Understanding Zimbardo's View on Human Nature: Why People Aren't Born 'Good' or 'Evil'

Philip G. Zimbardo, a prominent psychology professor, argues that people are not born inherently 'good' or 'evil.' Instead, he believes that anyone has the potential for both love and evil, depending on the situational factors they experience.

Among the options given:

• A. "Any of us can move across it... I argue that we all have the capacity for love and evil — to be Mother Theresa, to be Hitler or Saddam Hussein." This statement directly reflects Zimbardo's core belief that people are not born fixed as 'good' or 'evil,' but have the capacity for both.
• B. Discusses how labeling others as 'animals' increased aggression, showing that dehumanization influences behavior but not directly addressing innate goodness or evilness.
• C. Connects psychological processes in the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib, demonstrating situational effects but focusing on specific events rather than the broad belief about human nature.
• D. Points to soldiers' mental state contributing to evil actions, explaining environmental factors but not their inherent capacity.

Therefore, the best supporting statement is A, as it explicitly captures Zimbardo's belief that situational factors elicit the potential for both good and evil within all individuals, rather than people being born purely good or evil.