It was a quiet Sunday morning on August 14 in 1971 in Palo Alto, California, where a prison was being constructed in the basement of Stanford University in order to test and examine the effects of simulated confinement on prisoners and guards. This would mark the start of a terrible experience for the participants of a psychology experiment that has been labeled “iconic.”
Psychologist Philip George Zimbardo was in charge of conducting a prison simulation designed to study the effects of an institution on an individual’s behavior. The case study illustrated the human brain attraction towards overriding power during a situation that can transform good people into authoritarians and sadists. The study illuminates the dark side of human nature, which can emerge under the right set of circumstances.1 There are serious objections to the findings and approaches used in this “classical” experiment. The published results of the experiment are considered by some scholars to be questionable.2 The experimental techniques that were used in order to study the effects of authoritative attitudes, roles, and social influences on the human brain were proven to be cruel and inhuman.
The prison simulation was organized using two processes: de-individualization and dehumanization. The process of de-individualization was conducted by having the guards hide behind a disguise, stripping the participants of their identity and forcing them to create a new one. Using uniforms, badges, ranks, and titles, half of the participants were placed in the role of a dominant. The guards instructed the prisoners to address to them as “Mr. Corrections Officer,” all of which fueled sadistic behaviors, which they directed toward the inmates.3 The effect of the fake “Prison Institution” dramatically influenced the behavior of the student-guards. By creating a new identity, the participants were stripped of their old identities and were encouraged to assume the role of an authoritative alpha male.4 The inmates wore gown dresses, which were undignified and stripped away their individuality by making them feel uniform and feminine. It is important to note that neither the guards nor the prisoners suffered from emotional problems before the start of the experiment. In order to keep bias to a minimum, researchers randomly assigned the participants to their roles by using the coin toss method.
The mistreatment of the inmates was a form of depersonalization, an action that stripped human characteristics or individuality from the participants.5 The punishment brought by the guards over the inmates resulted in a mental breakdown among the prisoners as they were asked to perform exhausting exercises, placed in solitary confinement, given restricted privileges and mindless activities. Was the approach to test Zimbardo’s hypothesis reasonable or too extreme? The answer is yes, because “research participant-inmates were no longer individual students, but a collective caricature of prison dwellers.”1 The imprisonment caused the prisoners to develop submissive behavior, the roles ossifying as the experiment unfolded and eventually unraveled. The extent to which the experiment was taken demonstrated that even a small period of time in confinement can cause dramatic changes in human behavior.2 The results were a clear testimony to the short-term mental repercussions in a group of seemingly healthy young men.
Zimbardo was responsible for developing a contract that stated the rules of the experiment. He gave the guards enough freedom to engage with the prisoners, but, he stated to them that they had to maintain order in the prison with no acts of violence.2 In addition, skepticism arises in Zimbardo experimental approach, which encouraged the abuse by the guards. He most certainly supported the abuse by taking on himself the role of prison superintendent. In doing so, he lost a proper perspective and reasonable judgment when conducting the experiment.
The bystander effect is a social-psychological phenomenon in which people are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present. There was evident proof of the bystander effect in the experiment, since the morality of the good guards was influenced by those who allowed the cruelest actions. The psychological aspect of the experiment proved to have some correlation to the concept of survival of the fittest; however, this does not account for the inhuman treatment. The dominant guards, who were physically and mentally abusive, created a natural hierarchy of leaders and followers, setting the stage and atmosphere for the guards to imitate and revel in the sadistic treatment of inmates. The intimidation of the alpha guards and the superintendent drove good guards to commit unexpected actions. “The inaction of others, especially the leadership, led the ‘good’ guards to conclude that the situation must be acceptable, which is an example of pluralistic ignorance and social proof.”1 The pressure of the prison forced some of the inmates to become emotionally damaged, as one of the students decided to attempt an escape. This caused a rebellion in protest of the harsh conditions of prison life. The revolt was followed by more mistreatment by the guards in order to prevent future bursts of opposition.
In the field of classical psychology, the Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most recognized and controversial experiments. The prison simulation was created to bring realism to the experiment. The participants were subjected to a series of events that emulated the arrest of an individual. Zimbardo tried to dramatized the arrest by asking the Palo Alto Police Department to arrest the students and complete a real-life booking process. The psychological pressure started by submitting the participants to a strip-search, fingerprinting, photographing, and the assignment of numbers.1
The selection process of the experiment was unbiased, as participants were thoroughly assessed for any signs of mental illness, medical disabilities, and personality or character problems.1 Their screenings were conducted in order to ensure the safety of the participants and the validity of the experiment.
The stress of the experiment has driven the scientific community to question the purpose of the experiment. What happens when you place a stable individual in an unfamiliar and stressful situation? Did the participants experience a psychotic break due to the reality of the dramatic simulation of prison life? The prisoners were neglected by the guards in various ways. For example, the convicts were sleep deprived, sexually humiliated, physically abused, and placed in solitary confinement.1 The psychological strain of the experiment drove many of the participants to leave the radical study.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was terminated on August 20, 1971, after only six days of observation. Scientists ensure that extensive interviews were conducted by professional staff on the participants in order to determine whether they were permanently affected by the experiment.2 In other words, they tested them to ensure that none suffered from any long-term effects of post-traumatic stress. Zimbardo was then forced to end the study. He debriefed the participants to understand their experience and to address any chronic mental health problems they might have.
Years after the Stanford Prison Experiment, Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland recreated the famous case study in order to test the validity of the researchers’ approach. Carnahan and McFarland’s hypothesis tested whether students who volunteered for a similar case study might exhibit similar symptoms.14 In order to gather their subjects, researchers posted an ad in the newspaper advertising the study. The message included the term “prison life” while the ad for the Stanford Prison Experiment had not. “Those who volunteered for the ‘prison study’ scored significantly higher on measures of aggressiveness and authoritarianism, which are directly related to the propensity toward aggressive abuse, and lower on empathy and altruism, which are inversely related to the propensity toward aggressive abuse.”1 The results gathered in the experiment demonstrate skepticism in the data gathered from the Stanford prison experiment, which demonstrate the relationship between a person’s behavior and the environment. The skepticism that surrounded the Stanford Prison Experiment was due to the unethical approach taken by Zimbardo. The mistreatment of the inmates was taken to the next level.1 The experiment was ended at the sixth day out of the scheduled fourteen days due to the increase in the prisoner’s mental instability and emotional trauma, and the escalating abuse of the guards. Based on the overwhelming evidence, one can see that the experiment did not prove its purpose. It was only a psychological torture to young undergraduate men.
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- David Bornus, “The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Fundamentals of a Secure Residential Environment,” Corrections Today, Vol. 78 (June 2016): 48. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- Teresa C. Kulig, Travis C. Pratt, and Francis T. Cullen, “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Case Study in Organized Skepticism,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol. 28 (March 2017): 82. ↵
- Teresa C. Kulig, Travis C. Pratt, and Francis T. Cullen, “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Case Study in Organized Skepticism,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol.28 (March 2017): 90. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- David Bornus, “The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Fundamentals of a Secure Residential Environment,” Corrections Today, Vol. 78 (June 2016): 48. ↵
- David Bornus, “The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Fundamentals of a Secure Residential Environment,” Corrections Today, Vol. 78 (June 2016): 48. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- David Bornus, “The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Fundamentals of a Secure Residential Environment,” Corrections Today, Vol. 78 (June 2016): 48. ↵
- Teresa C. Kulig, Travis C. Pratt, and Francis T. Cullen, “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Case Study in Organized Skepticism,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol.28 (March 2017): 77. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
- Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January 2016, s.v. “Stanford Prison Experiment,” by Author J. Lurigio. ↵
83 comments
Belene Cuellar
I’m a major in psychology so I’ve actually heard and watched the movie on this experiment quite a few times. It’s interesting to see how quickly the guards went into a state of authority and abused their power. I wonder who was the first guard to decide that they wanted to abuse the prisoners. What did the prisoners do when they realized that the guards where abusing their station in this experiment?
Sebastian Carnero
This is the first time I read about a research like this. I really don’t know how can you come up with something like this. I agree in the idea that at least he shouldn’t have taken the role of superintendent, someone should have kept his distance from the authoritarian role and those type of influence in order to make proper observations and ensure the safety of students.
Brianna Ford
I have never head about this, but now that I have it is really sad that the convicts were faced with physical, sexual, and mental abuse. It is hard to know that they were treated in a very inhumane way. Like I get it, they did it on convicted convicts who have done thing illegally, however they are humans as well. No one should get treated in a way where the form of punishment breaks you down in all types of form. This was however a good informative article read.
Alexis Martinez
I remember hearing about this in high school and I was always so fascinated by the fact that your behavior changes when you’re put in a position of power. I think this experiment was both informative and harmful. It helped by giving a sense of the human brain and the way it thinks when put in positions of power and submissiveness. However, the forms of punishment and the way the men were treated was inhumane.
Lorenzo Rivera
This article was extremely interesting and very well written. It was really sad to read about what exactly is going on when no one else is watching. Even tough these experiments were done on convicted criminals, it is still extremely heartbreaking that no one is really entitled to basic human rights. This form of punishment is not something that should be an option.
Marina Castro
It is very interesting how someone’s behavior changes when they are given power. The results of this experiment must have taken researchers by surprise. I had seen a movie that depicted this experiment and it was very astonishing to see how much it affected that participants. The article was very informative and very well written. The research and sources are also great.
Donte Joseph
I had been a fan of the Stanford Prison Experiment ever since I heard about it in high school. The thing that amazed me was how comfortable everyone was within their roles, with the exceptions of the deviants. Reading an article that had refreshed my memory of the events that went down was very refreshing because I don’t usually revisit the experiment. Based on what I know and studied, this article gave a very accurate explanation of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Daniela Cardona
I have always felt the Stanford Experiment to be somewhat of a touchy subject. I haven’t still been able to make my mind up as to whether or not I believe it to be an experiment gone completely wrong or not. They ended it as quickly as they realized how wrong it was going and at the time had to ethical standards in place so they technically did nothing wrong. I do think it really messed up it’s participants but at the same time it required the foundation of ethics laws in the field of psychology which have made studies cleaner and more people friendly. This article was written very well and very eloquently as to not be offensive but to really display the gravity of the event
Clarissa Gonzalez
The first time I heard about The Stanford Experiment, I was in my high school psychology class. It was considered one of the most “iconic” experiments, as said in this article. It was a brief time in that class that we were on the topic of this experiment, but reading this I got more than I originally knew. It simply explained things in a way that was easy to follow and truly gave it justice.
Luke Lopez
The Stanford Prison Experiment was an inhumane way to see the affects that this experiment generated as a result of keeping undergraduate students in a prison setting. This experiment was terminated after six days of psychological torture for the undergraduate students. Zimbardo did not care how the students were treated during his experiment, and he did not achieve anything from his experiment except the psychological torture of undergraduate students.