The Bachelor vs The Stanford Prison Experiment

We’re heading into the final crunch of series three of the Bachelor Australia and the countdown is well and truly on for who will win Sam Wood’s heart!

Now don’t even try and pretend like you’re not excited! We all sit down like the addicts we are, getting our fix from observing multiple women vie for the attention of one pretty mediocre man. Kind of peculiar when you put it like that isn’t it?

I’m not exactly proud to admit that I’ve been a loyal devotee since series one, even going as far as rescheduling classes at uni to ensure they don’t conflict with my Bachie time. We all have our guilty pleasures but sometimes I question as to whether I’m genuinely enjoying the show or just hate-watching it. Either way my devotion to tuning in to Bachie Sam and his loyal female fan club lives on, so I guess that makes me pretty much an expert.

One thing I find particularly interesting about the show is the concept of locking all of these women, who are essentially at war with one another, up in a mansion while they anxiously await their chance to be whisked away to scenic destinations, ride in hot air balloons and helicopters, and enjoy lavish and luxurious experiences.

My question for you is this, is this just sadism dressed up as entertainment? Before you answer, let me just enlighten you with some parallels I’ve drawn from The Bachelor and how it compares with The Stanford Prison Experiment.

If you’re not familiar with The Stanford Prison Experiment it was basically a study of the psychological effects of regular people being assigned a role of either a prisoner or prison guard in a mock prison set-up. A group of Stanford researchers, lead by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, were responsible for transforming twenty-four seemingly normal, psychologically healthy participants into sadistic prison guards and dejected, emotionally unstable prisoners within just six days. The guards typically exhibited sadistic tendencies while many prisoners were emotionally traumatised after the experiment.

The ethics of the Stanford Experiment have understandably been called into question, and, certainly, without stricter controls the experiment would not be authorised today. There are overwhelming concerns that it would pose a genuine risk to people susceptible to mental and emotional imbalances.

To be fair to Zimbardo, the discussions surrounding the ethical concerns take place with a lot of retrospect. He could not have guessed the institutionalisation that would occur during the course of the study. However, given the parallels drawn between the experiment and the Bachelor, it’s fascinating that The Bachelor continues to thrive in the entertainment industry without public questioning of ethical considerations.

You might still be thinking what the Stanford Prison Experiment possibly has to do with a fun, light-hearted reality show? Actually though, there are a lot of very thought-provoking similarities that come to mind. It’s a perspective that the average viewer wouldn’t necessarily think about while watching the show.

When I sat down to watch the show a few weeks ago, the show reached a point that actually left my fellow Bachelor fan girls and I rather disturbed.

Just to recap, I’m talking about the episode where Bachelor Sam (or more likely the producers) decided to seize three of the girls, Ebru, Jacinda and Bec, for what was labeled as the “Groundhog date,” which was essentially just a test designed to indicate whether the chosen ones were high-maintainence princesses incapable of changing a tyre, embracing the wrath of a jet boat or chowing down on chicken feet. The aim of the date was supposedly just to see “which girls can have a laugh.”

I mean, what woman wouldn’t want to be unknowingly taken on EXACTLY the same date as two other women only to be tested on having a sense of humour on national television? Keep in mind, you’re still expected to look hot and maintain and air of “cool”, all the while dealing with a greasy fake flat tyre.

This part of the episode pretty much solidified that The Bachelor is just sadism dressed up as entertainment. But wait there’s more! I haven’t even got to explain the links between The Bachelor and The Stanford Prison Experiment yet.

1. The Host/Producers vs. Philip Zimbardo

In the name of entertainment (or science), sometimes things go a bit too far. Osher Günsberg, The Bachelor’s host, is kind of a backbone for the show. He’s basically the messenger between the producers, Sam and the girls (what’s that saying about don’t go shooting the messenger?). Every episode he pops up to dictate the day’s activities, often letting destructive situations (i.e. “Groundhog date”) take its course, rather than intervening on behalf of contestants or the bachelor when they’re clearly distressed. Comparably, Zimbardo was criticized for not intervening sooner when participants were clearly suffering psychological anguish.

2. The Mansion vs. The Mock Prison

Another common link between The Bachelor and The Stanford Prison Experiment is the conditions. Both the mansion and the prison require the contestants/participants to isolate themselves from friends, family, and the community, momentarily disconnecting from their usual identities and daily behaviour to find themselves in an unfamiliar, disorientating environment. While The Bachelor contestants are exposed to fancier surrounds than the likes of the small cells of the prisoners, they are still likely driven to become stir-crazy. Both the contestants and the prisoners are detached from the outside world, eventually becoming increasingly dependent on the norms and expectations of the new environment, which in both cases is clearly not healthy. As a viewer, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would voluntarily stay in an environment that makes them so miserable. However, it’s easy to forget that this new environment has become the new norm and their whole world, and they want to succeed in it.

3. Contestant Roles vs. The Guards/Prisoners

The third identifiable link between The Bachelor and The Stanford Prison Experiment is “character” roles. In the case of The Stanford Experiment, the roles of either guard or prisoner were explicitly assigned, and participants easily fell into them, behaving in ways that they wouldn’t normally. It appears as though from day one, The Bachelor contestants also seem to fall into pre-determined roles, like the nasty, scheming woman who appears to tear down the other girls, or the sweet, patient woman who we are led to believe truly has feelings for the Bachelor. Then of course, we have the bold ones who speak out about a professed injustice, only to be punished or evicted. Just as Bachelor contestant Jacinda spoke out about her distaste for the “Groundhog date” and was basically forced to leave, a prisoner in the Stanford Experiment who attempted to speak out against mistreatment was put into solitary confinement as punishment. While this isn’t exactly the same thing, it’s the same sort of idea you have to admit!

While the Stanford Experiment is more extreme than the likes of The Bachelor, there’s definitely noticeable links that are worth acknowledging. I think as viewers it’s all too easy to tune out to reality television, almost mindlessly absorbing the content.

We, as viewers, make ourselves feel better about watching a borderline sadistic show by telling ourselves that these women knew what they were in for. They’re just senseless, spirited girls who want fifteen minutes of fame and their time in the spotlight, but are they deserving of so much ridicule just because they dared to participate in a TV show?

Above points considered, it’s an interesting and undoubtedly debatable topic as to why we are so quick to excuse the disdain and mockery of humanity in the name of entertainment.