What Was the Stanford Prison Experiment?
Answer
Who facilitated the Stanford Prison experiment, and what did they hope to explore?
The experiment was devised, constructed, and overseen by Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, a Stanford University professor, researcher, and psychologist. The experiment was one of many notable psychological studies that emerged from the “situationist movement”- a period of study from roughly 1960-1980 where psychologists began to test the idea of “situationism”, or the belief that human behavior is influenced by environment rather than individual personality traits (Miller). Attempting to prove or rebut this idea, Zimbardo intended to explore power dynamics within prison-like environments, specifically those between incarcerated persons and guards (APA). Were there internal factors that inclined both groups to violence, Zimbardo wondered, or did the hostile environment contribute?
How was the experiment configured, and what was the originally intended environment?
Image Credit | Image Credit | Image Credit
The experiment was meant to take place within a simulated prison environment- by constructing his own prison as opposed to simply observing an actual one, Zimbardo and his team could more accurately obtain results by selecting subjects who were entirely removed from lives of crime, substance abuse, and mental illness. The team placed an advertisement in the newspaper, calling for the participation of male college students in a psychological study. The experiment was originally intended to run for two weeks, and participants would be compensated $15 daily for their participation.
Twenty-four applicants were selected and randomly divided into groups: twelve prisoners (nine initial participants and three on-call alternates) and twelve guards (nine initial participants and three on-call alternates). As for the prison itself, it was constructed within the basement of the Stanford University Psychology Department Building, where laboratory doors were removed and retrofitted with steel bars to create prison cells. A supply closet was turned to solitary confinement, and the only “open” area of the prison was the hallway that connected them, known simply as “The Yard” (The Story). The entire laboratory was monitored through video and audio feed, giving researchers a 24/7 insight on the activities of both the prisoners and guards.
What tactics were used to dehumanize prisoners upon their incarceration?
Image Credit | Image Credit | Image Credit
On the morning of August 15, 1971, the “prisoner” population was subject to a series of surprise arrests carried out by the Palto Alto Police Department, wherein they were publicly informed of their “charges”, searched, and taken back to the station for further questioning. Upon their arrival, they were processed through the system, then blindfolded and led to holding cells to await their transfers to the “Stanford County Jail”- the name given to the setting of their experiment.
Neither the prisoners nor the guards were given any instruction on how to fulfill their roles- the guards were simply told to discipline and respond to prisoners as they saw fit, placing the prisoners at the complete mercy of their counterparts. This disparity was initially demonstrated through the prison’s intake process, wherein the prisoners were made to strip naked as they were searched once again, then deloused and given their new personas. Prisoners were assigned identification numbers that were meant to entirely replace their names, and their clothes were discarded in favor of a humiliating uniform (nylon caps to cover their hair, a dress-like smock which they were not allowed to wear undergarments beneath, and a heavy chain padlocked to one ankle). In comparison, guards wore a uniform of simple khaki and sunglasses to cover their eyes.
Prisoners’ routines were regularly interrupted by a series of “counts” imposed by the guards. They would be made to line up outside their cells, which would be inspected as they recited their identification numbers to another one of the guards. If they protested in any fashion, or their cells were deemed unsatisfactory, they were punished through completing a series of push-ups. Initially, Zimbardo expressed confusion over the punishment’s effectiveness, later stating that push-ups “were often used as a form of punishment in Nazi concentration camps” and other similar environments (The Story).
What caused the experiment to be shut down early?
Image Credit | Image Credit | Image Credit
Zimbardo described the emerging personalities of the guards as belonging to three categories: those who attempted to follow prison rules, those who attempted to treat the prisoners favorably, and those who quickly became hostile and exercised their power whenever given the opportunity to do so. On only the second day of the experiment, the prisoners tired of the guards’ cruelty and incited a rebellion, barricading themselves in their cells and cursing out the guards. Angered at the insubordination, the guards pulled a fire extinguisher from the wall and sprayed it into the cell to force prisoners away from the door until they were able to enter. They did so forcefully, removing the beds from the cells and relocating the rebellion’s ringleader into solitary confinement.
The guards aimed to create distrust between the prisoners to prevent further rebellious attempts, and so they created a “privilege cell” and randomized which prisoners were assigned to it to create additional confusion (The Story). This sudden divide between prisoners contributed to one of the prisoners, Prisoner #8612, suffering a mental breakdown so severe that he was removed from the experiment entirely and replaced with an alternate. Before he left, he informed the other prisoners that they were not permitted to quit the experiment.
Shortly after #8612’s release, rumors circulated that he was recruiting outsiders to infiltrate the prison and stop the experiment. Understandably panicked, Zimbardo and his team temporarily dismantled the setting with the intention of feigning the experiment’s conclusion when the break-in was supposed to occur. It never actually materialized, and Zimbardo realized that he’d wasted an entire day of research in being so paranoid about the experiment’s interruption. This descent too far into involvement, as well as the horrified reaction of a recent Stanford graduate student who’d come to visit the prison, led to Zimbardo ending the experiment after just six days.
How did the experiment conclude, and what was its aftermath?
Image Credit | Image Credit | Image Credit
On August 20th, 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment came to an abrupt end. Prisoners and guards were both interviewed prior to its official conclusion, and the findings of these interviews were as follows: every single prisoner was relieved to hear that the experiment was ending. They’d faced an escalation in cruelty from the guards following the rebellion, and had rapidly lost hope in any change of condition, which made them incredibly glad for the unexpected intervention. Most of the guards, however, expressed anger upon learning of the experiment's conclusion. They had been given power, and suddenly it was taken away.
The results of the experiment have largely been labeled as “inconclusive”, with the experiment as a whole gaining a reputation of being massively unethical. The situationist movement was promptly abandoned shortly prior to 1980, meaning that much of Zimbardo’s research has little weight in today’s psychological advancements. Surprisingly, even despite the extent of their suffering within the duration of the experiment, the prisoners returned to their daily lives and didn’t seem to be particularly affected by their cruel treatment moving forwards.
The Stanford Prison Experiment: Video Transcript
References
Blass, Thomas, et al. “Chapter 11: Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, Transformations, Consequences.” Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm, Psychology Press, New York, 2009, pp. 193–237.
“Demonstrating the Power of Social Situations via a Simulated Prison Experiment.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 8 June 2004, www.apa.org/topics/forensics-law-public-safety/prison.
Miller, Christian B. “Empirical Approaches to Moral Character.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 16 June 2023, plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character-empirical/.
“Stanford Prison Experiment.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 17 Oct. 2023, www.britannica.com/event/Stanford-Prison-Experiment. Accessed 05 Dec. 2023.
“Stanford Prison Experiment.” Spotlight at Stanford, exhibits.stanford.edu/spe. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023.
“The Stanford Prison Experiment: Effect of Social Roles, Norms on Behavior: Psychology.” JoVE, Journal of Visualized Experiments, www.jove.com/science-education/11054/the-stanford-prison-experiment-effect-social-roles-norms-on. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023.
“The Story: An Overview of the Experiment.” Stanford Prison Experiment, www.prisonexp.org/the-story. Accessed 18 Nov. 2023