Critique of Stanfod Prison Experiment
Serious Questions about the Stanford Prison Experiment
July 15, 2008
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) by Phil Zimbardo has been for me an example of the astonishing things that we humans are capable of. I guess as an example of human gullibility, I had not been skeptical about the experiment, which lacks quite a few scientific markers (aside from its ethical problems). During a talk by Barbara Oakley, she was asked to comment about the SPE because it showed the influence the situation and roles could have on human behavior. She responded that there are quite a few questions about this experiment and pointed us to a summary of the critique at Wikipedia. I finally had a chance to review this and am retiring another holy cow now: the experiment is, well, crap not nearly as thoroughly tested against reality as we are led to believe… (Thanks to a discussion in thecomments, I now understand that Zimbardo does deserve credit for pointing to the importance of situational influences. I still think, though, that he, at best, could use SPE for the development of hypotheses, not as support for a theory, as he seems to be doing. ).
What’s missing from the experiment that made Zimbardo famous: It cannot be replicated (how convenient); it lacked a control group and a large sample size (only 24 people participated). These are major flaws for a study that is supposedly decisive about human behavior. This is probably why it has never been published in a leading academic journal, unlike a modified follow-up experiment.
In his critique of the SPE, Erich Fromm points out that the main conclusion the researchers draw is actually not supported by their data (despite their attempts to mask that by using vague terminology like “some” and “a few” rather than the actual numbers):
The authors believe it proves that the situation alone can within a few days transform normal people into abject, submissive individuals or into ruthless sadists. It seems to me that the experiment proves,
July 15, 2008
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) by Phil Zimbardo has been for me an example of the astonishing things that we humans are capable of. I guess as an example of human gullibility, I had not been skeptical about the experiment, which lacks quite a few scientific markers (aside from its ethical problems). During a talk by Barbara Oakley, she was asked to comment about the SPE because it showed the influence the situation and roles could have on human behavior. She responded that there are quite a few questions about this experiment and pointed us to a summary of the critique at Wikipedia. I finally had a chance to review this and am retiring another holy cow now: the experiment is, well, crap not nearly as thoroughly tested against reality as we are led to believe… (Thanks to a discussion in thecomments, I now understand that Zimbardo does deserve credit for pointing to the importance of situational influences. I still think, though, that he, at best, could use SPE for the development of hypotheses, not as support for a theory, as he seems to be doing. ).
What’s missing from the experiment that made Zimbardo famous: It cannot be replicated (how convenient); it lacked a control group and a large sample size (only 24 people participated). These are major flaws for a study that is supposedly decisive about human behavior. This is probably why it has never been published in a leading academic journal, unlike a modified follow-up experiment.
In his critique of the SPE, Erich Fromm points out that the main conclusion the researchers draw is actually not supported by their data (despite their attempts to mask that by using vague terminology like “some” and “a few” rather than the actual numbers):
The authors believe it proves that the situation alone can within a few days transform normal people into abject, submissive individuals or into ruthless sadists. It seems to me that the experiment proves,
References: Bower, B. (2004). To Err Is Human. Science News, 166(7), 106-108. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database (14162177). Carter, J. S. (2004). The Scientific Method. Retrieved February 20, 2008, fromhttp://biology.clc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm Curtin, C Herek, G. M. (2008). A Brief Introduction To Sampling. Retrieved February 20, 2008, fromhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html Zimbardo, P Zimbardo, P. G. (2008). Stanford Prison Experiment: FAQs. Retrieved February 21, 2008, fromhttp://www.prisonexp.org/faq.htm http://voices.yahoo.com/the-invalidity-stanford-prison-experiment-1518103.html Critical discussion of the Stanford prison experiment rodrigo | June 29, 2012 Table of Contents [show] The Stanford prison experiment (1971) continues to be relevant in psychology for various reasons