崇尚和平的Travis【Adrien Brody飾】和軟弱溫吞的Barris【Forest Whitaker飾】都參加了在報紙上刊登招募心理實驗志願者的面試。Travis的目的和大多數面試者一樣是為了獲取一天一千元(美金)的報酬，然後利用這筆錢當旅費，與他新認識在印度旅行、靈修的女友碰面。
主持人事先對參與實驗的志願者保證不會有身體上的傷害，並簽署放棄部分人權：如身體的自由和隱私。然後Travis和Barris與其他錄取的志願者，搭上大巴前往一座有24小時監視錄影的模擬監獄，進行為期二周的心理實驗。抵達後，實驗者被分成兩組，第一組是八名監獄看守，著制服配有手銬、警棍等裝備，必須執行五項規則：
一、囚犯每天要進食三餐，食物都要吃完，不能有剩
二、囚犯每天有三十分鐘的自由活動時間
三、囚犯只能在限定的區域內活動
四、囚犯在被問話時，必須要回答
五、任何情況下，囚犯不得碰觸獄卒
另一組是犯人，個人物品不准攜入並換上囚衣接受管理。Travis被指派到人數較多的囚犯組，Barris則被指派到典獄組。
主持人並宣布實驗失敗結束的條件為：如果囚犯犯錯，必須在三十分鐘內不使用暴力下給予適當的懲罰；超若過三十分鐘而沒有懲罰，則牆上的紅燈將亮起，實驗就宣告失敗並結束。實驗前間如果有人要退出，則實驗亦終止並結束，就沒人能領取酬勞。
大家一開始輕鬆以對，都想安然度過二周，然後領取高額酬勞為共同的目標。然而，個個不同脾氣、想法，來自不同背景所扮演的兩組對立的角色，馬上就因為人性的衝突，很快地打破大家認為可以共同達成象徵【理性、和平、互助互利】的理想。
首先，一個意外的灰色考驗登場：囚犯們打籃球時意外砸傷了一個管理員。於是管理員組討論必須施予懲罰，以符合規則使實驗得以繼續進行，便象徵性的處罰犯規的年長囚犯10下伏地挺身，但因囚犯組Travis仗義執言，而變成所有囚犯都被罰10下伏地挺身。
這是一個【灰色】的考驗，其一：囚犯雖砸傷管理員，除了是意外也沒有肢體接觸，並未違規。Barris堅持實施懲罰，除了有意樹立管理權威外，也先顯露了人性的晦暗和禁不起權力考驗的脆弱心理。Barris堅持的理由只是：他(揣摩上意)認為令管理員受傷已屬違規，【更高的權力者】正在觀察管理員們如何處理，這將決定大家的未來、前途，也就是實驗是否繼續，能否順利領取高額勞。當懲罰過後30分鐘，紅色警示燈沒亮，管理員組除了認為成功通一次考驗外，也對所施予的懲罰得到【更高權力】的默許而自滿，也為權力即將逐漸膨脹、失控的悲劇揭開序幕。
接著，是囚犯們不願將難以下嚥的一道菜吃完(這是違反規定)，而造成角色扮演的衝突(現實生活中常見)。Travis由於帶頭抗拒導致雙方明顯對立及正面衝突。Travis更從此被視為囚犯組的領頭，而招致不人道的羞辱。被剃光頭及也被Barris等管理員們尿在身上。此時有管理員之一發出正義之聲，聲明即使會讓大家都領不到酬勞，也不惜終止實驗，以反對再發生類似的不人道行徑。
劇情到此已令觀眾感覺逐漸沉重；原來：擁有權力和階級壓迫的是如此的密切相關，清楚凸顯了壓迫者對被壓迫者不合理的對待，而這與其說是來自：的階級落差，不如說是來自：難以面對的人性。更讓觀眾看到：權力信仰的盲目及可怕。雖然，有難得而鏗鏘的正義之聲，但整體環境仍讓人覺得悲觀且充滿了威脅。
囚犯組中一名隱匿糖尿病病情而通過面試的漫畫家，卻在獄中發病需要注射胰島素維生，管理員組的頭頭Barris竟以違反「囚犯個人物品不得攜入」的規定為由，不肯援助，讓他陷入喪命的危機。而Travis與前述正義的管理員的協助，欲偷偷將救命胰島素送入牢房卻被發現，而遭毒打並被逐出管理組而送入囚犯組之列。
劇情隨著時間推進，兩組人馬的關係日益緊張，衝突日益升高，情況越演越烈。軟弱的Barris儼然成為成了管理組的強悍頑固的領頭，多次羞辱Travis，甚至動用私刑暴力相向，然而代表【最高正義】的紅燈卻從未響起，無疑是助長了掌權者的氣燄。
於是濫用私刑、個人情緒及生理的發洩，一再考驗薄弱的人性和道德。而那人們自以為輕易可以達成的共識，的象徵【理性、和平、互助互利】的共同目標和理想，相對地顯得如此薄弱不堪一擊，也映照出：人性的晦暗及權力的盲目。
到這裡，觀眾已清楚看到了【權力的選擇性執行】及【權力的自我詮釋】。換句話說：管理員們發現當【最高正義】無視於應受監督及約束限之權力恣意脫序地揮灑，或逾矩的權力未得到正義的懲罰時，則原本受約束的權利便自我膨脹提升到【球員兼裁判】了。
當【受監督受約束的權力】可以自我定義，可以選擇性執行時；可以想像【權力】的怪獸即將吞噬社會賴以維持的秩序和期待的正義。以權力為價值導向的社會也就要就退化成一座正義淪喪的叢林了，馬上就會是暴力充斥、弱肉強食悲劇的開始。而人類晦暗的本質性遠遠超乎自人們己的想像，最終也會自食惡果地以悲劇收場。
終於，就在Travis對著攝影機叫囂要終止實驗的混亂中，糖尿病患攻擊了Barris，Barris回頭憤怒的還擊，而引發雙方全面的打鬥，接著將整座監帶進了一場無法挽回的失控淪陷。然後，Travis被關入通風管中，對【更高正義】坐視這一切不道德不公義脫序事件一再發生，感到絕望，而發出不平和不屑之鳴，並展開終極的反撲。
Travis用手鍊開啟通風管脫逃，救出正遭暴力脅迫為管理員口交不從而即將被雞姦的一名囚犯，他們釋放群情激憤的囚犯，突破管理室，追殺以Barris為首的管理員組。
一陣慘烈血腥的打鬥沸騰酣熱，終於，象徵【更高正義】的紅色警示燈響起，監獄大門緩緩升起，門外一片金黃耀眼的陽光拂過夕陽下的農田，照亮了每個仁，黑暗瞬間消匿無蹤。一群暴怒的野獸個個癱軟洩氣，一場荒腔走板的脫序演出，價然而止。
本片片名為The Experiment，描述一個權力與人性的心理實驗，劇情中的衝突和結局其實並帶給觀眾太多的意外。全片劇情張力和情境氛圍的營造，是否帶動觀眾的心情思緒與感受經歷這些人性考驗的議題，夠不夠深入？探討鋪陳了甚麼內容？這些工夫的展現有賴導演更精湛的演譯功力；此外，編劇、剪接，也讓觀眾悵然而有點失落。
The Experiment IMDB
上映日期：2010-10-01
影片年份：2010
類 型：懸疑/驚悚、動作
片 長：1時37分
導 演：《越獄風雲》保羅舒林(Paul Scheuring)
演 員：《金剛》安德列布洛迪(Adrien Brody)、 《刺殺據點》佛瑞斯惠特克(Forest Whitaker)、《暮光之城》凱姆吉甘特(Cam Gigandet)、《即刻救援》瑪姬葛瑞思(Maggie Grace)
出 品 國：USA
出 品：Inferno Distribution
發 行 商：海樂影業版權、威視電影發行
語 言：English
色 彩：color
實驗志願者入獄前
囚犯組與管理組
囚犯組接受管理組的懲罰
囚犯組與管理組關係日益緊張
全面性的衝突一觸即發
Ted talk 路西法效應
延伸閱讀：
Stanford Prison Experiment(Official site)
【場景】監獄實驗在1971年8月14至20日進行，實驗地點位於史丹福大學，由剛成為該校心理學教授的津巴多領導。實驗參與者主要為大學生，他們都同意以每日15美元的報酬，參與這場預期一至兩星期的實驗。24位參與者獲隨機分派成為「囚犯」或「守衛」的角色，各佔一半，這個模擬監獄的「職員」則包括「獄長」津巴多和他的學生。
【摘錄】
心理學面臨所謂的「可重複性危機」，源於過往不少心理學實驗方法不夠嚴謹，例如參與人數太少，以致較容易出現「假陽性」結果；又或者因為正面結果較容易出版，以致在評估證據時較易忽略負面結果。
2015年一項270名心理學家合作的大型研究顯示，上百項曾於頂尖心理學期刊發表過的實驗中，有近三分之二無法重複實驗結果。...不用太快把研究結果視作定論。
The Stanford prison experiment 【網站】
【Wiki】The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20 of 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.
Twenty-four male students out of 75 were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House. [See also LuciferEffect.com]
Publication Date: January 22, 2008
What makes good people do bad things? How can moral people be seduced to act immorally? Where is the line separating good from evil, and who is in danger of crossing it?
Renowned social psychologist Philip Zimbardo has the answers, and in The Lucifer Effect he explains how–and the myriad reasons why–we are all susceptible to the lure of “the dark side.” Drawing on examples from history as well as his own trailblazing research, Zimbardo details how situational forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make monsters out of decent men and women.
Zimbardo is perhaps best known as the creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Here, for the first time and in detail, he tells the full story of this landmark study, in which a group of college-student volunteers was randomly divided into “guards” and “inmates” and then placed in a mock prison environment. Within a week the study was abandoned, as ordinary college students were transformed into either brutal, sadistic guards or emotionally broken prisoners.
By illuminating the psychological causes behind such disturbing metamorphoses, Zimbardo enables us to better understand a variety of harrowing phenomena, from corporate malfeasance to organized genocide to how once upstanding American soldiers came to abuse and torture Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. He replaces the long-held notion of the “bad apple” with that of the “bad barrel”–the idea that the social setting and the system contaminate the individual, rather than the other way around.
This is a book that dares to hold a mirror up to mankind, showing us that we might not be who we think we are. While forcing us to reexamine what we are capable of doing when caught up in the crucible of behavioral dynamics, though, Zimbardo also offers hope. We are capable of resisting evil, he argues, and can even teach ourselves to act heroically. Like Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem and Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, The Lucifer Effect is a shocking, engrossing study that will change the way we view human behavior.
Schwartz, J. (May 6, 2004). Simulated prison in '71 showed a fine line between 'normal' and 'monster.' New York Times, p. A20.
- Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators (pp. 21-50). In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil. New York: Guilford Press.
- Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram paradigm (pp.193-237). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
- Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709-727.
- Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1973, April 8). The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison. The New York Times Magazine, Section 6, 36, ff.
- Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
- Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment. Congressional Record. (Serial No. 15, October 25, 1971). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoners' Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
【出處】愛踩別人
