In 1971, one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century was conducted at Stanford. It took place in the university’s basement, which was converted to resemble a real prison. Why was this done, and what were the consequences? This article aims to answer these questions, appealing not only to psychology enthusiasts but also to any curious reader.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a social psychology study conducted by American psychologist Philip Zimbardo. He aimed to create prison conditions as close to real life as possible to study the behavior of individuals in the roles of prisoners and guards. These roles were assigned randomly by drawing lots.
Selection of Participants
There were 75 volunteers for the Stanford experiment, all of whom responded to an advertisement. Out of these, 22 men were selected. Each participant was promised $15 per day for their involvement. Candidates underwent stress resistance and physical fitness tests. Afterward, as mentioned earlier, participants were randomly divided into prisoners and guards by drawing lots.
Most participants were students living in or near Stanford, and none of them knew each other before the experiment.
Roles of Prisoner and Guard
The experiment simulated a prison environment with its rules and regulations. Prisoners were kept behind bars 24/7, housed in cells with three individuals each. Guards worked 8-hour shifts in groups of three and were present in the prison only during their shifts. Physical violence towards prisoners was strictly prohibited.
Imprisonment Process
To recreate a real arrest scenario, participants were unexpectedly detained at their homes. They were charged with various crimes, searched, handcuffed, and taken to the police station. There, they were fingerprinted, and “files” were created. Upon arrival at the prison, each prisoner was fully stripped and subjected to hygiene procedures before being dressed in prison clothes (without underwear) and placed in a cell.
The head guard read the prisoners the rules they had to obey. Prisoners were forbidden from addressing each other by name and were instead required to use the numbers on their uniforms.
Prison Conditions
According to the schedule, prisoners were fed three times a day and allowed to use the bathroom three times a day under guard supervision. They were allotted two hours daily for reading or writing letters. Visits were permitted twice a week, and they were allowed to exercise or watch movies.
Each morning began with a roll call to ensure all prisoners were present. Initially, roll calls lasted about 10 minutes but eventually extended to several hours.
Transformation of the Prison Environment
The experimental prison quickly turned into a dreadful and filthy place. It became a privilege just to take a shower or wash. Prisoners were forced to clean toilets with their bare hands. Mattresses were removed from “bad” cells, leaving prisoners to sleep on the cold floor. Sometimes, they were not fed as a form of punishment.
On the first day, the experiment proceeded calmly, but on the second day, a real riot broke out. To suppress it, guards attacked the prisoners, using fire extinguishers to spray them with carbon dioxide. Guards deliberately created situations to incite conflict among prisoners, fostering hatred between them. They also made prisoners believe there was an informer among them. These actions had a psychological effect, and no further riots occurred.
Results of the Stanford Experiment
The Stanford experiment demonstrated that the prison environment and atmosphere significantly impact the psychology of both prisoners and guards. Both groups experienced very negative emotions, with their outlook on life becoming increasingly bleak and pessimistic each day. Prisoners often behaved aggressively, and relationships between prisoners and guards were marked by insults, hostility, and humiliation.
Almost immediately, prisoners adopted a passive lifestyle, while guards showed increased activity and initiative. Verbal insults soon escalated to physical violence, becoming a common form of interaction between “guards” and “prisoners.”
Early Release
The intense emotional and physical pressure during the experiment led to the early release of five prisoners. They were in a state of deep depression and nervous excitement. Four of them showed these symptoms by the second day of the experiment, and the fifth had to be released due to a rash on his skin.
Behavior of the Guards
The Stanford experiment was initially planned to last 14 days, but Philip Zimbardo had to stop it on the sixth day. The prisoners were overjoyed by this decision, while the guards were quite frustrated that the experiment was terminated.
The guards had so deeply immersed themselves in their roles that it was difficult for them to part with their positions. Interestingly, one guard even expressed sympathy for the prisoners and wanted to ask Zimbardo to transfer him to the prisoner group.
Notably, the guards often arrived to work on time and sometimes even worked overtime without expecting any extra compensation.
Differences in Participant Behavior
The pathological reactions observed in both groups highlighted the powerful influence of social forces. Through the Stanford experiment, Philip Zimbardo showcased individual differences among people.
Some participants adapted to the environment, while for others, it turned into a nightmare. While some guards were strictly fair to the prisoners, others exceeded their duties and displayed extreme cruelty.
As a result, half of the participants reached a severely distressed state within just six days. The guards humiliated the prisoners, denied them access to the bathroom, and deprived them of sleep.
The experiment had to be stopped when the situation began to spiral out of control.
Controversial Evaluation of the Stanford Experiment
This famous experiment made Philip Zimbardo internationally renowned. His study caused a significant stir in both scientific and public circles. However, some scholars criticized Zimbardo for not considering ethical and moral standards during the research.
Moreover, he was accused of putting young individuals in extreme conditions. Zimbardo himself admitted that he could never have anticipated the outcome of the Stanford experiment.
Ultimately, the American Psychological Association concluded that such studies should not be conducted in the future. Philip Zimbardo agreed with this position.
Books and both documentary and feature films have been made about the Stanford experiment. It remains a topic of heated debate even among the former participants.
The psychologist maintained that his goal was to study people’s reactions to the restriction of freedom. He was more interested in the behavior of prisoners than that of the guards.
Role of Christina Maslach
During the experiment, Christina Maslach was Philip Zimbardo’s fiancée. It was she who urged her fiancé to immediately stop the unusual Stanford experiment.
Initially, Christina didn’t find anything peculiar about Zimbardo’s ideas. However, this changed when she went down to the basement herself and saw the horrifying reality of the experiment.
Christina was shocked by the behavior of the man she was soon to marry. It became clear to her that Philip had become a victim of his own research, wielding unlimited power over the mock prisoners.
That very day, Christina Maslach told Zimbardo that if he didn’t immediately stop the experiment, their relationship would end. Philip listened to her, and the next day, the experiment was officially terminated.
The Most Cruel Guard
The most brutal guard was Dave Eshelman, who later became a mortgage business owner. When he participated in the Stanford experiment, Dave wanted to create some “action” to get media attention.
According to Eshelman, he deliberately behaved cruelly to make the Stanford experiment as interesting and demonstrative as possible. His acting skills, honed in theater school, helped him portray a wicked and cynical guard.
Dave was curious about how long the prisoners would tolerate his antics and mistreatment. He was surprised that no one tried to stop him, a scenario reminiscent of the Stockholm syndrome.
Opinion of Richard Yacco
Richard participated in the experiment as a prisoner. The first thing that confused him was that the guards didn’t let them sleep. They woke them up, made them do physical exercises, and then left them briefly.
Richard Yacco also joined the above-mentioned rebellion, stating that their strength lay in the unity of the prisoners.
When his nerves began to fray, he asked the organizers to let him leave the experiment early, but they reminded him that he had agreed to participate and would have to play his role to the end.
At that moment, Richard truly understood what prisoners feel like in jail.
Nevertheless, he was released early. The committee deemed him to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Up until that time, Richard Yacco thought he had high stress tolerance.
Utilization of the Results
It should be noted that participants in the Stanford experiment had mixed opinions about its outcomes. Later, they had varying attitudes toward Philip Zimbardo, while they regarded Christina Maslach as their savior.
The results of this study have been used to demonstrate people’s obedience and susceptibility when supported by a state-backed and socially justified ideology.
In 2001 and 2010, two films with the identical title “The Experiment” were released.
Expanded Context and Legacy
The Stanford Prison Experiment has left a profound mark on the field of psychology and beyond. It highlighted the power of situational influences over individual personality traits. The experiment showed that ordinary people could engage in extraordinarily cruel behavior when placed in positions of authority and within a conducive environment.
Ethical Considerations and Criticism
The ethical implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment have been widely debated. Critics argue that Zimbardo failed to protect participants from psychological harm and that he did not adequately anticipate the potential severity of the outcomes.
The lack of informed consent regarding the extent of the stress and the conditions the participants would endure was a significant ethical lapse.
Changes in Ethical Standards
As a result of the Stanford Prison Experiment and other controversial studies of the time, ethical standards in psychological research were significantly tightened.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) now have stringent guidelines to protect participants’ well-being, requiring more comprehensive informed consent processes and continuous monitoring of participants’ mental and physical health throughout the study.
Influence on Popular Culture
The experiment has inspired numerous books, films, and discussions, making it a cultural touchstone in exploring human nature and authority dynamics. Its portrayal in media often focuses on the dramatic and disturbing aspects, emphasizing the ease with which ordinary people can commit harmful acts under certain conditions.
Ongoing Relevance
The findings from the Stanford Prison Experiment remain relevant in discussions about prison reform, military conduct, and organizational behavior. It serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for institutional abuse and the importance of checks and balances in systems of power.
Zimbardo’s Reflections
In the years following the experiment, Zimbardo has reflected on its implications and his role in it. He acknowledges the experiment’s ethical shortcomings and has worked to apply its lessons in broader contexts, such as his research on heroism and his efforts to promote positive social change.
Overall, the Stanford Prison Experiment continues to be a pivotal study in understanding the interaction between individual dispositions and situational pressures, shaping the discourse on human behavior and ethics in research.