The Bachelor: A modern-day replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

Bachelor Ben and his ladies.

In 1971 a group of Stanford researchers led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted what became a famous study of the power of  deindividuating situations. Within only six days, twenty-four seemingly normal, psychologically healthy participants were transformed into sadistic prison guards and dejected, emotionally unstable prisoners who came to voluntarily tolerate the abuse that was inflicted on them.

Thirty-one years later, the first episode of "The Bachelor" was aired on ABC. During the show, twenty-five single women compete for the affections of one man (with the reverse in "The Bachelorette") as they travel to scenic destinations, ride in lots of helicopters and boats, and enjoy lavish accommodations. What could the Stanford Prison Experiment possibility have to do with a fun, light-hearted reality show? A lot, it turns out.

1. The leaders. In the name of entertainment (or science), things sometimes go too far. Chris Harrison, The Bachelor's host, has controversially been known to let destructive situations (i.e., Bentley) take their course, rather than intervening on behalf of contestants or the bachelor/bachelorette. Similarly, Zimbardo was criticized for not intervening sooner when participants were clearly suffering psychological distress. Like his participants, he may have been caught up in the power of the situation. Zimbardo's girlfriend was the one to urge the researchers put a stop to the experiment, when she saw how inhumane the prisoners were being treated (no one has put a stop to the Bachelor yet).

Chris Harrison

Philip Zimbardo

2. The conditions. Both the Bachelor and the prison require contestants/participants to isolate themselves from trusted friends, family, and communities, temporarily giving up their usual identities and daily activities and finding themselves in an unfamiliar, disorienting setting. The Stanford prisoners were required to stay in small cells all day and night, while the contestants are confined to fancier suites, but still likely driven stir-crazy. As the contestants/participants become more and more disconnected from the outside world, they in turn become increasingly dependent on the norms and expectations of the new environment, which in both cases are clearly not the healthiest. From an outside perspective, it's hard to imagine why anyone would voluntarily stay in an environment that makes them so miserable. What we forget is that this new environment has quickly become their whole world, and they - understandably - want to succeed (or at least survive) in it.

a contestant

 a prisoner

3. The roles. Guard vs. prisoner roles were made explicit in the Stanford experiment, and participants easily fell into them, behaving in ways that they would never have otherwise behaved in their normal lives. From day one, Bachelor contestants also seem to fall into pre-determined roles, like the cruel, conniving woman who publicly derogates the other contestants, or the sweet, patient women who seem to truly have feelings for the Bachelor and are forced to watch him develop relationships with and later sleep with multiple other women. Then there are courageous ones who try to speak out about a perceived injustice, only to be shot down. Just as Bachelor contestant Emily was recently chastised for speaking out about another contestant's cruelty, a prisoner in the Stanford experiment who attempted to speak out against mistreatment was allegedly put into solitary confinement as a punishment (Not exactly the same thing, I know, but same idea).

Courtney

Prison Guard

4. The horror. Most importantly, the two "experiments" are similar in what they reveal about human nature, and it's not a pretty sight. We tell ourselves that we would never have behaved like that -- that some of the Stanford participants must have had a sadistic streak to begin with, or that the Bachelor contestants are all narcissists. But while it may be true that it takes a certain kind of person to apply for a reality show (or participate in a prison experiment), both do involve mental health screenings of would-be contestants/ participants, so the patterns of behavior that emerge cannot be totally written off as expressions of extreme personalities. As much as we may like to think of ourselves as strong, independent-minded, and basically decent people, we are also social beings who care deeply about social acceptance and status, even if that means sometimes acting in ways that are destructive to ourselves or to others. Recognizing this vulnerability, though unsettling, can help us avoid falling prey to dangerous forms of social influence.

Source

Further reading:

The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Philip Zimbardo

Stanford Prison Experiment (youtube)

Miller, G. (2011). Using the Psychology of Evil To Do Good Science, 332 (6029), 530-532 DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6029.530