Stanford Prison Study Zimbardo

Andrew McClarren
12/1/12
Stanford Prison Study Paper

The Stanford Prison Study was a very eye opening experiment because it was performed in 1971, before modern American Psychological Association guidelines were implemented. As young adults we’ve never seen anything like this experiment before. The power of this situation was exceptionally strong, especially to us. In the study, how easily normal students could be transformed into either a satanic guard or a submissive prisoner was astonishing. Some horrific things happened to the prisoners because of the power that the guards had over them. They assumed the identity of their issued number, were forced to be naked and sleep on concrete and were kept up all night. It seemed that just putting
on the uniform of an authority or an inmate affected their personality directly, influencing their behavior. “I really thought that I was incapable of this kind of behavior… while I was doing it I didn’t feel any regret, I didn’t feel any guilt. It was only until afterwards when I began to reflect on what I had done that this behavior had began to dawn on me…” said a guard from the experiment. This recount of his actions speaks about the human mind. I don’t believe that this experiment could make people show traits that they don’t actually have. The abuse of authority is a quality that had to be present in the mock guards of this experiment beforehand that the power brought out of them. They seemed surprised by their ability to act that way, but in my opinion being in the study just highlighted it. Many individuals have questioned the ethics of Dr. Zimbardo’s experiment. One can see how concerns could be raised in regards to how the prisoners were treated and any long lasting effects resulting from the study. We believe that although physically and mentally demanding, this experiment was not unethical. It should be noted that neither guard nor prisoner was bound to their role by any type of contract or threat. Their detainment was entirely voluntary and they were never truly forced to stay. If one desired to leave, he or she could do so by simply telling the superintendant that they had had enough and no longer wished to participate. Another factor that should be considered is that the experiment did not call for the brutal behavior that some of the guards displayed. Zimbardo’s briefing at the commencement of the study instructed the guards to make sure the prisoners understood that they were under constant surveillance and had absolutely no control in their situation. However, he did not once instruct the guards to belittle, insult, curse, or humiliate the prisoners. Some of the guards took it upon themselves to enact the cruel behaviors. Because this experiment happened before any regulations were made about what could happen in experiments, the harshness was handled with a significantly much more open mind than it would have been today. Now that there are laws and regulations about what psychologists can and can’t do, this experiment would not be possible to perform. Participants in a study being stripped naked and forced to do jumping jacks in the middle of the night would be viewed as too cruel or even inhumane and would not be possibly allowed.
Even if you question the ethics of the experiment, one cannot deny that the study produced very interesting results and gave great insight into human behavior.
My partner and I both agree that Zimbardo’s study was a huge step forward in the research of the human mind. This experiment shows that people have traits and behaviors contrary to those that they believe to posses and that these hidden characteristics can be manifested by one’s environment. I’m sure that many of the guards that acted maliciously towards the prisoners would have described themselves as kind, amiable people prior to the beginning of the study. Not to say that this experiment proved that they would have been lying, but rather that we all possibly have the ability to become more hostile, cold, and callous towards others if placed in certain environments. As a modern day example, we can consider nearly any war or military conflict, regardless of nationality or ethnicity or even just training. Service men and women are pushed and placed in an environment where they must change their behavior in order to survive. In Zimbardo’s study however, the environment is significantly less hostile than a war zone, so what would cause the guards to behave the way they did? Perhaps the power they had over the prisoners produced their aggressive, dominant attitudes. On the other end, the prisoners, whom in reality had no real reason to submit to the desires of the guards, became even more submissive as the study continued. A point was reached were the prisoners no longer felt bonded by their common status. Three out of four prisoners refused to stand up to the guards and surrender their sheets to help their mate that was “in the
hole.” If I was the experimenter I probably would have done things mostly the same as Zimbardo did. The only things that I would change would be that I would make sure the prisoners knew that they could leave whenever they wanted, change the location to an actual prison instead of turning the basement of the school into one, and paid the participants more money. If these changes were made I believe it would have a positive impact on the results. If I was one of the participants I couldn’t see myself acting as cruel as the guards did in the experiment. The prison probably wouldn’t have been such a crazy, unpleasant place if this experiment was to take place today. A few other variables in the experiment that could have been changed in study are the roles of the participants, or if Zimbardo secretly sparked a total prisoner revolution. It would be very interesting to see how some of the malicious guards would react if the roles were reversed.