Background and Objectives
In the 1960s and 70s, psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted several notable social psychology experiments examining how social roles and situations can impact human behavior.
Zimbardo designed the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 to explore the psychology of imprisoning people. He aimed to study how participants reacted to being assigned randomized roles of prisoner and guard.
Zimbardo’s primary hypothesis was that the imposed social roles and environment of a prison would dominate the individual personalities of the participants, causing them to exhibit more extreme behaviors.
The experiment intended to demonstrate that situational variables can have a more powerful influence over behavior than inherent individual traits.
Zimbardo set up a simulated prison environment in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building.
He recruited 18 male college students through a newspaper ad offering $15 per day to participate.
Although the participants had no abnormal psychological issues, Zimbardo hoped to provoke realistic responses by creating a believable mock prison.
The experiment planned to observe the participants’ interactions, emotions, and behaviors in this environment over a planned two-week study period.
Through this approach, Zimbardo sought to gain insight into the psychological mechanisms that make prisons dehumanizing environments.
Methodology
Zimbardo converted a corridor of the psychology department building into a simulated prison environment.
The experiment was monitored with video cameras and microphones. The participants were randomly assigned to be either “prisoners” or “guards” using a coin flip.
The “prisoners” were picked up by surprise at their homes by actual police officers, searched, handcuffed, and brought to the mock prison.
The prisoners were stripped naked, deloused, and given smocks and stocking caps to establish their powerless status.
Each prisoner was assigned an ID number to replace their name and lived in a small cell containing only a cot for sleeping.
The “guards” worked eight-hour shifts, with three guards working each shift. Guards wore military-style uniforms and reflector sunglasses to create an anonymous, authoritative appearance.
They carried handcuffs, whistles, and billy clubs. The guards followed protocols to maintain control, including bag searches, ID checks, and setting strict schedules.
However, they could otherwise run the prison however they wished and were told to demand total compliance from prisoners.
The study was scheduled to run for 14 days.
Zimbardo intended to observe how the participants interacted in these circumstances.
He took on the role of the prison superintendent, navigating how the study would proceed. Zimbardo encouraged the guards to create an oppressive atmosphere and break down the prisoners over time.
Findings and Analysis
The experiment quickly escalated out of control as the “guards” began ramping up their harassment and authoritarian measures, while the “prisoners” passively accepted the abuse.
On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners rebelled by barricading their cell doors and taunting the guards.
The guards responded by forcibly stripping the prisoners naked and removing their beds as punishment.
One prisoner developed acute emotional disturbance and had to be released after only 36 hours.
Over the next few days, the guards escalated their aggressive and dehumanizing tactics using psychological humiliation.
They set up privilege systems to make prisoners turn on each other.
Prisoners were forced to repeat their ID numbers and do meaningless chores and exercise.
Some prisoners began showing signs of depression and acute anxiety.
The guards and prisoner “#819” came into major conflict, with the prisoner launching a hunger strike.
Prisoner #819 was then subjected to further abuse.
Zimbardo interpreted the behavior results as arising from the assigned social roles and rules dominating over individual dispositions.
The prisoners became increasingly passive, depressed, and helpless as the study went on.
The phenomenon of one domineering guard nicknamed “John Wayne” emerged through the study procedures.
Zimbardo concluded the imposed prison environment crushed internal values and morals.
Criticisms and Ethical Concerns
The Stanford Prison Experiment has been widely criticized for being unscientific and unethical.
Critics point out there was no control group to compare against the prisoner and guard group.
The sample size of only 24 male participants was also too small to draw general conclusions about human behavior.
There are major ethical concerns about the amount of psychological distress inflicted on the participants.
The prisoners showed signs of anxiety, depression, and learned helplessness. Critics argue it was unethical to allow participants to continue suffering emotional harm.
The guards were encouraged to degrade the prisoners without oversight on their methods.
The experimenters became overinvolved as the study progressed rather than remaining neutral observers.
The experiment could not be conducted today with current ethical standards.
Today’s Institutional Review Boards would never allow vulnerable participants to be subjected to such dangerous psychological manipulation without proper informed consent.
Critics argue Zimbardo was irresponsible for encouraging aggression and abuse between participants.
The dramatic, uncontrolled nature of the study design would be prohibited by today’s more stringent safeguards.
Ultimately, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed more about the problematic study procedures than any deep insights into human behavior.
While thought-provoking, the experiment is widely considered unethical and lacking in scientific rigor by today’s standards.
Legacy and Relevance Today
While the Stanford Prison Experiment faced deserved criticism, it left a legacy and continues to be referenced given the dramatics of the study.
Zimbardo’s experiment demonstrated how situational variables like social roles can override individual disposition to generate extreme behaviors.
The study shed light on how putting people in positions of power without oversight can lead to the abuse of authority.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited when discussing the psychology of imprisonment.
The study showed how prisoners can become distressed and resigned in response to an oppressive environment.
It provided insight into how regimes like concentration camps can gain control through psychological manipulation.
However, the experiment’s scientific limitations mean its conclusions should be applied cautiously.
The study informed later research into prison conditions and supervisor/subordinate dynamics.
Modern replication attempts have used more rigorous methods and ethical standards.
However, the original experiment’s dramatic narrative keeps its themes relevant when examining topics like oppression, compliance, surveillance, and dehumanization.
Zimbardo’s prison study remains impactful despite its flaws, pioneering new areas of psychology research.
While controversial, it provided a warning about unconstrained authority that still resonates over 50 years later.
