The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison. It was conducted in 1971 by a team of psychologists led by Philip Zimbardo. Undergraduate volunteers played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but was cut short due to the rapid and alarming results it had received. The Participants/ Setting/ Procedures of the Study
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in the basement of the Psychology Department of Stanford University. The basement was turned into a mock jail by the research team led by Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo hoped by setting up certain conditions within the jail it would further promote “depersonalization, disorientation, and individualization” (statemaster.com). Twenty-one people were selected by Zimbardo and his team because they felt that they were the most …show more content…
psychologically stable. The participants in this study where mostly white, middle class males. The participants were then split into two groups: the guards and the prisoners. The research team provided the guards with a baton and uniform to simulate guards at a real prison. They were also given sunglasses so no direct eye contact could be made with prisoners. The guards worked in shifts and were allowed to return home after their shift was over. Surprisingly, many guards volunteered to take extra shifts. Before the study was conducted, Zimbardo gave a brief orientation stating that the guards could run the prison however they wanted but no physical harm could be done to the prisoners. However the guards were allowed to break the prisoners down mentally and emotionally. On the opposite side of the law, the participants who represented the prisoners were arrested from their homes at a random time and brought down to the Palo Alto Police Station where they went through the entire booking procedure as a normal criminal would. They were then moved to the mock prison and were assigned their new identities. The prisoners wore jumpsuits that didn’t fit them properly and were chained by the ankles. Zimbardo believed that this would further promote disorientation because the prisoners would be uncomfortable.
Results of the Experiment
Within a short time, both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles. The guards were adapting to their new roles faster than the prisoners. Before long, guards began to harass and torment the prisoners. They behaved in a very brutal manner and seemed to surprisingly be enjoying it. This caused other guards to join in and more prisoners would be abused. The guards were soon dehumanizing the prisoners. The guards would assign petty and meaningless tasks for the prisoners. The prisoners also adjusted to their new roles in the study. The prisoners were very cautious of the things they did and said in order to avoid the torment of the guards. They would often tell on other inmates to take some of the pressure of themselves. As time went on, the guards became more aggressive and the prisoners became more submissive. Researches discovered that “approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies” (statemaster.com). Zimbardo argued that the prisoners in the study had adopted their roles, based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even with the attached condition of forfeiting all of their experiment-participation pay. Yet, when their parole applications were all denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment even though the guards were treating them so poorly. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had adopted the prisoner identity. The experiment was ended early, within 6 days to be exact, because the conditions in which the experiment was conducted became unbearable. The guards were becoming too abusive and the prisoners were becoming more and more subjective to a passive personality. The experiment was also ended early because its morality came into question by a researcher.
Criticisms of the Experiment Since the experiment was conducted, it has been widely viewed as an unethical form of research.
Critics argued that the results from the experiment could be generalized. A psychologist named Erich Fromm disputed that a person’s personality does in fact impact their behavior when imprisoned, which disputes the experimenters’ hypothesis that the actual environment influences the person behavior in the situation. Another criticism was that since the study was a field experiment there could be no scientific controls. Zimbardo was no a natural observer because he was directly involved in the experiment by playing the warden of the prison. This in turn made his conclusions highly subjective.
Conclusion
Even though the Stanford Prison Experiment has caused high controversy within the psychology field, it still shows how certain situations can affect one’s behavior.
References
• Cherry, K. (n.d.). The Stanford Prison Experiment - Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Psychology - Complete Guide to Psychology for Students, Educators & Enthusiasts. Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
• McLeod, S. (n.d.). Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment - Simply Psychology.Simply Psychology - Articles for Students. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo
• StateMaster - Encyclopedia: Stanford prison experiment. (n.d.). StateMaster - US Statistics, State Comparisons. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Stanford-prison-experiment