壹心理翻译社 ◎ 荣誉出品
张真Derek 搬那度 梁峻宁
宋艾米 黄晓婷 Vivi 春暖花开
– 前 言 –
“斯坦福监狱实验” —— 一项经典到不能再经典、争议到不能再争议、但凡心理学爱好者必定有所耳闻、心理学系的学生还得背下来因为考试必考的实验。
斯坦福大学心理教授 菲利普·津巴多 Phllip Zimbardo 在心理系地下室建起了模拟监狱，邀请人们扮演囚犯和警卫的角色，以观测人们在特殊环境下的行为变化。结果短短五天，囚犯精神失常、警卫惨无人道，实验被迫终止。
津巴多声称：这项实验证明了人们所处的环境对行为和心理的影响。研究发表后，斯坦福监狱实验对美国多地监狱发生的暴动和社会现象都提供了举足轻重的参考价值。
然而，质疑津巴多的声音也从未停歇。6月8日，美国知名网站 Medium 博主 Blum 发表文章，举证斥责斯坦福监狱实验就一个赤裸裸的骗局！
一时之间，全心理界震荡：这是要推翻经典、改写教科书的节奏？？
大家都在等待这项实验的设计、执行领导者 津巴多教授 本人的回应。北京时间昨天（6月20日），津巴多正式发表长文，强势回应，针对 Blum 提出的六大质疑逐一回应，驳斥其对斯坦福监狱实验的挑衅。
壹心理立即启动翻译工作，汇聚翻译社 7 人翻译力量，经过紧张的翻译、校对和编排，今天为各位心理学学者、爱好者，完整呈现津巴多教授本人对此事的回应。
此译文英中双文对照，文中加粗的部分是方便读者提领要点（并非津巴多愿意要强调的内容）。因译制时间有限，如有错漏还请各位多多包涵指正，也非常欢迎各位在评论区发表看法。
严谨、尊重、认真、细心 —— 这是我们对待心理学，应有的科学态度。
谨以此文，向所有辛勤工作的心理学人，致敬！
– 01 –
Blogger Ben Blum (online Medium, June 7, 2018) has issued a critical/ hostile diatribe against the authenticity and value of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, SPE, labeling it all a “Fraud” and a “Lie.” I hereby challenge both his conclusions and much of the evidence he offers for his spurious assertions. Curiously, other bloggers have also recently presented similar attacks on the SPE: Brian Resnick in VOX (June 14, 2018), “This damning video debunks the famed experiment.” Jay Van Bavel in Live SCIENCE (June 12, 2018), “The bottom line is that conformity isn’t natural, blind or inevitable.”
Medium 网站博主 Ben Blum 于 2018年6月7日 发表了一篇批判性/带有敌意的博文，抨击 1971 年斯坦福监狱实验（Stanford Prison Experiment，以下简称 SPE）的真实性和价值，并将这场实验成称为 “欺诈” 和 “谎言”。我在此反驳他的结论、以及他为自己的错误断言提供的大部分证据。奇怪的是，也有其他博主最近发表了类似的对 SPE 的攻击：Brian Resnick 于 6月14日在 VOX 发表的《这个带诅咒的视频揭穿了著名实验的真相》，Jay Van Bavel 于 6月12日 在 Live SCIENCE 发表的《这是底线：遵从不是天生的、盲目的、也不是不可避免的》。
A full-length new book by French author, Thibault Le Textier, History of a Lie (2018), also joins this bandwagon of vocal critics of the SPE.
一本法国作家的新书《一个谎言的历史（2018）》也加入了声讨 SPE 的潮流。
I assert that none of these criticisms present any substantial evidence that alters the SPE’s conclusion of the value of understanding how systemic and situational forces can operate to influence individual behavior in negative or positive directions, often without our personal awareness. Its message is a cautionary tale of what might happen to any of us if we are not mindful of these external pressures on our actions.
我坚持：这些指责中没有任何一项呈现了足以更改 SPE 实验结论的证据。SPE 的实验表明：理解全身心系统和情景因素是如何工作来积极或负面影响个体行为（我们往往意识不到这种影响），是有价值的。SPE 是一项警示：如果我们不留心外部压力对我们行为的影响，那么在我们任何一个人身上都可能发生些什么事情。
What was the Stanford Prison Experiment, and what serendipitous events catapulted this academic experiment about situational power into national prominence? The SPE was a study conducted at Stanford University over six days, August 14-19, 1971, designed and conducted by me, as principal investigator, along with my research team of graduate students, Craig Haney and William Curtis Banks, undergraduate David Jaffe, and prison consultant, Carlo Prescott. It was an exploratory investigation of the extent to which the power of situational forces could transform individual behaviors of participants. Twenty-four college students, recruited from a newspaper ad to participate in a study of prison life, were randomly assigned the roles of prisoner and guard. The guards worked 8-hour shifts, while the prisoners lived full time in a mock prison setting created in the basement of the Stanford psychology department. Stanford’s Human Subjects Research Office approved this unique experiment, within the guidelines they provided. The intended two-week experiment was terminated after 6 days because of the unexpectedly extremely negative reactions of many of the mock guards and prisoners. Full details of this study are available in print, The Lucifer Effect (2007), and on line, www.PrisonExperiment.org.
斯坦福监狱实验是什么？又有哪些偶然事件把这场关于情景因素影响力的学术实验一举弹射进了全国性的卓越领地？SPE 是一项在斯坦福大学开展的研究，从 1971年8月14日 到 19日，为期六天。作为首席研究员，SPE 由我设计和执行，连同我的研究团队（研究生/博士生 Craig Haney 和 William Curtis，本科生 David Jaffe）和监狱顾问 Carlo Prescott。这是一项探索性的研究：情景因素对实验参与者行为的影响力和改变作用有多大？一则 “监狱生活研究” 的报纸广告招募来了 24 位大学生参与者，他们被随机分配了囚犯和警卫的角色。警卫人员每 8 小时交班一次，囚犯则 24 小时待在斯坦福心理系地下室建立的一所模拟监狱内。斯坦福人类实验参与者研究办公室根据他们提供的审查标准，批准了这项独特的研究。因为许多模拟警卫和囚犯出现了未预料的、极端负面的反应，这项原本计划为期两周的实验在开始六天后被终止。有关这项实验的完整细节，可以在《路西法效应（2007）》一书中找到，以及在 www.PrisonExperiment.org 网站上。
Dramatic events erupting in American prisons on the West coast, San Quentin Prison, and on the East coast, Attica Prison, shortly after SPE was ended brought prison conditions into the national limelight. On August 20, during an alleged escape attempt by Black political prison activist, George Jackson, a number of San Quentin guards and prisoners were killed. From September 9-13, a thousand Attica prisoners took control of that facility in public protest against Jackson’s “murder.” That confrontation ended with National Guardsmen killing many of those prisoners as well as their prison guard hostages. Extensive coverage followed by mass media and investigations by various U.S. Congressional committees. I was invited to participate in both TV media events and congressional hearings, which generated considerable interest in what had happened in our mock prison.
在 SPE 实验结束不久后，在美国西岸 San Quentin 监狱和东岸 Attica 监狱爆发了重大事件，一下子把监狱生活情景和条件带入了全国关注的焦点。8月20日，在一场声称是黑人政治监狱活跃分子 George Jackson 逃狱的事件中，George Jackson、数名 San Quentin 监狱的警卫和囚犯被杀。9月13日起，千名 Attica 的囚犯夺取了监狱控制权，公开反抗 Jackson 被 “谋杀” 一事。这场冲突以国民自卫军杀死许多抗议的囚犯和他们俘虏的警卫人质告终。此事影响范围甚广，大众媒体争相报道，美国会多个委员会也多次研究。我受邀参与了电视媒体节目和国会意见听证会，这样激发了大众对我们模拟监狱中所发生事件的浓厚兴趣。
Before reviewing the challenges posted against the honest portrayal of the SPE, I feel that it is important to highlight the extent to which I have gone to make every bit of documented information from the SPE publicly available in the archives of Stanford University, as well as in the archives of Akron University’s Museum of Psychology (donated more than 40 boxes worth of observational data, prisoner/guard/staff reports and diaries that were gathered during and following the study, and the 12 hours of videos made during the SPE). The Lucifer Effect (2007) contains 10 chapters devoted to various aspects of the SPE’s, with full documentation as to the source of every assertion.
在我回顾那些抨击 SPE 真实性的言论之前，我觉得应该突出强调一下：为了让 SPE 哪怕是一星一点的细节都对公众开放，我做出了多大的努力。公众可以在斯坦福大学档案馆和阿克隆大学心理学博物馆的档案室查阅这些信息（为此我捐献了逾 40 箱观测数据、在研究过程中和之后收集到的囚犯/警卫/职员报告和日记、研究过程中摄制的 12 小时视频）。《路西法效应（2007）》书中有 10 个专门用于阐释 SPE 多个方面的章节，包含每一项论断之证据来源的完整档案记载。
After confronting these claims regarding the alleged fraudulent nature of the experiment’s process and conclusions, I will detail some of its unique features, its documented scientific validation, and its many real world applications. Finally, I conclude by outlining several of the unexpectedly valuable extensions derived from my SPE experiences and reflections: the pioneering research and therapy for shyness; the innovative research on the psychology of time perspective and its therapeutic applications; and also the development of a new program for inspiring and training youth to become everyday heroes as part of the Heroic Imagination Project.
在我回应那些声称 SPE 实验过程和结论作假的言论后，我会详细列举 SPE 的一些独有特点、其记录在案的科学性确证、及其诸多现实生活中的应用。在文章尾部的结论段，我会列举一些我从 SPE 实验经验和反思中得来的、未曾料想到的有价值的衍生：羞怯的前沿研究和治疗；时间洞察力心理学的创新研究及其在治疗上的应用；以及 “英雄想象项目”：一项发展中的新项目，旨在激励和训练青少年成为平民英雄。
I would also like to mention upfront that Blum implies that my prominent place in modern psychology derives primarily from the SPE. However, my reputation derives from considerable research and theories on many topics, prior to 1971’s debut of the SPE, as well as afterwards. Indeed, it was my prior achievements in research and teaching at New York University, which led to the offer to become a tenured full professor of psychology at Stanford University. In addition, it was my earlier work that led me to be invited to co-author one of the leading introductory psychology texts,Psychology and Life. Subsequently, I was chosen from a group of prominent authors to become the creator and narrator of the 26-part TV series, Discovering Psychology, which in recent decades has been viewed by millions of students and teachers around the world. I suspect that my prominence within psychology derives as much from those contributions, if not more so, than it does from the SPE itself. Overall, I have contributed to 40 different areas of psychology, as documented in the more than 60 books and 600 publications that I have written so far.
我还想坦率地指出一点：Blum 暗示我在当代心理学界的杰出地位主要是从斯坦福监狱实验得来的。然而，我的名誉来源于我相当多的其他主题的研究和理论，无论是在 1971 年 SPE 之前还是之后。事实是，我（来斯坦福）之前在纽约大学研究和教学上的成就，让我之后能够来到斯坦福大学成为一名终身教授。此外，让我获得共同执笔《心理学与生活》（一本领先的心理学初阶教科书）的，也是我（来斯坦福）之前的成就。这之后，我在一组杰出作家中被选中，成为了 “发现心理学” 这套 26 集电视作品的创始人和讲述人，该电视作品已被全球数百万的学生和老师观看。我怀疑，我在心理学界的杰出地位，来源于以上这些贡献的部分，至少是和 SPE 相当的（如果不是更多的话）<译注1>。总得来说，我在 40 个不同的心理学领域都作出过贡献，这些在我写过的 60 本书和 600 部出版作品中都有记载。
<译注1> 津巴多这句话的意思是说：反观他这一路走来为心理学作出的贡献，SPE 为他带来的名声，可能还不及他来到斯坦福大学之前已经获得的成就（以此反驳 Blum 说的 “津巴多今天的名誉主要得益于 SPE” 这一观点）。
头图和配图来源：
《斯坦福监狱实验》同名电影剧照（下同）
– 02 –
Contentious Issues
针对斯坦福监狱实验的 6 点争议
① Staff instructions to guards to be “tough,” biased their behavior and distorted outcomes / 警卫在工作人员指示下表现 “强硬”，导致其行为受偏见影响、实验结果被扭曲。
The SPE was designed as a mock prison simulating some of the main features that characterized the American prison system at that time. Central in the training of guards was to exercise their power over their prisoners so that they would readily obey orders, prevent rebellion and eliminate escape attempts. My instructions to the guards were that they should maintain law and order, and also command the respect of prisoners. In the power dynamic between them, guards should have most, while prisoners had little or none. We did not give any formal or detailed instructions about how to be an effective guard.
为进行斯坦福监狱实验，我们设计了一个模拟监狱，模拟的是美国当时监狱系统的一些主要特征。警卫训练的核心是确保他们对囚犯行使权力，使囚犯愿意听从命令，同时避免叛乱的发生、防止逃狱行为。我对警卫的指示是：他们一方面要维持法律和秩序，一方面也要赢得囚犯的尊重。两组人之间的权力关系应该是：大部分权力由警卫掌控，而囚犯拥有的权力很有限，甚至不存在。至于如何当个有效的警卫，我们并没有提供任何正式、详细的说明。
Recall that none of the participants wanted to be given the guard role, but were assigned so randomly. Initially, on day one, none of them were enacting any semblance of a prison guard role; videos show them encouraging prisoners to take the counts seriously, giggling while doing so. One of the three students on that shift was clearly not engaged even in getting the nine prisoners to follow these rather lame orders by the other guards. Viewing this lack of role involvement, David Jaffee, acting as the SPE Warden, took him aside and chastised him for not being a “tough” guard, in effect not playing out his assigned experimental role. There was never any further specification in how to be “tough,” although there was an explicit admonition against any use of physical force. “React as you imagine Pigs (real prison guards) reacting,” he suggested.
要记得，没有一个参与者愿意当警卫；警卫的角色是随机分配的。实验第一天，警卫们完全没有发挥出警卫的角色；视频显示，进行点名的时候，警卫们一边鼓励囚犯保持严肃，一边咯咯地笑。当时值勤的 3 名学生中，其中一名学生显然很不投入。当其他警卫发出无聊的命令时，他都懒得去督促 9 名囚犯听从命令。作为斯坦福监狱实验的监狱长，David Jaffee 一看到这名学生没有进入警卫的角色，就把他拉到了一旁，指责他不够 “强硬” —— 意思是说，他没有发挥出他在实验中所分配到的角色。但是，除了被明确警告不得动粗之外，警卫们都未被告知当个 “强硬” 警卫的其他具体方法。他对这名学生建议道：“你觉得 ‘猪’（真正的警卫）会怎样反应，你就这样反应。”
In the beginning, the guards were not acting in a dominant way. However, on the morning of the second day, everything changed when the prisoners rebelled in a variety of ways that erupted in verbal and physical confrontations between them and the full complement of nine guards. After the rebellion was settled, one guard declared that these are “dangerous prisoners,” and with that new view of the situation, many guards did become tougher in their actions.
一开始，警卫们并没有做出任何支配囚犯的动作。然而到了第二天早上，一切都变了：囚犯们发动了起义，与全部 9 名警卫发生了口头和肢体上的冲突。起义平息后，一名警卫宣称 “这些囚犯很危险”；由于警卫们对于状况有了这一新看法，许多警卫确实在行为上变得更强硬了。
It is important to note that in all my reports about the SPE, I have always highlighted individual differences among the guards. One or two on each shift became progressively meaner over time, others maintained a more even-tempered role performance, and a few were considered “good guards” from the prisoners’ perspectives. However, none of the “good guards” ever intervened, to minimize or prevent, the cruel behaviors of their fellow guards. Blum acknowledges these individual differences among the guards, “Most guards gave lackluster performances. Someone went out of their way to do small favors for the prisoners.” From my perspective, the range of guard behaviors undercuts any criticisms of the alleged demand characteristics that presumably distorted the results of the SPE. Those guards, who did become meaner and creatively cruel toward the prisoners over time, did so of their own initiative. It is their extreme behaviors that have generated the dramatic effects portrayed in this study, most notably those of the iconic guard, “John Wayne” (presented next).
值得注意的是，在我写的一切关于斯坦福监狱实验的报告中，我都会强调各个警卫之间存在的差异。随着时间的推移，每次值勤的警卫中，总会有一两名警卫变得越来越残忍；其他警卫则一贯表现得比较冷静，其中还有几名警卫被囚犯视为 “好警卫”。然而，对于其他警卫的残忍行为，没有一个所谓 “好警卫” 肯进行干预，以减少或避免这些行为的发生。Blum 承认，警卫之间确实存在着这些差异的：“大部分警卫表现平平，只有一个警卫特别帮了囚犯一些小忙。” 从我的角度来看，尽管斯坦福监狱实验被指存在需求特征偏差，导致实验结果受到扭曲，但是警卫们所表现出的一系列行为足以反驳这些批评。虽然有些警卫确实对囚犯越来越苛刻，还运用创造力残忍地对待囚犯，但是这样的行为都是他们主动做出的。这项研究所描绘的戏剧性效果，是这部分警卫的极端行为所产生的，其中最值得一提的是这位具标志性的警卫 “John Wayne” 的行为（下段加以介绍）。
② A guard was intentionally acting cruel to help make the study work as I had intended / 一名警卫为让研究得到我所要的结果，刻意做出残忍行为。
Blum alleges that David Eshelman, nicknamed “John Wayne” by prisoners because he constantly acted as an out-of-control, Wild West cowboy, was only consciously play-acting the role of tough guard. After the experiment, Eshelman declared that he modeled his role after the warden in the movie, Cool Hand Luke, Struthers Martin. He said he wanted to make the experiment work, so stepped up to lead his night shift to be really tough on the prisoners. He did so by punishing them repeatedly with extensive push-ups (sometimes with other prisoners stepping on their backs) or limiting food access, or issuing arbitrary rules. With each passing night, Eshelman became more creatively evil in ways that went beyond being a tough guard. Indeed, he later said that he began to think of himself as a “puppeteer” who made prisoners do whatever he chose. In an extreme perversion of his experimentally assigned role, Eshelman devised an unthinkable way to humiliate all prisoners on the fifth night of the study. He ordered them to think of themselves as “camels,” half as males and the other half as females. Those ordered to be female camels had to bend over, while the male camel prisoners were ordered to “hump” them “doggy style,” which they reluctantly did by simulating sodomy. Our video recording, made in my absence, indicated this went on for nearly ten minutes with all three guards shouting epithets and laughing hysterically. Fortunately, I had earlier decided to terminate the experiment the next morning.
“John Wayne” 是囚犯们给 David Eshelman 取的绰号，原因是他像个西部牛仔一样，常常在行为上失去控制。但是 Blum 称，Eshelman 只不过是在刻意地假扮强硬警卫而已。Eshelman 在实验结束后宣称，他在扮演警卫的时候模仿了电影《铁窗喋血》中的监狱长 Struthers Martin。他表示，他希望让实验获得成功，于是自荐当夜班的值勤班长，更加强硬地对待囚犯：他一再惩罚囚犯，要么命令他们做很多次俯卧撑（有时候还会叫其他囚犯踩在他们背部），要么限制他们的食物供应，要么任意发布规则。每过一个晚上，Eshelman 就会想出更有创意的虐待方法，尽管他这样做已经超出强硬警卫的行为。实际上，他后来表示，他开始觉得自己是一个 “傀儡师”，可以根据自己的喜好操控囚犯的行为。Eshelman 在实验中扮演警卫的过程中变得极度变态：实验的第 5 个晚上，他想出了一个不可思议的方法，对所有的囚犯进行了羞辱。他命令囚犯把自己当成 “骆驼”，一半为雄骆驼，另一半为雌骆驼。他命令 “雌骆驼” 弯下身，然后命令 “雄骆驼” 对他们进行小狗式 “性交”。“雄骆驼” 在百般不情愿之下，只好模仿鸡奸行为。我当时不在场，不过根据当时录下的视频，值班的3名警卫一边大声侮辱囚犯，一边歇斯底里地狂笑；整个过程了持续了近 10 分钟。幸好，我在这之前早已决定隔天早上终止实验。
I think it goes without saying that such actions go way beyond simply playing the assumed role of acting the “tough guard.” It is also worth noting that Eshelman’s fellow guards fully participated in these activities and other offensive behaviors that typified their shift—activities that were strikingly similar to the sexual degradation rituals imposed on Iraqi prisoners by American prison guards in Abu Ghraib Prison. The night shift was not alone in excessively brutalizing the SPE prisoners; several guards on the other two shifts also regularly engaged in humiliating and degrading assignments designed to show the prisoners the extent of their newfound guard power. Was the experience of being an SPE guard a “sham,” in a fraudulent study, as Blum and other critics are contending? The full body of available evidence clearly suggests not.
我想不必说也应该明白，这样的行为已经远远超出了 “强硬警卫” 的行为范围。另外值得注意的是，Eshelman 值勤时一般都会进行这类活动和其他冒犯行为，而其他警卫都会充分参与其中 —— 而这些活动，非常类似于阿布格莱布监狱的美国警卫对伊拉克囚犯施加的性虐待仪式。过度残害斯坦福监狱实验囚犯的，并不是只有夜班的人而已；另外两班的几个警卫也经常参与有辱人格的任务，目的是向囚犯示范自己身为警卫的新权力有多大。在斯坦福监狱实验中当警卫的体验，究竟是不是跟 Blum 和其他批评者所主张的那样，是一项假研究中的 “造假” 行为？所有现有证据清楚表明，这一说法完全不成立。
③ A prisoner challenges depiction of having a nervous breakdown as a “sham”/ 一名囚犯对其精神崩溃 “造假” 的说法提出异议。
Doug Korpi, alias prisoner 8612, is highlighted by Blum as an instance of where my staff and I were naïve in releasing him early because of his seemingly out-of-control raging screams. Korpi has contended now that he was not really that upset, only pretending. “I’m more hysterical than psychotic,” he has said. The definition of hysteria is a psychological disorder of behaviors exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess. That was sufficient reason for us to terminate his time in our study. Korpi’s story has changed many times over the past forty-seven years: from acting crazy just to get out early so he could study for the upcoming Graduate Records Exam; to getting out so that he could lead an insurrection and liberate the other prisoners; to genuinely losing control of his emotions so that he went in to clinical psychology to learn better emotion management; and other reflections and memory distortions.
Blum 特别强调了 Doug Korpi（又名 8612 号囚犯）的例子。我和工作人员提早将他释放，原因是他一直在狂喊，好像已经失去控制。对此，Blum 说这是天真的做法。Korpi 现在表示，他其实并没有那么愤怒；他当时只不过是在假装而已。他曾经说过：“我不是精神病发作，而是歇斯底里。” 歇斯底里是一种心理障碍，患者会在行为上表现出难以控制的巨大恐惧或情绪过度。而这一定义，构成了我们终止他参与我们研究的充分理由。过去 47 年里，Korpi 的说法已经换了好多次：起初他说，他要准备研究生入学考试（GRE），所以为了提早获释而装疯；接着又说，他要获释是为了发动起义、解放其他囚犯；后来又说，他真的情绪失控，所以为了学习更好的情绪管理方法，他决定攻读临床心理学。他也另外提出了一些反思和被扭曲的记忆。
The key event in his scenario happened the night when he told his fellow prisoners that he was going to force me to release him after he met with both Carlo Prescott and me. Instead, after I offered him a deal in which the guards would no longer harass him if he would give me information about what the prisoners were doing, he returned to the prison yard and yelled: “I can’t get out; they won’t let us leave!” He continued screaming that theme from inside his cell. This message had a powerful chilling effect on all the prisoners, some of whom later reported feeling helpless, truly imprisoned, and unable to quit even when as distressed as he was. Thus, Korpi contributed to the reality of the SPE as a “real” prison with no way out at all for all of his comrades, by that tirade.
他所描述的事情经过要从这一关键事件说起：有一天晚上，他告诉了其他囚犯，他跟我和 Carlo Prescott（实验监狱顾问）会面之后，打算强迫我把他释放出去。但是，我却向他提出协议：要是他肯向我透露囚犯们的所作所为，警卫们就不会再骚扰他。之后他回到了监狱院子里大声喊道：“我走不了了，他们不肯放我们走！” 他回到了牢房之后，还是继续喊着同样主题的话。这一信息对所有囚犯产生了强有力的寒蝉效应：有些囚犯后来表示，他们当时感到无助，好像真的被囚禁那样，即使跟他一样觉得痛苦，他们也无法自己退出实验。就这样，Korpi 以他那激烈的演说，使所有囚犯都把斯坦福监狱实验看作是一个完全无法逃脱的 “真正” 监狱。
Finally, the decision to release him after his screaming episode was made by Craig Haney, who determined he was so distressed that it did not make sense to retain him longer. When I returned from dinner with Carlo, I doubted the authenticity of Korpi’s reaction as honest, assumed he was faking it, but agreed with Craig and Curt Banks that it was a better course of action to release him at that point.
最后，Korpi 狂喊一事发生之后，决定释放他的是 Craig Haney。他认为 Korpi 已经太过激动，再继续留住他，一点也不合理。和 Carlo 吃完晚餐后，我回到了监狱，对 Korpi 的反应的真实性表示质疑。我以为他是在假装，但是也同意了 Craig 和 Curt Banks 的看法：立刻把他释放，才是较为可取的做法。
Regardless of what Korpi has said subsequently about his reaction, as acting or authentic hysteria, he created an obvious new route to freedom for at least four other prisoners who had to be released because of similarly extreme emotional reactions or to get necessary medical treatment, as detailed inThe Lucifer Effect. All of them were first taken to Stanford Student Health, and then returned home.
Korpi 的歇斯底里反应是装的也好，是真的也罢，无论他后来对这件事的说法是什么，他实际上已经为另外至少 4 名囚犯创造了一个明显的、通往自由的新出路。这 4 个囚犯发生了同样极端的情绪反应，所以必须获释，才能得到所需的治疗。这些细节在《路西法效应》一书中都有提到。 这 4 个人先是被带到了斯坦福大学的学生健康中心，后来接受治疗后就回家了。
④ A staff member publicly denounces SPE as flawed and dishonest / 一名工作人员公开谴责斯坦福监狱实验设计有缺陷、研究报告不诚实。
Blum attempts to smear the SPE by uncovering a 2005 Op-ed in the Stanford Daily Campus Newspaper, allegedly written by Carlo Prescott: “The lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment.” He even borrows that title theme for his blog.
为了诋毁斯坦福监狱实验，Blum 揭露了一篇于 2005 年发表在《斯坦福每日校报》专栏中的文章 —— “斯坦福监狱实验的谎言”，他甚至将这篇文章的题目直接套用在自己的博文中，还大肆宣扬说这篇文章的作者是 Carlo Prescott（SPE 实验的监狱顾问）。
The reality is that Prescott never wrote a word of it. He and I had become friends after our first meeting in my social psychology class in May 1971. He was my expert consultant on prison life, having been in prisons for years. A careful reading of that Op-ed piece makes evident that the writer had a very distinctive legalistic style and vocabulary, not at all like Carlo’s. It turns out that its real author, who also published many related negative SPE comments online, was Michael Lazarou, an L. A. movie writer. He had befriended both Carlo and me in an attempt to get me to agree to give him screen rights to a Hollywood movie about the SPE. When instead, I chose to go with Maverick Films producer, Brent Emery, Lazarou began writing negative critiques of both me and the SPE. (Brent Emery’s phone records indicated, “Carlo said it was NOT him, but all from Lazarou.” May 7, 2005). I assume this core information eliminates that source of Blum’s accusation of “the lie of SPE” as coming from a trustworthy insider.
而真相是，那篇文章没有一个字儿是 Carlo Prescott 写的。1971年5月，在我的社会心理学课上，我和 Carlo 第一次见面就成了朋友。因为他在监狱呆过几年，所以成为我了解监狱生活的专业顾问。仔细阅读那篇专栏文章就能发现，作者有着非常鲜明的逻辑和用词风格，和 Carlo 的完全不同。事实证明，那篇文章真正的作者是 Michael Lazarou，一位来自洛杉矶的电影剧作家，在网络发表过很多关于斯坦福监狱实验的负面言论。为了能拿到斯坦福监狱实验的好莱坞电影版权，他曾试着与我和 Carlo 搞好关系。然而当我选择了 Meverick Films 公司的制片人 Brent Emery 以后，Lazarou 就开始散播关于我和斯坦福监狱实验的负面评论。（Brent Emery的电话录音表明：“Carlo 说这篇文章不是他写的，全部都是 Lazarou 写出来的（2005年5月7日”）。尽管 Blum 称 “斯坦福监狱实验的谎言” 这篇文章来自可靠的内部消息源，但我认为这些核心信息足以消除这个指控。
⑤ British research team fails to replicate SPE / 英国一研究团队重复斯坦福监狱实验失败。<译注2>
An “experiment,” supposedly based on the SPE,was filmed and broadcast on a 4-part BBC-TV show in May, 2002 (Koppel & Mirsky 2002). Its results appeared to challenge those of the SPE because the guards showed little violence or cruelty toward the prisoners. Instead, the opposite occurred. The prisoners dominated the guards, to the point where the guards became “increasingly paranoid, depressed and stressed and complained most of being bullied.” Several of the guards couldn’t take it any more and quit: none of the prisoners did so. Blum points to that TV show as another challenge to the validity of the SPE. However, in no way did this “reality-show” meet the scientific criteria for a replication.
2002年5月， BBC 录制并播出了一档以斯坦福监狱实验为背景的 “科学实验” 节目。这个 “实验” 的结果看似是斯坦福监狱实验原始结论的挑战：警卫在囚犯面前并没怎么表现出暴力或是残忍的行为；相反，囚犯反而主导了警卫，竟使警卫表现出 “多疑，抑郁，紧张，以及抱怨自己被霸凌” 等现象。很多警卫因为受不了而最终退出节目，但是没有一个囚犯退出。Blum 指出这档电视节目挑战了斯坦福监狱实验的有效性。然而，这档 “真人秀” 完全不符合重复实验的科学标准。
<译注2> 在心理学科学实验范畴内，判断一项实验及其结果是否真实有效的一大手段，就是通过重复这项实验、观测原实验结果是否能被成功复制。若有多数试图重复的实验都无法复制原实验结果，则原实验会被质疑。但前提是，这些试图复制原实验的重复实验，本身需要是严谨的科学实验，这一点正是津巴多反驳的关键所在。
From the time of being recruited with national ads to be actors in a “university-backed social science experiment to be shown on TV,” every participant knew their actions and voices (from lapel mikes they had to wear always) would be seen and heard on national TV by family and colleagues. Any similarity to the intense build-up of emotional confrontations between SPE guards versus prisoners, 24/7, was totally diluted by the daily itinerary of the British research team (Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher). These researchers continually intervened, made regular public broadcasts into the prison facility, administered daily psychological assessments, arranged contests for the best prisoners to compete to become guards, and as in all “reality-TV” shows, created daily “confessionals” for participants to talk directly to the camera about their feelings.
从电视台进行全国公开选角，就能看出这是一档由大学支持的社会科学实验节目。每个参与者都知道他们的一言一行会被家人和同事听到或看到（从他们每时每刻需要配带着麦克风就能看出来）。斯坦福监狱实验为 “警卫” 和 “囚犯” 所创造出来的封闭式全天候情绪对抗，被英国研究团队（Alex Haslam 和 Stephen Reicher）的每日行程完全打乱。这些（英国的）研究者不停地对实验进行干扰：在监狱中进行常规的节目录播，执行每日心理测评，将最佳警卫选拔为监狱看守，以及像其他 “真人秀” 那样，让参与者们对着摄像机表达自己的感受。
Among the participants in this BBC-TV prison show, who had contacted me personally afterwards, was Philip Bimpson, the ringleader of the prisoner rebellion against the hapless guards. He said, in part:
一位叫做 Philip Bimpson 的参与者曾在节目播出后单独联系过我，作为带领 “囚犯” 反抗的头目，他说道：
. . . . “The prisoners won because they had organized themselves quicker than the guards; their subversive actions and organizational skills outwitted the guards who were disorganized in their new surroundings. They did not understand that they had to organize themselves and form a set of rules that they all agreed on. . . . I think the group is being exploited by the BBC for commercial gain. Me and my new friends in the group joined the experiment for the furtherance of science & not to be used as a form of cheap entertainment.” (Personal email communication, 26 Feb. 2002; supplemented by my subsequent visit in Glasgow, Oct. 10, 2004)
“…… ‘囚犯’ 胜出是因为他们比 ‘警卫’ 更快地组成了团队；比起在新环境中像无头苍蝇般的 ‘警卫’ ，‘囚犯’ 的颠覆性行为和组织能力都更胜一筹。这些 ‘警卫’ 还不明白他们必须联手建立一套行为准则…… 我认为参与者们都被 BBC 的商业性质耍了。我和节目中遇到的新朋友最初都是为了促进科学发展而参加了实验，绝不是为了被当作一种廉价娱乐的形式。”
I think it is reasonable to reject the use of this “replication” as a scientifically sophisticated challenge to any of the conclusions of the SPE.
我想我有理由拒绝（这家电视台）毫无科学性的所谓 “重复实验”，它也不能对斯坦福监狱实验的结论构成威胁。
⑥ Publication in non-peer reviewed journals to avoid rejection / 为避免被退稿，让研究在未经同行评审的文献期刊上发表。
Several critics claim that I chose to publish early accounts of the SPE in non-peer reviewed journals in order to avoid likely rejection of this study. That is not the case at all. We published our first account of the SPE in the Journal of the Office of Naval Research because I had used funds from ONR that were left over from a previous grant, and they insisted that I document my research in their journal. (Incidentally, the full budget for the SPE was only $2,500). Our next publication was in theJournal of Criminology, at the invitation of their editor.
很多批评者说，我选择将初期实验结果发布在不经过同行评审的期刊上，是为了避免论文被拒绝发表。事实上，完全没有这回事儿。斯坦福监狱实验第一次在《海军研究办公室期刊（Journal of the Office of Naval Research）》上发表，是因为我将海军研究办公室拨给我们上个实验的资金用在了斯坦福监狱实验上，因此他们坚持让我在此期刊上记录监狱实验（顺便一提：斯坦福监狱实验的全部预算也只有 $2500 美金。）后来在《犯罪学期刊（Journal of Criminology）》的编辑邀请下，我们再一次发表了斯坦福监狱实验的结果。
I am accused of “sidestepping the usual peer review process” by then publishing an unusual account of the SPE in the New York Times Magazine in 1973. I did so in response to an opportunity to reach a large national audience, and I used an unusual framing of the SPE as a Pirandellian Prison(to be described fully in a later section). My colleagues and I have published many articles and chapters about the SPE in a host of journals and books for academic audiences as well as more general readers (a selection of which appears in the References).
因为 1973 年将斯坦福监狱实验的结果发表在《纽约时报杂志》上，我被指控是在 “逃避常规的同行评审过程”。我之所以这样做，是为了将实验结果普及给全国更多读者，我甚至还将斯坦福监狱实验称作 Pirandellian Prison（“皮兰德娄式监狱”，在下文中有更详细的解释）。考虑到受众读者的水平不同，我的研究团队在不同的期刊和书籍中都发表了很多关于斯坦福监狱实验的文章（其中一些文章出现在了（其他文章的）“参考文献” 这个部分）。
– 03 –
Coming next are sections highlighting what is unique about the SPE; what are itsscientific and conceptual validations; how it has influenced decisions in legal settings; how the U.S. military has applied one of its main conclusions, andthen we turn to reflect on three of its most enduring positive extensions inthe domains of shyness, time perspective, and heroism.
下文将着重点介绍斯坦福监狱实验的独特之处，包括该实验的科学验证和概念验证、该实验如何影了法律环境中的决策制定、以及美国军方如何在实践中应用了这项实验的一个主要结论。随后，我们将阐述这项实验的三个影响最持久、最积极的延伸领域，包括羞怯、时间洞察力以及英雄主义。
① Uniqueness of the SPE
斯坦福监狱实验的独特性
The design of the SPE is unique in social psychological research by enabling observations of behavior patterns of the participants during an extended period of more than 120 hours. One of its main conclusions is that participants who were randomly assigned to roles of prisoner or guard, gradually assumed those new identities in a simulated prison setting despite their awareness of its experimental nature. Most other research is typically compressed into a one-hour session, so it is not possible to observe the emergence of situated identities, such as some normal, healthy college students becoming either cruel guards or helpless prisoners.
在社会心理学领域，斯坦福监狱实验设计可谓独树一帜。这样的实验设计使得研究人员可以在长达 120 小时的间段内，对参与者的行为模式进行仔细观察。实验参与者所扮演的囚犯角色或警卫角色都是被随机分配的，而该实验的主要结论之一就是：尽管参与者们知道自己身处实验之中，但他们仍然能够在模拟的监狱环境下逐渐进入自己的新角色（囚犯真的成了囚犯，警卫真的成了警卫）。而在其他社会心理学领域的实验中，观察时间通长度常被压缩在一小时内，因此并不足以观察到情境同一性出现时参与者的表现，如一些正常的、健康的大学生渐渐认同自己的角色并转变成残酷的看守或者无助的囚徒犯。
② Scientific Validation
科学验证
Replication with variations by independent researchers is the hallmark of all experimental research, and so it was with the SPE. A team of researchers at the University of New South Wales, Australia extended the SPE design by having one condition similar to ours and several other experimental variants to explore how social organizations influence the relationship between prisoners and guards (Lovibond, Mithiran, & Adams, 1979).
独立研究者在借鉴和复制前人实验时再引入创新，是所有实验研究的共同特征，斯坦福监狱实验也不例外。澳大利亚新南威尔士大学的一支研究团队扩展了斯坦福监狱实验的设计，选取了一个与我们实验研究类似条件，又引入了其他变量，借以探究社会团体组织如何影响囚徒和看守之间的关系。
Their “Standard Custodial” regime was modeled on medium security prisons inAustralia and was closest in its procedure to the SPE. The researchers’ central conclusion of their rigorous experimental protocol notes: “Our results thus support the major conclusion of Zimbardo et al. that hostile, confrontive relations in prisons result primarily from the nature of the prison regime, rather than the personal characteristics of inmates and officers.” (pp. 283). These results, within this research design, also help offset skepticism about the validity of such simulation experiments by providing baselines to assess behavioral changes from objectively defined structural characteristics of real-life prisons.
这个研究团队仿照澳大利亚境内中等设防程度的监狱，设计了实验中的 “标准监管” 制度，其实验过程同斯坦福监狱实验非常接近。研究团队基于严密的实验协议，对实验的核心结论给出注解：“我们的实验结果因此可用于支持津巴多教授等学者的主要结论，即监狱中存在的敌对的、复杂的关系从根本上取决于监狱制度的性质，而并非犯人和狱警的个人特征。” 在这个实验中，研究者基于客观定义的、真实的监狱生活所具备的结构性特征，运用实验设计所提供的基准线来评估参与者的行为变化，从而使实验结果消除了人们对于此类模拟实验的怀疑。
③ Conceptual Validation: The Mock Psychiatric Ward as SPE for Staff
概念验证：基于斯坦福监狱实验、为精神病院员工设计的模拟精神科病房
Consulting with research director, Norma Jean Orlando, I advised on how it would be possible to create a mock psychiatric ward in Elgin State Mental Hospital inIllinois, where 29 staff members played the roles of mental patients on alocked ward for 3 days and nights.
我曾经请教过科研主任 Norma Jean Orlando，并建议如何在伊利诺伊州埃尔金州立精神病院建立模拟精神科病房。在为期三天三夜的实验里，该医院的 29 名员工在一间上锁的病房内扮演了精神病患者。
Twenty-two regular staff played their usual roles, while trained observers and video recordings reported on all that transpired. In a short time, most mock patients began behaving in ways that were indistinguishable from real patients: six tried to escape, two withdrew into themselves, others were totally silent, two wept uncontrollably, another came close to having a nervous breakdown, and the majority reported feeling “incarcerated” with no one caring about their well-being. One staff member-turned- patient who suffered during the weekend ordeal gained enough insight to declare: “I used to look at the patients as if they were a bunch of animals; I never knew what they were going through before.”
另外 22 名员工依旧扮演他们在日工作中的角色。一组训练有素的观察员详细报告了整个模拟过程，摄像机也如实拍摄记录了病房中发生的一切。在短短的三天时间里，大多数模拟病人开始表现得与精神病人毫无差异：他们中 6 人试图逃跑，2 人放弃了模拟人设并重新回归自己的角色，其余人完全保持沉默，另外还有2 人因情绪失控而痛哭，1 人近乎精神崩溃。而大多数模拟病人表示体会到了“被监禁” 的感觉，并且感到没有人关注他们的幸福感。一名扮演病人的员工忍受了整个周末的内心煎熬，并获得了足够的洞察力，他宣称：“我过去一直把病人当作一群动物看待，从来未曾体验过他们都经历过什么。”
The positive outcome of this experience was the formation of a committee of staff members working cooperatively with current and former patients who were dedicated to raising consciousness of hospital personnel about the way patients were being mistreated and how they had to change their behavior to create amore constructive, humane environment (Orlando, 1973).
埃尔金精神病院的模拟病房实验带来了积极影响，促使业内成立了员工委员会。委员会同正在接受治疗的病人和已经康复的病人展开合作，致力于提高医院员工的意识和觉悟，帮助他们认识那些对待病人的不恰当方式，以及如何改变他们的行为模式，创建一个更有建设性、更有人道主义精神的行业环境。
④ The Enduring Value of SPE’s Message in Legal Settings
斯坦福监狱实验在法律层面的持久价值
I have spent much of my professional career trying to bridge the translation of research findings into social change efforts that promote social justice and what is best in human nature. In their hearings on prison reform (October, 1971) the Subcommittee of the United States Congress House of Representatives wanted not only my analyses, but also recommendations for reform. In my statement in the Congressional Record, Iclearly advocated congressional intervention into the prison structure to bring about improvements in the condition of inmates, as well as for correctional personnel.
在大半的职业生涯里，我都在尝试将科学研究发现，转化成对社会公正和人类本性有益的社会变革。在监狱改革的听证会中（1971年10月），美国国会众议院小组委员会的代表不仅想听我的分析，还想要针对改革的建议。在国会议事录的陈述中，我明确拥护国会为提升囚犯和狱警所处环境所做的对监狱结构的干预。
In addition, I wish to highlight the important contributions that Craig Haney has made as a legal scholar to improve prison conditions and in challenging the death penalty. Craig went on in his education after receiving a Ph.D. in psychology to earn an LL.D. from Stanford’s Law School.
此外，我意图强调，作为法律学者的 Craig Haney 为改善监狱环境和挑战死刑所做的巨大贡献。Craig 在获得心理学博士学位之后，继续学习，之后又取得了斯坦福大学法律学院的博士学位。
Unfortunately, blogger Blum’s Medium critique totally misrepresents what is published testimony in the Congressional Record about my constructive arguments for improving our nation’s mass incarceration system. My advocacy has largely taken the form of consciousness-raising about the necessity for ending the “social experiment” of prisons because, as measured by high rates of recidivism, and current mass levels of incarceration in the United States, that experiment has failed. We must find the reason for that through more thorough systems analyses, and propose alternative solutions to incarceration.
不幸的是，博主 Blum 在 Medium 网站上发表的评论完全歪曲了我在国会议事录的公开发表的、具有建设性的言论，那是我为了改善我们国家集体监禁体系所提出的。我的主张已经让人们意识到，有必要停止在监狱进行的 “社会实验”。这是因为，现在美国的高再犯罪率及大规模的监禁水平，会导致实验的失败。我们必须寻找更详尽全面的系统分析，并提出可供选择的对监禁问题的解决办法。
My second testimony before a Congressional subcommittee that focused on juvenile detention (September, 1973) moved me further toward becoming a social advocate. I outlined 19 separate recommendations for improved treatment of detained juveniles. I was pleased to learn that a new federal law was passed that was in part stimulated by my testimony. Senator Birch Bayh, who headed this investigation, helped to put into law the rule that, to prevent juveniles being abused, juveniles in pre-trial detention should not be housed with adults in federal prisons.
我在国会小组委员会的第二项声明，聚焦于青少年拘留（1973年9月），这促使我成为了一名社会倡导者。我描述了 19 条改进对被拘留青少年处理方法的建议。当获悉一项新的联邦法律受到我提议的部分启发时，我感到非常欣慰。参议员 Birch Bayh 是这次调查的领导，他帮助了新法律的实现，避免青少年被虐待，还有青少年侯审的时候不应该在联邦监狱和成年人关在一起。
One powerful legal impact of the SPE derived from my participation in the
Federal Court trial of Spain et al. versus Procunier et al. (1973). The “San Quentin Six” prisoners had been isolated in solitary confinement for over three years for their alleged involvement in the murder of guards and informer prisoners during the escape attempt of George Jackson on August 21, 1971. As an expert witness, I toured the facilities of San Quentin’s maximum adjustment center and interviewed each of the six prisoners a number of times. My prepared statement and two days of trial testimony concluded with the opinion that all of these prison conditions of involuntary, prolonged, indefinite confinement under dehumanizing conditions constitutes, “cruel and unusual punishment” and must therefore be changed. The Court arrived at a similar conclusion and ordered improved living conditions for inmates. In addition, I served throughout the trial as a psychological consultant to the team of lawyers for the plaintiffs.
SPE 强有力的法律影响来源于我在联邦法庭参与的一项 Spain 等人对峙 Procunier 等人的审判（1973年）。“San Quentin 6 号” 的囚犯已经被单独隔离监禁了三年，因为他们被声称在 1971年8月21日 George Jackson 的那场逃狱中，参与了警卫和告密者的谋杀。作为专家证人，我参观了 San Quentin 监狱最大的调解中心设施，多次单独访谈了六位参与越狱的囚犯。我预备的陈述和在为期两天庭审上的发言总结来说，就是在监狱非人性环境下非自主、长期和无限期的关押，构成了 “残酷和独特的惩罚方式”，因此必须有所变革。法庭达成了相似的结论，并且命令监狱改善囚犯的生活条件。除此之外，我在审判的全程担任了原告律师团队的心理咨询师。
Later, in 2004, I was asked to be an expert witness in the military trial of American prison guard Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick. He was a leader of the guards on the night shift in Abu Ghraib prison, all of whom participated in brutalizing Iraqi Prisoners. There were many apparent similarities between the incidents of prisoner abuse by the guards in both prisons – Abu Ghraib and SPE. Frederick’s behaviors were shown to be completely atypical, as he had no prior history of such harmful actions towards any other people. Although he admitted his guilt in committing these abuses in Abu Ghraib, his prison sentence was reduced by the judge’s acknowledgement of the power of that unusual prison situation.
后来，在 2004 年，我成为了对美国监狱警卫上士 Chip Frederick 审判的军事法庭的专家证人。他是 Abu Ghraib 监狱夜班警卫的领导，这帮人都参与了对伊拉克囚犯的虐待。在 Abu Ghraib 监狱和 SPE 的警卫虐待囚犯事件之间有许多明显的相似之处。Frederick 的行为完全是非典型性的，因为他并没有做出如此严重伤害他人行为的前科。尽管他承认了在 Abu Ghraib 监狱的虐待罪行，但由于那里不同寻常的监狱环境，法官对他予以减刑。
Interestingly, I was also asked to be an expert witness in the federal trial of Alex Blum, the cousin of Ben Blum, who mentions him in his Medium blog. Briefly, Alex was a guilty party as get-away driver in a bank robbery along with three other U.S. Rangers. Alex had long obsessed about becoming a U.S. Ranger, and as a recruit, he was assigned to an officer, Luke Elliot Sommer, who was his taskmaster who issued orders to be obeyed without question. One of them was to assist in a “practice drill” of robbing a local bank, but in fact, it turned out to be a full-scale bank robbery. I spent enough personal time with Alex to realize the extent to which he was “blindly obeying his authority,” Capt. Sommer (who got a 24-year prison sentence). Alex might have received a similar long sentence, but instead it was reduced to only 16 months, presumably because the court accepted my testimony on that point. When in prison, it took Alex a full eight months to come to the realization that what he had done was a real bank robbery and not a ranger drill, which for me demonstrated the power of his “Ranger-Mind Set” of total obedience to his assigned authority. It was a powerful combination of Milgram’s obedience scenario along with cult-leader mind control, as seen in the Jonestown followers of Jim Jones, and those of Rev. Moon. For valuable information on mind control, see Steven Hassan’sCombatting Cult Mind Control (2015).
有意思的是，我还曾在联邦法庭一场对 Alex Blum 的审判上做过专家证人（Alex 就是写博客抨击 SPE 的那个 Ben Blum 的堂兄弟）。简单来说，Alex 伙同其他三个突击队员抢劫银行并驾车逃逸。Alex 长期沉迷于成为美国突击队队员，作为新兵，他被派到 Luke Elliot Sommer 手下做事。这个长官说一不二，要求下属绝对服从，不能产生疑问。他们中的一员被指派援助一项 “演习” 任务，这项任务是抢劫当地的一家银行。但事实上，最后演变成一场彻头彻尾的银行抢劫。我花了充足的私人时间与 Alex 相处，意识到他 “盲目服从他的权威” —— Summer 队长（此人被判 24 年监禁）。Alex 也许应该受到类似的审判，但他实际只获刑 16 个月，可能是法庭接受了我的主张的缘故。Alex 在监狱花了整整八个月才意识到，他真的抢了银行，而不是单纯进行了突击队的训练，这证实了 Alex 绝对服从权威的 “突击队定式思维”。这种现象与 Milgram 对邪教领导思想控制的服从情境研究具有强烈的关联，参见 Jim Jones 的 Jonestown 追随者事件、牧师 Moon 事件。关于思想控制的有价值信息，参见 Steven Hassan 的《与邪教思想控制作斗争》。
⑤ Situationally-Based Behavioral Explanations are Never Forms of “Excusiology”
情景行为解释并不是对该行为的 “辩解”
“What social psychology has given to an understanding of human nature is the discovery that forces larger than ourselves determine our mental life and our actions – – chief among these forces is the power of the social situation.” (Banaji, 2001, Psychological Science Agenda).
“社会心理学对理解人性所做的贡献是：它发现了大于我们自身的力量会决定我们的精神生活和行为 —— 而其中主要的力量是社会情景的力量。”
However, it should be made crystal-clear that when social psychologists attempt to explain the behavior of individuals in terms of influential external situational forces, they are never implying that personal responsibility is absolved. People are always responsible for the consequences of their actions — personally, socially and legally. Understanding why we do something does not excuse our liability for the outcomes of that behavior.
但是，需要澄清的是，当社会心理学家尝试用有影响力的外部情景力量来解读个体行为时，并不意味着个人无责。人们对自己的行为后果始终负有个人、社会和法律责任。理解我们行为的原因，并不免除我们对该行为后果的责任。
Nevertheless, some critics of the SPE display a naïve misunderstanding of this perspective by claiming that a message of the SPE is that “individuals cannot really be held accountable for the sometimes-reprehensible things we do . . . it is also profoundly liberating. It means we’re off the hook” (Blum, 2018). Similarly, LeTextier (2018) proclaims “It’s like, ‘Oh my god, I could be a Nazi myself. I thought I was a good guy, and now I discover that I could be this monster.’ And in the meantime, it’s quite reassuring, because if I become a monster, it’s not because deep inside me I am the devil, it’s because of the situation. I think that’s why the (SPE) experiment was so famous in Germany and Eastern Europe. You don’t feel guilty. ‘Oh, okay, it was the situation. We are all good guys. No problem. It’s just the situation made us do it.’ So it’s shocking, but at the same time it’s reassuring.” Recall that such a viewpoint was rejected in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi doctors and others many decades ago; they were indeed held accountable for the atrocities they committed while “just doing their job.”
然而，一些 SPE 的批评者却无知地误解了这一观点，称 SPE 传达的信息是 “个体无法真正承担过错行为的责任…… 这是完全的脱罪。意味着我们都可以免责” (Blum, 2018)。LeTextie (2018)也表示：“这就像 ‘天哪，我竟然可以变成纳粹。我以为我是一个很好的人，现在我发现我竟然会成为这样的恶魔’。同时，这样的结果可以让人心安理得，因为我成为恶魔，不是因为我本质很坏，而是因为当时所处的情景。我认为，这就是为什么 SPE 实验在德国和东欧如此出名的原因，因为人们不会觉得自己有罪。‘噢，好吧，是情境的原因。我们都是好人。没问题。只是情境迫使我们那么做的’。所以，这项实验很令人震惊，同时又很让人心安理得”。不过我们来回忆一下：几十年前，纽伦堡审判纳粹医生和其他纳粹分子时，这一观点是被驳斥的；尽管 “只是为了完成自己的工作”，他们确实对自己的暴行负有不可推卸的责任。
I strongly reject the criticism that the underlying message of the SPE is to absolve people of their “sins.” Changing or preventing undesirable behavior of individuals or groups requires an understanding of what strengths, virtues and also vulnerabilities that they bring into any given situation. We need to recognize more fully the complex of situational forces that are operative in given behavioral settings. Modifying them, or learning to avoid them, can have a greater impact on reducing undesirable individual reactions than remedial actions directed only at changing the people in the situation after they have done wrong. That means adopting a public health approach in place of the standard medical model approach to curing individual ills and wrongs. I have stated repeatedly that attempting to understand the situational and systemic contributions to any individual’s behavior does not excuse the person or absolve him or her from responsibility in engaging in immoral, illegal or evil deeds. Furthermore, I’ve always endorsed all efforts to create conditions, systemic and social, that can bring out the best in human nature.
我强烈反对所谓 SPE 暗示个体无罪的批评。改变或阻止个体或群体的不当行径，需要理解在特定情境下、他们所具备的优势、道德和脆弱性。我们需要充分识别作用于特定行为场景的情景力量的复杂性。修正或学会避免这些行为，比起直接改变已经犯错个体的补救措施，可以更有效地减少个体不当的行为反应。这意味着采取公共健康策略、代替标准医学模式、来治愈个体的恶行。我已经重复强调，尝试理解情景和体制对个体行为的影响，并不能为他的不道德、非法和邪恶行径脱罪。并且，我一直赞同，努力创造体制和社会条件，以释放人性最好的一面。
⑥ Military Use of SPE in SERE Trainings
斯坦福监狱实验在 SERE 军事培训中的应用
When I lectured at the United States Naval Academy, I was informed that the Navy and other military units train their personnel using the documentary footage of the SPE to avoid the excesses that are likely to occur during these exercises. Following the Korean War, where some airmen were alleged to have given actionable information to the enemy, our military developed a policy of never giving any information when captured by any enemy, other than name, rank and serial number. The military instituted war games in which some personnel acted as escaped prisoners who were hunted down by other staff, and then interrogated as intensely as possible in order to break them down into giving confessions and vital information.
我在美国海军学院做演讲时被告知，海军和其他军事单位用 SPE 的纪录片段来培训人员，以避免在培训中的无节制行为。朝鲜战争中，一些飞行员被指控向敌人透漏作战信息。据此，军队制定了一项政策，如果被敌人逮捕，除了姓名，级别和编号，不能透漏其他任何信息。军队设置了战争游戏，一部分人员扮演逃犯，被另一部分人追捕，然后通过刑讯逼供，摧毁他们的意志，迫使他们招供关键信息。
This program, Search, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) continues to function as one effective training program to achieve the desired objective of never complying with any enemy commands for information. However, there have been reports of excesses practiced by the simulating interrogators, which were dangerous to the well-being of the simulating captives. The SPE is shown as a warning of the ease in which anyone can cross the line from play-acting to becoming cruel torturers. I found this to be an unexpected outcome of some of SPE’s messages in real-world settings.
该项目，搜寻，躲避，反抗，逃离（SERE），一直是一项有效的培训方案，可以实现不向敌人屈服进而透露情报的目标。但是记录显示，模拟审讯官会操作过度，危机到模拟俘虏的健康。SPE 作为一种警示，说明任何人都可能跨越角色扮演的界限，变为真正的施暴者。我发现，这是 SPE 在真实世界中体现出来的意想不到的结果。
⑦ SPE as Pirandellian Prison
斯坦福监狱实验像是座 “皮兰德娄式” 监狱
注：限于系统篇幅限制，我们必须删除这个部分的英文原文。有需要的读者，请留意文末提供的完整原文链接
布鲁姆批评我早在《纽约时报杂志》发表过关于斯坦福监狱实验的文章（1973），而我发表那篇文章主要是为了引起公众对这一现象的广泛关注，并不是想将其限制在学术领域。
斯坦福监狱实验是一场戏，由男孩子们出演指定的角色，但没有预设的剧本和台词，往往连续好几个小时甚至好几天都没有观众。所有人都知道，这就是一场戏。因此，我很赞同借用剧作家路伊吉·皮兰德娄（Luigi Pirandello）的比喻来解释斯坦福监狱实验，即现实与幻觉、表演与存在、饰演一个角色与代入这个角色之间，只有一线之隔。所有人都知道这就是一个心理学实验，知道他们是在心理学系的地下室而不是真正的监狱里，知道实验里的囚犯并没有犯下任何罪行，知道实验里的警卫只要能把囚犯关在牢房里，哪怕当班的八小时基本都在办公室打牌也能照拿工资。但是在相当短的时间里，这个心理学研究项目本身变成了一座 “监狱”，想要逃脱牢笼只有两个办法，要么由假释审核委员会全权裁定释放，要么身心遭受巨大痛苦或至少表现得如此（除 8612 号囚犯以外还有四人因此退出实验）。
从实验的影像和文字记录中不难看出，不仅仅是实验参与者纷纷扮演自己被囚禁、或是受雇作为监狱警卫的角色，几乎其他所有接触到实验场景的人都仿佛真的身陷囹圄。最突出的例子是：一位应我邀请评估实验适当性的天主教牧师，他根据自己在真实监狱中的工作经历访问了实验中的所有囚犯，但他很快进入了监狱教诲师的状态。牧师甚至致电一位囚犯的母亲，让她请公益律师帮助儿子脱罪出狱。这位公益律师也知道斯坦福监狱实验只是一个实验，但当他见到这些绝望的囚犯时，他保持了一贯的高冷态度，仅在法律允许的范围内提供帮助。
Carlo Prescott（SPE 实验的监狱顾问）入戏太深，彻底代入了假释委员会主席的角色，甚至批评很多申请假释的囚犯，施以语言暴力，直到有些囚犯哭着请求他理解自己的处境。他后来说，他无意中成为了他自己在世界上最痛恨的那种人 —— 那些曾经数十次驳回他申请的假释委员会成员。在实验后期，他称自己患上了胃病，并且意识到了自己的变化、不愿再继续扮演这一角色。
然后就是我了。我作为调查研究的负责人启动了这项研究，管理我的学生团队，而他们都很有兴趣共同探索我们所创造的独特情境（对人）的影响。在实验初期，我和所有实验研究人员一样，规定了观察和研究的方法，录制实验视频的任务，以及数据收集的流程。然而不久之后，我就转变成为全职的监狱长。这是斯坦福监狱实验的主要缺陷，没有一个科研人员保持独立、观察事态发展。我的工作重心从数据收集变成了每天分派工作、安排一日三餐、与忧心的父母会面、参加假释委员会会议、安排警卫换班、与申诉委员会会面、处理囚犯情绪崩溃，如此种种。
实验的第五天是星期四，当天夜里十点和前几天一样，有一个 “厕所时间”，这是一天之中囚犯们最后一次去厕所的机会，之后就只能使用牢房里的桶了。夜班的警卫们会利用这个机会变着花样折磨或是捉弄囚犯。而在那个时候，我已经意识不到囚犯们所受的痛苦，囚犯们在既定时间上厕所变成了我工作日程里的一个常规事项。
就在这个时候，我遭遇到了意想不到的质疑：一位来访者看到了警卫侮辱囚犯人格、折磨囚犯的场面。这位来访者是加州大学伯克利分校的心理学教授 Christina Maslach。当时我们刚刚开始约会，她来等我吃晚饭。可是当她看见囚犯们蒙着双眼、戴着镣铐的待遇，她哭着跑了出去。我们之间发生了很大的冲突，她很明确地表示，这个情境已经使我从一名爱护学生的老师变成了一个完全无视学生痛苦的人。她说如果我再不清醒过来，她会就此与我分手。这对我敲响了警钟，让我摆脱了监狱长的人设，回到正常状态。就在那时，我决定终止斯坦福监狱实验。
所以在斯坦福监狱实验的五天里究竟发生了什么？是人性中最恶劣的一面在逐渐展现？还只是演戏的孩子们在取悦导演？
我选择相信前者，尽管批评人士们愿意选择后者。
⑧ Enduring Legacies
持久的影响
我相信我对心理学以及社会做出的三大贡献，都以不同的方式源于我对斯坦福监狱实验的心得、体会、及延伸。这三大贡献是：理解并且治疗羞怯；理解并且借助时间洞察力改善生活质量、治疗创伤；发起 “英雄想象项目”，激发社会同情心，以具体行动弃恶扬善。
羞怯（Shyness）。我最早于1972年提出羞怯的概念，将它定义为一座自我强加的心理监狱。羞怯的个体在监狱中扮演警卫和囚犯的双重角色，警卫限制囚犯的全部言论和社会行为自由，囚犯在犹豫不决中屈从于这些限制，极大损失自我认同。我就此开展了一项前沿研究，创办了首个羞怯诊所（设在帕罗奥多大学，仍在运营），并且发表了面向大众的几本通俗读物和几篇杂志文章。就这样，关于羞怯这一常见的个人和社会现象，我整合了教育、研究、诊疗和宣传方面的工作。
时间洞察力（Time Perspective）。我们往往意识不到自己所处的时区，这就关系到所谓的时间洞察力。我对心理学这一领域的兴趣在一定程度上来自我们在斯坦福监狱实验中经历过的时间错乱感。实验所在的地下室 “监狱” 里，既没有钟、也没有窗户，时间完全以警卫换班为节点。当警卫无休无止地骚扰囚犯时，我们经常觉得陷入了一个无限延展的 “现在” 时区。而当囚犯觉得无论如何也无法改变自身境遇时，往往又会进入 “现在宿命” 时区。之后我开发了衡量时间洞察力个体差异的量表，也就是《津巴多时间洞察力量表》，开展了原创性的研究，就时间洞察力及其在治愈创伤、提高生活质量方面的多种诊疗应用出版了几本书。此外，我还发起了一项世界性的运动，由研究人员和从业人员研究、使用、拓展这些源自我在 SPE 研究经验过程中获得的部分研究观念与流程。
创造平民英雄（Creating Everyday Heroes）。在《路西法效应》一书的最后一章，我将注意力由 “试图理解好人为什么、又是如何变成恶魔的” 彻底转向另一个问题：“有没有可能激励并且训练普通人，使之成为平民英雄？” 2007年，我在 TED 发表了题为《恶魔心理》的演讲，就这一问题发表了公开宣言，得到了很多同行的支持。自那以后，我的工作和生活全部围绕一件事，那就是创办非盈利的 “英雄想象项目（HIP）”。HIP 旨在启发并且训练普通人，尤其是年轻人，让他们有能力也有意愿在面对生活中的困境时，保持同情心、做出非凡的举动。这不仅仅是一项学术研究，我们也开发了独特的教育课程，作为培训英雄式思考力和行动力的基础。这些课程的效果已经在高中、大学以及商业情景中得到证实。HIP 已经发展成为一项全球性的运动，在几大洲的十几个国家推广，内容日益丰富，并且还会不断充实。更多详情请见 www.HeroicImagination.org。
– 04 –
Conclusion
结束语
I hope that this reply to the critics of the legitimacy and enduring value of the SPE help make evident that they are substantially wrong in their biased conclusions. For whatever its flaws, I continue to believe that the Stanford Prison Experiment has earned its deserved place as a valuable contributor to psychology’s understanding of human behavior and its complex dynamics. Multiple forces shape human behavior; they are internal and external, genetic and dispositional, historical and contemporary, cultural and personal. The more we understand these dynamics, the better we can all be at promoting what is best in human nature. That in my current life mission.
我希望，对于那些批评斯坦福监狱实验合理性和持久影响力的声音，以上的答复足以说明：这些批评意见观点错误、结论偏颇。不管斯坦福监狱实验有何不足之处，我仍然相信：这项实验加深了心理学界对于人类行为及其复杂动力机制的理解，有其独到的价值，也得到了应有的认可。人类行为受多重力量驱动，有内因，也有外因；有遗传因素，也有性格因素；有历史的影响，也有现实的问题；有文化的作用，也有个人的选择。我们对这些动力机制了解得越深入，就越能发扬人性中最美好的一面。这是我毕生的使命。
