about 'the System' and how it creates situations that compel people to do bad things, is he thinking back to his radical days and the mantras about how 'the Man' always beat people down? His thesis is strong enough to withstand these doubts, but it does wipe away some of the gloss.

Despite these weaknesses, The Lucifer Effect did forward a thought-provoking thesis and I finished it with a greater appreciation for, as Zimbardo says, "the ways in which humanity can be transformed by power and powerlessness" (pg. 195). It is powerful and unnerving stuff to read at times, despite some debilitating bias and tonal errors (he ends this bleak journey into the heart of human darkness not with a lofty summation or open-ended food for thought but a flippant, personal "Thanks for sharing this journey with me. Ciao, Phil Zimbardo." (pg. 488)). One finishes it with a greater recognition of just how fragile our psyches are and how negligent we are of their defence. As Zimbardo shows, many of us in these high-pressured situations wouldn't be heroes or even decent people but would act as the guards did at Stanford or at Abu Ghraib. Not out of evil pique or moral corruption or sadistic fancy but because we are human – flawed and malleable. Too often, we "function on automatic pilot" (pg. 452), lazily drifting through life thinking we're the 'good guys'. But Zimbardo shows that evil behaviour is not induced by 'exotic' influences like brainwashing but by mundanity: normal people reacting to abnormal situations and systems (pg. 258). Most of the time, those who are doing bad things think they are doing it for the right reasons, and it is precisely this conviction that "oh no, we'd never do anything like that", which is potentially fatal. This "myth of our invulnerability to situational forces" is the very thing that makes us vulnerable, by "not being sufficiently vigilant" to the persuasiveness of these forces (pg. 211). To appropriate a phrase that Zimbardo uses repeatedly, we're not all bad apples but sometimes we can find ourselves floating in a bad barrel. The Lucifer Effect has enough flaws that it won't come to be seen as the definitive voice on this subject, but it is a powerful and disconcerting voice nonetheless."

Very interesting insights into the nature of evil and the power of the situation. Would be higher, but he did tend to repeat himself a lot and it got a bit tedious as it progressed. Probably could have fit the relevant information into a book a third shorter.

Ever since reading Frankenstein, I have been interested in the concept of evil. How can perfectly ordinary people become perpetrators of such horrible things? What turns a good person evil? These are the fundamental questions that Dr Philip Zimbardo attempts to answer in the book The Lucifer Effect. In 1971 Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University funded by the U.S. Navy into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. This experiment is known as the Stanford prison experiment and is wildly studied and found in most psychology textbooks.

Then in 2003, news broke about human rights violations that were happening in Abu Ghraib, including torture and abuse to the prisoners by the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency. Philip Zimbardo appeared as a psychological expert during the legal proceedings conducted by the US Supreme Court. This lead to the writing and publication of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. With a growing interest in psychology, when this book was recommended to me by a BookTuber (along with others) I knew I had to read this first.

I have already done a blog post on this book, regarding the concept of enclothed cognition. There is a lot of interesting things to learn about psychology within the book. However this was written to help people safeguard themselves; if we can understand just how easy it is to be manipulated and corrupted, we are more likely to notice when it is happening. For me, I felt most manipulated by the American government (this is also a problem with the Australian government as well) with the way they spin things, that lead to the treatment of prisoners. If you look at the trials that came out of the Abu Ghraib incident, many people were punished but people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or even George W. Bush never stood trial for their actions. The fact that Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay are classified as Detention Centres so they do not have to abide by the Geneva Conventions is horrifying and makes me suspect of how my country treats detainees.

The Lucifer Effect is a very interesting book, I feel like I have gotten a lot out of it, although it will need to be re-read in the future. Philip Zimbardo has put a lot of information into the book, but I do wish that there was more information on some of the theories mentioned. I am fascinated by psychology theories and want to learn more on the topics. I have a list of non-fiction books to get through, that might help me develop a better understanding. I recommend The Lucifer Effect to everyone, it is horrifying to read how people treat others, but it is important to understand the situations and work towards building a better solution.

This review orginally appeared on my blog; http://www.knowledgelost.org/book-reviews/genre/non-fiction/the-lucifer-effect-b...½

This was a fascinating read. The book begins with an in-depth review of the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in the 1970s. The account of the participants' descent into their roles so quickly is absolutely intriguing. The author then goes on to review other relevant experiments and their outcomes before moving into a deeper look at the abuses of Abu Ghraib. The most terrifying thing about this book is the realization of just how mundane evil can be. Perpetrators can come from all backgrounds and all walks of life, especially when one is talking about the evil that exists within established roles and systems. Definitely an intriguing read.

This was excellent. I loved learning more about the Stanford Prison Experiment - the detail about what what on during the experiment was so enthralling. Linking it to the Abu Ghraib in such detail was very interesting. Definitely a worthy read for anyone who has found SPE intriguing or captivating.

I got to the end of this book with relief that I could read something else. I thought the information was valid and thought-provoking, however I agreed with him at least 100 pages before he stopped writing. I felt the agenda of the book was to show the fault of the American military and government that allowed atrocities like Abu Ghraib to occur, and used the MP's as scapegoats. While I agree with him, I was hoping the theory would be applied to other situations. I ended up skimming some pages, where I felt I wasn't learning anything new. I would find it interesting to have the experiment repeated with certain variables. There was little time spent looking at what are the alternatives. I guess I am glad I read it, but I am glad it's finished.

This is one of a very few books that has changed how I look at human behavior and how i think about the world. It is utterly fascinating.

questo libro mi ha dato spunti di riflessioni interessanti....a volte prende la piega di self help, ma è stata una lettura in generale interessante

A critical examination on the role of social psychology to turn decent people evil. This book was written by the principal investigator of the landmark Stanford Prison Experiment and explores how an evil situation can warp a person's mind and ethics. It also provides hope that not only can we all be evil, but also we all can be heroes (under the right circumstances).

Each one of us has a different relationship to the present, past and future. We may be classified as predominantly: present, past or future oriented. Then this orientation may be fatalistic or positive. Most of us are mixtures of the above, but we all seem to have a dominant tendency. For the record, futures are the healthiest, presents most inclined to be late or to take drugs, and pasts (fatalistic) to be stuck in life and depressed.

The new Zimbardo-Boyd book is a crossover of a popular science book and a self help manual. It discusses what a healthy balance is, offers inventories to check what orientation the reader predominantly has and then strategies to change unhealthy tendencies.

Even though this book was far from the promise of changing my life, there were some things that I enjoyed there: Time inventories were fun. False memories were revisited- there is a lot of research pointing to the fact that memories can be both implanted (with apparently little effort) and recovered. The caveat with those is that both true and false memories can be recovered. An analysis of a suicide bomber was quite interesting as well, even though it was obvious enough, just clad in a different lingo.½

This book by the guy who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment—and who was the warden, and got sucked into abusing his power—is about half a detailed account of what actually happened in the SPE, blow by blow. There’s a really detailed website for the SPE with a lot of extra material, including video. The rest of the book is about other situations in which people abuse their power—and the parallels between the SPE and Abu Ghraib really are striking, down to the guards’ invention of sexual humiliations as a way to control and dehumanize their captives. Zimbardo strikingly illustrates how humans tend to blame the degraded for their own degradation—both in the SPE and at Abu Ghraib, the prisoners smelled bad, having been denied access to real toilet facilities, and this led the guards to think of them as dirty and unworthy. He argues that we too readily attribute bad behavior to individual disposition (rotten apples) rather than situational and structural factors (the construction of the barrel). This fundamental attribution error pervasively distracts us from the need to build better systems. At the end, he spends some time on heroism: the qualities that lead people to resist situational forces and stand up for what’s right. A disturbing but worthwhile book.½

The authors show how the mental representation of time can have a large impact on individual behaviour and well-being.

I think they focus a little bit too hard, though, when they attribute problems as disparate as the third world poverty, intramarital sex problems, and suicide bombings to the mental representation of time for the actors involved.

All of us want to live a more fulfilling, rich life. But to accomplish this, we must be willing to risk freedom, to break out of our own prisons, to gamble on a new friendship, to take the chance on a love affair. It's not always easy. But there are ways that each of us can build our own self-confidence; there are definite social skills that we can learn; there are specific things that we can do to help the shy people in our lives.

A non-fiction book published in 1977. The author is a psychologist who started by discussing shyness with his students, which led to him studying the causes of shyness and setting up the Stanford Shyness Clinic to help sufferers.

As a life-long prisoner of shyness myself, this book has made me think more about the origins of my own shyness and just how badly it has affected me.½

After thinking for some time that personal perspectives on time are one of the most overlooked aspects of the social animal it was refreshing to read Zimbardos book. A recommended reading (also recommend watching his presentation on Ted.com).

One of the most sobering, thought-provoking and thoroughly absorbing books I’ve read all year. Psychology students will know of Zimbardo in the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in the 1970s, where a group of students were randomly assigned to roleplay either students or guards in a mock prison experiment conducted in a basement in the University. The experiment was intended to last for two weeks, but was suspended early because of the extent to which it influenced the behaviour of the guards and the prisoners.

Zimbardo here presents a detailed account of the way in which the experiment unfolded, arguing that it was the situation – and ultimately the system – that shaped this behaviour, and not the characteristics and personalities that the students brought with them into the experiment.

He then broadens his scope to include an analysis of events at Abu Graib, and elsewhere in Iraq, and argues similarly that situational and systemic factors played a crucial role here also.

While acknowledging that individuals should also be considered responsible for their own behaviour, Zimbardo argues that the responsibility does not belong solely to individual ‘bad apples’, but to the situation and system that created them.

He argues that that very few people exposed to such situational and systemic pressures would have the integrity and strength of character to resist them, and that paradoxically our naive belief that we ourselves would never behave in such a way only blunts our ability to remain alert to such dangers -- so that we can act differently when confronted by such pressures.

In his conclusion, Zimbardo changes tack, arguing that if ‘evil’ is an all too human capacity, then perhaps ‘heroism’ is too, and we might similarly be able to create situations and systems in society that inspire people and bring out the best that they are capable of, instead of the worst.

I found this engrossing from start to finish, and count it among my best reads of the year. One caveat to this recommendation, however -- some reviews of this work suggest that it is overly detailed and repetitive. As with so many other things, this seems to be a matter of individual taste and preference.

Do not be misled by the marketing title of this work. The book is not about a paradox or about our direct perception of time. Rather it is about a way of discussing different mental viewpoints. The authors apply temporal labels to this characterization. For instance, at any time we might prize more strongly future-goals, immediate pleasures or the stability of past arrangements. These attitudes reflect how we reconstruct memories of the past, interpret the present, and imagine the future. Hence the authors talk about six mindsets based upon positive and negative attitudes towards the past, present and future. Apparently we are born with a 'present' outlook, and only later develop other attitudes. Naturally each time perspective has its strengths and weakness. It should come as no surprise that a good balance of the positives is the ideal.

Hence a high 'past-positive' will boost your happiness, a high 'present-hedonism' will boost your vitality, and a high 'future' will boost your accomplishments. Now, the book lets you calculate your perspectives' strengths and weaknesses. If you are not happy with your mix, the book shows you how (using visualization and affirmation) you can change yourself.

This book presents as a very gentle read of a sketchy topic. It will take a future-focussed reader on a psychological meander touching on financial management, sociology, education reform, and political distortions and indiscretions. Subsequently next time you hear a TV lawyer asking a leading question; you will realize that the lawyer is not trying to trick the witness but actually to alter the witness' memory. Further, you will discover which politicians are more likely to have extramarital affairs, what to do in retirement, and just how much salary an extra IQ point is worth.

Ultimately the book leaves a reader with an alternative language for self-appreciation of one's actions and for describing others. It cannot be the full story but it is a considered outlook on the way we manage our priorities. The biggest shortcoming with these ideas is the lack of a coherent tie up with the established psychological work on personality traits.

'Although you probably think of yourself as having a consistent personality across time and space, that is likely not to be true.' Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect

This was a very interesting book about a darker side of our personality lurking in each one of us. Even though I was initially skeptical as to the validity of Zimbardo’s Stanford experiment, I came to accept its main conclusions. Zimbardo provides enough evidence throughout the book from a plethora of studies and incidents to support his thesis that basically good and decent people can turn into sadistic monsters if the circumstances are conducive to, or demanding of, such behavior.

Among many examples of studies, experiments, and real events, Zimbardo concentrates on the two in the book to prove his thesis. One of them is his own Stanford Prison Experiment from the 1970’s, in which a group of college students role played prisoners and prison guards in a makeshift, simulated prison in the university basement. Under the pressure to perform, the guards became cruel and oppressive to the point when some of the ‘prisoners’ suffered nervous breakdowns and the experiment had to be terminated just after a few days. Some of the decent and educated young men role playing prison guards turned into sadistic monsters under the circumstances, and the prisoners into hapless victims. There was no previous history of abnormal behavior in any of the subjects, and they proved to be normal and decent people in their futher lives as well. The other example Zimabardo elaborates on extensively is the horrific 2004 abuse in the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison. There, a group of otherwise normal young men and women inflicted torture and horrific abuse on the fellow human beings with complete emotional disengagement. Citing a number of other studies and incidences, Zimbardo argues that these and other abuses were in a big part induced by the same circumstances and pressures.

He calls these circumstances broadly as ‘environmetal factors’. They include institutionalized and ideological endorsement of cruelty, socialized obedience to authority, dehumanization, emotional prejudices, situational stressors, and gradual escalation of abuse. He stresses that the lack of supervision and deindividuation of both the perpetrator and the victim work as key factors in applying cruelty, and are most commonly achieved by face painting, wearing dark reflecting eye glasses or masks, or putting paper bags over the victims’ heads. People who perpetrate evil acts against other people don’t display hidden sadistic tendencies, but rather want to control and dominate others of whom they do not think as of equals.

Surprisingly, under those pressures most of decent, law-abiding ‘good’ people, turn evil, and that includes by far the biggest portion of the group, which even though not actively oppressive, passively or almost passively, condones the cruelty around them. According to Zimbardo’s and other studies, only a small percentage of the group involved in such circumstances is strong enough to oppose the draw to belong and groupthink.

By the same token, he believes that many people are capable of altruistic and even heroic behavior if the circumstances are conducive to it.

Finally, he makes a case against the highest levels of institutionalized evil in the US, namely the Bush administration, whom he makes responsible for the war tortures and abuses, including the torture in Abu Ghraib by spreading the ideology of evil, suspending civil rights and condoning torture.

There were two issues I had initially a problem with- it was difficult to believe that the role playing college students could get so carried away as to endure real stresses and abuses- both inflicted and suffered, but it seems that they did. The other one was to believe the proportion of the ‘wrong doers’ to be so high (on average about 80%), but again it seems that it is more or less consistently so.½

The authors explain the various ways people view time and show how these differing time perspectives can cause conflict and confusion in the world-but understanding them can lead to better relations with others and more effective educational programs. People who are 'present-oriented', for example, will not respond well to efforts to educate them that are from the perspective of a 'future oriented' educator. I learned several valuable insights from this book, and I can certainly see how people from different cultural backgrounds have different time orientations. Some parts were academic and dry but not excessively so and it read fairly easily. The concepts were fascinating enough to keep me reading and I kept thinking about them even when I wasn't reading the book and discussed them with others. So it was definitely a thought provoking book and one to share with others!