How Did The Stanford Prison Experiment Affect Zimbardo's Behavior
Stanford Prison Experiment In discussions of the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip G. Zimbardo in 1970, one controversial issue has been whether or not the experiment should have ever been attempted. On the one hand, Dr. Zimbardo and his colleagues argued that the experiment gave them a deeper understanding of human suffering and a greater empathy for their fellow man (Ratnesar 2011). On the other hand, one of the former guards contended that the experiment made him more hostile and less sympathetic during his time as a guard and that the circumstances significantly altered his perception of what was appropriate behavior. Others even maintain that the prison experiment degraded the prisoners so greatly, empowered the guards to such a great extent, and even affected Dr. Zimbardo’s behavior and mannerisms so dramatically that it thoroughly altered their sense of
…show more content…
reality. My own view of the experiment is that it did what it needed to do, to expose the changes that extreme environments and circumstances can create, despite the fact that it was only an experiment. It is the summer of 1970, you are a college age male student and looking for a way to make some extra cash. You answer an advertisement in the newspaper offering to pay fifteen dollars a day to participate in a two week experiment regarding prison confinement. Several days later you are called in for an interview. The interviewer is a kind man who asks you first, questions about your overall health next, he asks you about your mental health. Finally, he asks you about any previous criminal record and/or drug use. After you answer all of his questions, the interviewer thanks you for your time and tells you that someone will contact you soon. A few days later you get a call and the voice on the line crackles through something like “Congratulations Mr. Smith. You have been selected to participate in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We will be contacting you soon with more details.” Less than a week later, the Palo Alto Police arrive at your home, lights flashing and sirens blaring. They remove you from your home, pat you down, handcuff you, and throw you in the back of the police car to be hauled off to jail (Zimbardo 3). Once at the jail you are placed in a holding cell and blindfolded. You are then transported to the “prison” where you are stripped naked, inspected, hosed down, and deloused. You are given a pair of flip flops for your footwear, a chain around your ankle to remind you of your oppression, a gown for covering your nakedness, but no undergarments, and a ladies nylon stocking to cover your hair. Now that you feel completely humiliated, and dehumanized you are assigned a number and told that you will memorize that number, be addressed by that number, and respond when that number is called. You no longer have a name, you are no longer John Smith, and you are now prisoner number 4615. The prison cell you share with two other prisoners is barely big enough for the three cots they have placed in the room. You have enough room to lie down, or sit on your cot, but not enough room to move about. You tell yourself, “This is all just a part of the experiment, this is not real, I can get out anytime I like.” The “guards” seem reasonable, no harsh words, just procedure… you are locked in your cell for lights out. You are lying there in your cot trying to process the day and then you finally get to sleep. Suddenly you are abruptly awakened and ordered to stand at attention outside your cell door with your cellmates for a count. The lights are blinding and you aren’t completely sure where to step or where to stand, “Where am I?” you ask yourself. The guards are definitely not friendly, they yell out your number and you are required to respond, “What was my number anyway?” you ask yourself again. The guard approaches and demands, “DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY!” You attempt to get your bearings, find your way to the floor and begin to do 20 pushups. Once completed, you rise and the guard yells your number again, this time you respond in the expected manner, “4615, Mr. Correctional Officer!” Once all prisoners are accounted for, you are sent back to your cells to return to sleep. You ask yourself one more question, “What time is it, anyway?” Back to the cell, but not back to sleep, your endorphins are pumping from the twenty pushups and the yelling. How are you supposed to go back to sleep now? The prisoners were not the only ones affected by their new roles and environment, the guards had been recruited through the same advertisement as the prisoners (Zimbardo 2). In this new role one guard, in particular, took on an entirely new persona. He modeled his attitude and mannerisms after the warden in the movie “Cool Hand Luke” (Zimbardo 4). The prisoners nicknamed him “John Wayne” because of his walk and talk and cowboy-like attitude. He seemed to take pleasure in doling out punishments, and inventing successively more sadistic punishments to “keep the prisoners in line.” After some of the prisoners stacked their cots in front of the doors and refused to appear for counts, the guards took this as a personal affront to their authority, and used carbon dioxide fire extinguishers to subdue the prisoners, burst into their cells, stripped them naked, and left them with nothing in their cells. The ringleaders of the rebellion were taken into solitary confinement, a pitch black closet with only room enough to stand up in, and left there overnight (Zimbardo 5). Additional guards were required to bring the rebellion under control. After this experience, the guards realized it was unrealistic for three guards per shift to control the prisoners by purely physical means. Psychological tactics were employed by the guards to create division and suspicion between the prisoners. The use of a privilege cell created the suspicion of prisoners cooperating with the authorities (Zimbardo 5).
Rumors were spread that the prisoners had been planning a prison break, Dr. Zimbardo had taken on his role as superintendent in manner and thinking to the point that instead of observing the behavior, he requested assistance from the Palo Alto Police to transfer the prisoners to the old jail. However, because the police understood this was an experiment, they knew there was a significant liability. Zimbardo was angry at the police for the “lack of cooperation between [the two] correctional facilities” (7).
Dr. Zimbardo later revealed in an interview, “It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point -- that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist” (7). The behavior of all parties, including outsiders who became involved: family members, a prison priest, and an attorney molded their behavior to fit their responses to the perceived reality of the situation. It took a fellow researcher, Christina Aslach, upon observing the daily activities in the “prison”, to point out that the behavior of the guards and the treatment of the prisoners was subhuman and completely unacceptable (Zimbardo 8). It was this reality check, from someone not directly involved in the experiment, to point out that there was something inherently wrong in the situation. This was one crucial step in the impetus to stopping the experiment after only six days, when it was scheduled to run for two weeks.
Abu Gharib prison in the Middle East, is a reflection of this type of situation, an example of the extreme kinds of treatment that prisoners can be subjected to, when there is no oversight and no restraint placed on the guards’ authority to administer punishment. One defense given for the behavior of the guards was explained: “Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any ‘training guidelines’ that he was aware of” (Hersh 2004). When the guard no longer views the prisoner as a human being, but sees them as something less, a caged animal, then the guard is much less likely to exercise restraint, sympathy, or mercy when dealing with any sort of disobedience or challenge to authority. The conditions at Abu Ghraib were far from ideal, “As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits” (Hersh 2004). The sheer number of people crammed into this small facility, being supervised by civilians and soldiers, with little to no training on how to handle a prison environment, was unfortunately a prime opportunity for poor judgment and a lack of discretion to run rampant. The lessons learned from “The Stanford Prison Experiment” and the real life incidents that occurred at Abu Ghraib and in other prison incidents are a testimony to the problem many people have in situations with little oversight.
When people are given little to no direction or training, and are faced with dealing with people they may perceive as a threat to their own safety and the well-being of others, they have a propensity to overstep what most would consider reasonable behavior. The “guards” in the experiment were put into a position of authority and took the steps they deemed necessary to maintain order. In spite of the fact that they knew it was an experiment, they were immersed in the situation and played the role given them. The “prisoners” played their part and were so wholly immersed in the role and the environment that their entire perspective of reality was altered. They began to believe they were helpless and unable to help themselves out of the situation they found themselves. They had become powerless to change the situation, in spite of the fact that it was just an
experiment. The prison system in our country and in others, must be carefully monitored. Although prisoners should have their privilege of participating in civil society as a whole removed for the time they are incarcerated, they should not have their human rights infringed upon. The experiment at Stanford provided insight into some of the psychological changes that people experience when they are subjected to stressful, unfamiliar, and oppressive environments. It also gave a clearer view of what abuses are more likely to occur if guards are not properly trained and provided with clear guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior in dealing with prisoners. Although the Stanford experiment has been criticized by many regarding the human rights violations that were violated, and the methodology abandoned for the experiment, the revelations that resulted from the review of the experience has been invaluable in modifying how detention officials deal with prisoners. Prisoners have many privileges and venues to file claims of abuse in prisons as compared to earlier days. We have learned something about human behavior in difficult environments, but have we learned enough?
reality. My own view of the experiment is that it did what it needed to do, to expose the changes that extreme environments and circumstances can create, despite the fact that it was only an experiment. It is the summer of 1970, you are a college age male student and looking for a way to make some extra cash. You answer an advertisement in the newspaper offering to pay fifteen dollars a day to participate in a two week experiment regarding prison confinement. Several days later you are called in for an interview. The interviewer is a kind man who asks you first, questions about your overall health next, he asks you about your mental health. Finally, he asks you about any previous criminal record and/or drug use. After you answer all of his questions, the interviewer thanks you for your time and tells you that someone will contact you soon. A few days later you get a call and the voice on the line crackles through something like “Congratulations Mr. Smith. You have been selected to participate in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We will be contacting you soon with more details.” Less than a week later, the Palo Alto Police arrive at your home, lights flashing and sirens blaring. They remove you from your home, pat you down, handcuff you, and throw you in the back of the police car to be hauled off to jail (Zimbardo 3). Once at the jail you are placed in a holding cell and blindfolded. You are then transported to the “prison” where you are stripped naked, inspected, hosed down, and deloused. You are given a pair of flip flops for your footwear, a chain around your ankle to remind you of your oppression, a gown for covering your nakedness, but no undergarments, and a ladies nylon stocking to cover your hair. Now that you feel completely humiliated, and dehumanized you are assigned a number and told that you will memorize that number, be addressed by that number, and respond when that number is called. You no longer have a name, you are no longer John Smith, and you are now prisoner number 4615. The prison cell you share with two other prisoners is barely big enough for the three cots they have placed in the room. You have enough room to lie down, or sit on your cot, but not enough room to move about. You tell yourself, “This is all just a part of the experiment, this is not real, I can get out anytime I like.” The “guards” seem reasonable, no harsh words, just procedure… you are locked in your cell for lights out. You are lying there in your cot trying to process the day and then you finally get to sleep. Suddenly you are abruptly awakened and ordered to stand at attention outside your cell door with your cellmates for a count. The lights are blinding and you aren’t completely sure where to step or where to stand, “Where am I?” you ask yourself. The guards are definitely not friendly, they yell out your number and you are required to respond, “What was my number anyway?” you ask yourself again. The guard approaches and demands, “DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY!” You attempt to get your bearings, find your way to the floor and begin to do 20 pushups. Once completed, you rise and the guard yells your number again, this time you respond in the expected manner, “4615, Mr. Correctional Officer!” Once all prisoners are accounted for, you are sent back to your cells to return to sleep. You ask yourself one more question, “What time is it, anyway?” Back to the cell, but not back to sleep, your endorphins are pumping from the twenty pushups and the yelling. How are you supposed to go back to sleep now? The prisoners were not the only ones affected by their new roles and environment, the guards had been recruited through the same advertisement as the prisoners (Zimbardo 2). In this new role one guard, in particular, took on an entirely new persona. He modeled his attitude and mannerisms after the warden in the movie “Cool Hand Luke” (Zimbardo 4). The prisoners nicknamed him “John Wayne” because of his walk and talk and cowboy-like attitude. He seemed to take pleasure in doling out punishments, and inventing successively more sadistic punishments to “keep the prisoners in line.” After some of the prisoners stacked their cots in front of the doors and refused to appear for counts, the guards took this as a personal affront to their authority, and used carbon dioxide fire extinguishers to subdue the prisoners, burst into their cells, stripped them naked, and left them with nothing in their cells. The ringleaders of the rebellion were taken into solitary confinement, a pitch black closet with only room enough to stand up in, and left there overnight (Zimbardo 5). Additional guards were required to bring the rebellion under control. After this experience, the guards realized it was unrealistic for three guards per shift to control the prisoners by purely physical means. Psychological tactics were employed by the guards to create division and suspicion between the prisoners. The use of a privilege cell created the suspicion of prisoners cooperating with the authorities (Zimbardo 5).
Rumors were spread that the prisoners had been planning a prison break, Dr. Zimbardo had taken on his role as superintendent in manner and thinking to the point that instead of observing the behavior, he requested assistance from the Palo Alto Police to transfer the prisoners to the old jail. However, because the police understood this was an experiment, they knew there was a significant liability. Zimbardo was angry at the police for the “lack of cooperation between [the two] correctional facilities” (7).
Dr. Zimbardo later revealed in an interview, “It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point -- that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist” (7). The behavior of all parties, including outsiders who became involved: family members, a prison priest, and an attorney molded their behavior to fit their responses to the perceived reality of the situation. It took a fellow researcher, Christina Aslach, upon observing the daily activities in the “prison”, to point out that the behavior of the guards and the treatment of the prisoners was subhuman and completely unacceptable (Zimbardo 8). It was this reality check, from someone not directly involved in the experiment, to point out that there was something inherently wrong in the situation. This was one crucial step in the impetus to stopping the experiment after only six days, when it was scheduled to run for two weeks.
Abu Gharib prison in the Middle East, is a reflection of this type of situation, an example of the extreme kinds of treatment that prisoners can be subjected to, when there is no oversight and no restraint placed on the guards’ authority to administer punishment. One defense given for the behavior of the guards was explained: “Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any ‘training guidelines’ that he was aware of” (Hersh 2004). When the guard no longer views the prisoner as a human being, but sees them as something less, a caged animal, then the guard is much less likely to exercise restraint, sympathy, or mercy when dealing with any sort of disobedience or challenge to authority. The conditions at Abu Ghraib were far from ideal, “As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits” (Hersh 2004). The sheer number of people crammed into this small facility, being supervised by civilians and soldiers, with little to no training on how to handle a prison environment, was unfortunately a prime opportunity for poor judgment and a lack of discretion to run rampant. The lessons learned from “The Stanford Prison Experiment” and the real life incidents that occurred at Abu Ghraib and in other prison incidents are a testimony to the problem many people have in situations with little oversight.
When people are given little to no direction or training, and are faced with dealing with people they may perceive as a threat to their own safety and the well-being of others, they have a propensity to overstep what most would consider reasonable behavior. The “guards” in the experiment were put into a position of authority and took the steps they deemed necessary to maintain order. In spite of the fact that they knew it was an experiment, they were immersed in the situation and played the role given them. The “prisoners” played their part and were so wholly immersed in the role and the environment that their entire perspective of reality was altered. They began to believe they were helpless and unable to help themselves out of the situation they found themselves. They had become powerless to change the situation, in spite of the fact that it was just an
experiment. The prison system in our country and in others, must be carefully monitored. Although prisoners should have their privilege of participating in civil society as a whole removed for the time they are incarcerated, they should not have their human rights infringed upon. The experiment at Stanford provided insight into some of the psychological changes that people experience when they are subjected to stressful, unfamiliar, and oppressive environments. It also gave a clearer view of what abuses are more likely to occur if guards are not properly trained and provided with clear guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior in dealing with prisoners. Although the Stanford experiment has been criticized by many regarding the human rights violations that were violated, and the methodology abandoned for the experiment, the revelations that resulted from the review of the experience has been invaluable in modifying how detention officials deal with prisoners. Prisoners have many privileges and venues to file claims of abuse in prisons as compared to earlier days. We have learned something about human behavior in difficult environments, but have we learned enough?