If one were to make a list of the most shocking news stories of the last few months, it would undoubtedly include Abu Ghraib prison and the American soldiers found guilty of torture. The unfortunate events in the prison made the Iraqi political situation go from bad to worse, and many people were left asking questions. “Why would people do such things?” and “Why didn't anybody speak up?” are two examples, though with the recent investigations, there are many more. Many people cannot relate to such behaviour, though interestingly enough, if found in the same situation as those soldiers, they may react in a similar way and condone things they would otherwise speak out against.
This article is not meant to defend those accused of torture, but rather, it is written to shed light on the human psyche. Statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely – if not impossible – that so many soldiers would turn into immoral and abusive people. Indeed, psychological studies have shown that if provoked or persuaded properly, regular people will turn into violent, angry, and seemingly sadistic deviants.
In 1961, a pschologist named Stanley Milgram began performing his first obedience experiments on people with the purpose of finding how far people will go to injure others if told to do so by a higher authority. His experiment involved two people, the subject – called a teacher – and an actor playing the role of a student. Teachers were average people who volunteered for what they thought would be an experiment to test how well someone learns if punished for wrong answers. Teachers were told to dictate lists and have the students repeat them. For every wrong answer, the teacher was to press a button that would zap the student with electricity. Every wrong answer caused the electricity to be increased by 15 volts. Thus, the first wrong answer warranted a 15 volt zap, then a 30 volt one, all the way up to 450 volts.
Actors were trained to respond to these zaps, though no actual zaps were given. At 150 volts, they demanded to be let out of the experiment, at 285 volts, they screamed in agony, and at 330, they collapsed and stayed silent.
In the first experiment, teachers communicated with actors through an intercom. If they felt uneasy and wanted to leave, experimentors instructed them to keep testing, though they were never forced to continue; those taking the initiative to get up and leave were never stopped. Originally, Milgram approached psychiatrists and other medical professionals to get their predictions. Most said 4% of all subjects will reach 300 volts, while only a “pathological few” will go through to 450.
The results were astounding: 65% of all test subjects reached 450 volts.
In subsequent variations where instead of pressing a button, subjects were told to grab a resisting actor and force his or her arm onto an electrical tool that would shock the actor, 30% of people reached the maximum voltage.
Many of the test subjects were regular people, and even they were surprised by the responses they had to such situations. Though they wouldn't consider themselves violent people, their response was dictated by the situation rather than their psychological states. One subject defended his actions by saying, “This isn't the way I usually am. This was a sheer reaction to a totally impossible situation.”
The situation in Abu Ghraib was psychologically similar. Instead of an experimentor encouraging subjects to continue shocking victims, recent reports published on CNN and other leading news agencies show that military intelligence personnel and those with authority instructed soldiers to commit these acts. In such a high-stress, military oriented situation where soldiers have been trained years in advance to follow orders, it is not surprising if they were simply following orders.
Though it may be natural to follow orders, even if they ask people to do things they have a moral oblication to avoid, the other question that begs to be asked is why no one spoke out. Of the dozens of soldiers involved, at least one of them should have said something. In some cases, the doctors involved in the military operations and coverups took oaths that they would speak out in such situations, yet kept quiet once they found themselves in the prison.
From a psychological paradigm, it may not be so surprising that everyone kept quiet. A social psychologist named Solomon Asch once performed a study to see how often people deviate from the norm. In one of his experiments, he had around ten people perform the seemingly simple task of picking lines that were of equal length. In reality, only one of the people was a test subject while the other nine were actors instructed to make wrong choices. If all nine actors made a wrong choice, the test subject was extremely likely to do the same and did so not because his or her beliefs were modified – the subject was certain the others were wrong – but did not want to deviate from the status quo. Ironically, the same could have occurred with the soldiers. Their need to conform helped them condone and support such heinous acts.
Another reason why soldiers did not speak out may be found in what is called the Bystander Effect. Imagine five strangers walking past an unconcious and bleeding person. None of them will speak up or call for an ambulance because they think one of the others will do so.
Though this may sound impossible, such events are well documented. In one case, thirty-eight people watched a woman named Kitty Genovese get stabbed to death in an assault that took place for more than half an hour. No one called for help to avoid getting involved, and due to their belief that someone else would get help.
A similar story was present in Abu Ghraib. When one witness was asked why he did not intervene or speak out against the acts of torture, he “assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something.”
The events that took place within Abu Ghraib are inexcusable and those that supported and took part in the torture of inmates are ultimately responsible for their own actions. It is interesting, however, to put ourselves in the soldiers' shoes through a psychological paradigm. In many cases, people tend see themselves through an altruistic perspective and say they would never do such a thing. Oftentimes, however, the situations we find ourselves dictate our responses more than what we hope we would do.
One of the saddest things about Abu Ghraib and the events that took place in the prison does not deal with the fact that the soldiers were quiet or chose to conform rather than deviate. Organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Amnesty International visited many different prisons in Iraq and called for better treatment of prisoners. Many of their calls went unanswered. Thanks to them, however, there is no excuse for ignorance, and those responsible can be brought to justice.
If one were to make a list of the most shocking news stories of the last few months, it would undoubtedly include Abu Ghraib prison and the American soldiers found guilty of torture. The unfortunate events in the prison made the Iraqi political situation go from bad to worse, and many people were left asking questions. “Why would people do such things?” and “Why didn't anybody speak up?” are two examples, though with the recent investigations, there are many more. Many people cannot relate to such behaviour, though interestingly enough, if found in the same situation as those soldiers, they may react in a similar way and condone things they would otherwise speak out against.