stanford prison experiment benefits

Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo’s Famous Study

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

• The experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to examine situational forces versus dispositions in human behavior.
• 24 young, healthy, psychologically normal men were randomly assigned to be “prisoners” or “guards” in a simulated prison environment.
• The experiment had to be terminated after only 6 days due to the extreme, pathological behavior emerging in both groups. The situational forces overwhelmed the dispositions of the participants.
• Pacifist young men assigned as guards began behaving sadistically, inflicting humiliation and suffering on the prisoners. Prisoners became blindly obedient and allowed themselves to be dehumanized.
• The principal investigator, Zimbardo, was also transformed into a rigid authority figure as the Prison Superintendent.
• The experiment demonstrated the power of situations to alter human behavior dramatically. Even good, normal people can do evil things when situational forces push them in that direction.

Zimbardo and his colleagues (1973) were interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e., dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e., situational).

For example, prisoners and guards may have personalities that make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and order and guards being domineering and aggressive.

Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons.

Zimbardo predicted the situation made people act the way they do rather than their disposition (personality).

To study people’s roles in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison.

He advertised asking for volunteers to participate in a study of the psychological effects of prison life.

The 75 applicants who answered the ad were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse.

24 men judged to be the most physically & mentally stable, the most mature, & the least involved in antisocial behaviors were chosen to participate.

The participants did not know each other prior to the study and were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were two reserves, and one dropped out, finally leaving ten prisoners and 11 guards.

Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked.’

Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells. Here the deindividuation process began.

When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only.

The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number.

Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.

All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible.

Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was permitted.

Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.

Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Asserting Authority

Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to harass prisoners. At 2:30 A.M. prisoners were awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many “counts.”

The counts served as a way to familiarize the prisoners with their numbers. More importantly, they provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners.

The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards.

They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.

Physical Punishment

The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized.

Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards. One of the guards stepped on the prisoners” backs while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit on the backs of fellow prisoners doing their push-ups.

Asserting Independence

Because the first day passed without incident, the guards were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion which broke out on the morning of the second day.

During the second day of the experiment, the prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door.

The guards called in reinforcements. The three guards who were waiting on stand-by duty came in and the night shift guards voluntarily remained on duty.

Putting Down the Rebellion

The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out.

The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary confinement. After this, the guards generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.

Special Privileges

One of the three cells was designated as a “privilege cell.” The three prisoners least involved in the rebellion were given special privileges. The guards gave them back their uniforms and beds and allowed them to wash their hair and brush their teeth.

Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in the presence of the other prisoners who had temporarily lost the privilege of eating. The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.

Consequences of the Rebellion

Over the next few days, the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.

As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive.

As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything, so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.

Prisoner #8612

Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage.

After a meeting with the guards where they told him he was weak, but offered him “informant” status, #8612 returned to the other prisoners and said “You can”t leave. You can’t quit.”

Soon #8612 “began to act ‘crazy,’ to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control.” It wasn’t until this point that the psychologists realized they had to let him out.

A Visit from Parents

The next day, the guards held a visiting hour for parents and friends. They were worried that when the parents saw the state of the jail, they might insist on taking their sons home. Guards washed the prisoners, had them clean and polish their cells, fed them a big dinner and played music on the intercom.

After the visit, rumors spread of a mass escape plan. Afraid that they would lose the prisoners, the guards and experimenters tried to enlist help and facilities of the Palo Alto police department.

The guards again escalated the level of harassment, forcing them to do menial, repetitive work such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands.

Catholic Priest

Zimbardo invited a Catholic priest who had been a prison chaplain to evaluate how realistic our prison situation was. Half of the prisoners introduced themselves by their number rather than name.

The chaplain interviewed each prisoner individually. The priest told them the only way they would get out was with the help of a lawyer.

Prisoner #819

Eventually, while talking to the priest, #819 broke down and began to cry hysterically, just like two previously released prisoners had.

The psychologists removed the chain from his foot, the cap off his head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the prison yard. They told him they would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor.

While this was going on, one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud:

“Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer.”

The psychologists realized #819 could hear the chanting and went back into the room where they found him sobbing uncontrollably. The psychologists tried to get him to agree to leave the experiment, but he said he could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner.

Back to Reality

At that point, Zimbardo said, “Listen, you are not #819. You are [his name], and my name is Dr. Zimbardo. I am a psychologist, not a prison superintendent, and this is not a real prison. This is just an experiment, and those are students, not prisoners, just like you. Let’s go.”

He stopped crying suddenly, looked up and replied, “Okay, let’s go,“ as if nothing had been wrong.

An End to the Experiment

Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for two weeks, but on the sixth day, it was terminated, due to the emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression of the guards.

Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards.

Filled with outrage, she said, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.

Zimbardo (2008) later noted, “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.“

This led him to prioritize maintaining the experiment’s structure over the well-being and ethics involved, thereby highlighting the blurring of roles and the profound impact of the situation on human behavior.

Here’s a quote that illustrates how Philip Zimbardo, initially the principal investigator, became deeply immersed in his role as the “Stanford Prison Superintendent (April 19, 2011):

“By the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of “Stanford Prison Superintendent.” And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics. When a prisoner broke down, what was my job? It was to replace him with somebody on our standby list. And that’s what I did. There was a weakness in the study in not separating those two roles. I should only have been the principal investigator, in charge of two graduate students and one undergraduate.”

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards.

Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal lives.

The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study).

Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one.

Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner’s “final submission.”

Deindividuation may explain the behavior of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.

The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm. They also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore.

Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner’s submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.

After the prison experiment was terminated, Zimbardo interviewed the participants. Here’s an excerpt:

‘Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed. The research had felt “real” to them. One guard said, “I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something.” Another guard said “Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure.” And another: “… during the inspection I went to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to let me mess it up. He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry.”’

Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutal ways that they had. Many said they hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things.

The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had responded in the submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to be assertive types normally.

When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.

A further explanation for the behavior of the participants can be described in terms of reinforcement.  The escalation of aggression and abuse by the guards could be seen as being due to the positive reinforcement they received both from fellow guards and intrinsically in terms of how good it made them feel to have so much power.

Similarly, the prisoners could have learned through negative reinforcement that if they kept their heads down and did as they were told, they could avoid further unpleasant experiences.

Critical Evaluation

Ecological validity.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is criticized for lacking ecological validity in its attempt to simulate a real prison environment. Specifically, the “prison” was merely a setup in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department.

The student “guards” lacked professional training, and the experiment’s duration was much shorter than real prison sentences. Furthermore, the participants, who were college students, didn’t reflect the diverse backgrounds typically found in actual prisons in terms of ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status.

None had prior prison experience, and they were chosen due to their mental stability and low antisocial tendencies. Additionally, the mock prison lacked spaces for exercise or rehabilitative activities.

Demand characteristics

Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behavior may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behavior in real life. This means the study’s findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e, the study has low ecological validity.

One of the biggest criticisms is that strong demand characteristics confounded the study. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) found that the majority of respondents, when given a description of the study, were able to guess the hypothesis and predict how participants were expected to behave.

This suggests participants may have simply been playing out expected roles rather than genuinely conforming to their assigned identities.

In addition, revelations by Zimbardo (2007) indicate he actively encouraged the guards to be cruel and oppressive in his orientation instructions prior to the start of the study. For example, telling them “they [the prisoners] will be able to do nothing and say nothing that we don’t permit.”

He also tacitly approved of abusive behaviors as the study progressed. This deliberate cueing of how participants should act, rather than allowing behavior to unfold naturally, indicates the study findings were likely a result of strong demand characteristics rather than insightful revelations about human behavior.

However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. For example, 90% of the prisoners’ private conversations, which were monitored by the researchers, were on the prison conditions, and only 10% of the time were their conversations about life outside of the prison.

The guards, too, rarely exchanged personal information during their relaxation breaks – they either talked about ‘problem prisoners,’ other prison topics, or did not talk at all. The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay.

When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out.

Fourteen years after his experience as prisoner 8612 in the Stanford Prison Experiment, Douglas Korpi, now a prison psychologist, reflected on his time and stated (Musen and Zimbardo 1992):

“The Stanford Prison Experiment was a very benign prison situation and it promotes everything a normal prison promotes — the guard role promotes sadism, the prisoner role promotes confusion and shame”.

Sample bias

The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The study’s findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture (where people are generally less conforming), and the results may be different in collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).

Carnahan and McFarland (2007) have questioned whether self-selection may have influenced the results – i.e., did certain personality traits or dispositions lead some individuals to volunteer for a study of “prison life” in the first place?

All participants completed personality measures assessing: aggression, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, social dominance, empathy, and altruism. Participants also answered questions on mental health and criminal history to screen out any issues as per the original SPE.

Results showed that volunteers for the prison study, compared to the control group, scored significantly higher on aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance. They scored significantly lower on empathy and altruism.

A follow-up role-playing study found that self-presentation biases could not explain these differences. Overall, the findings suggest that volunteering for the prison study was influenced by personality traits associated with abusive tendencies.

Zimbardo’s conclusion may be wrong

While implications for the original SPE are speculative, this lends support to a person-situation interactionist perspective, rather than a purely situational account.

It implies that certain individuals are drawn to and selected into situations that fit their personality, and that group composition can shape behavior through mutual reinforcement.

Contributions to psychology

Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participants led to the formal recognition of ethical  guidelines by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented.

Most institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and government agencies, require a review of research plans by a panel. These boards review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These boards may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure, or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

Contribution to prison policy

A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).

However, in the 25 years since the SPE, U.S. prison policy has transformed in ways counter to SPE insights (Haney & Zimbardo, 1995):

• Rehabilitation was abandoned in favor of punishment and containment. Prison is now seen as inflicting pain rather than enabling productive re-entry.
• Sentencing became rigid rather than accounting for inmates’ individual contexts. Mandatory minimums and “three strikes” laws over-incarcerate nonviolent crimes.
• Prison construction boomed, and populations soared, disproportionately affecting minorities. From 1925 to 1975, incarceration rates held steady at around 100 per 100,000. By 1995, rates tripled to over 600 per 100,000.
• Drug offenses account for an increasing proportion of prisoners. Nonviolent drug offenses make up a large share of the increased incarceration.
• Psychological perspectives have been ignored in policymaking. Legislators overlooked insights from social psychology on the power of contexts in shaping behavior.
• Oversight retreated, with courts deferring to prison officials and ending meaningful scrutiny of conditions. Standards like “evolving decency” gave way to “legitimate” pain.
• Supermax prisons proliferated, isolating prisoners in psychological trauma-inducing conditions.

The authors argue psychologists should reengage to:

• Limit the use of imprisonment and adopt humane alternatives based on the harmful effects of prison environments
• Assess prisons’ total environments, not just individual conditions, given situational forces interact
• Prepare inmates for release by transforming criminogenic post-release contexts
• Address socioeconomic risk factors, not just incarcerate individuals
• Develop contextual prediction models vs. focusing only on static traits
• Scrutinize prison systems independently, not just defer to officials shaped by those environments
• Generate creative, evidence-based reforms to counter over-punitive policies

Psychology once contributed to a more humane system and can again counter the U.S. “rage to punish” with contextual insights (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998).

Evidence for situational factors

Zimbardo (1995) further demonstrates the power of situations to elicit evil actions from ordinary, educated people who likely would never have done such things otherwise. It was another situation-induced “transformation of human character.”

• Unit 731 was a covert biological and chemical warfare research unit of the Japanese army during WWII.
• It was led by General Shiro Ishii and involved thousands of doctors and researchers.
• Unit 731 set up facilities near Harbin, China to conduct lethal human experimentation on prisoners, including Allied POWs.
• Experiments involved exposing prisoners to things like plague, anthrax, mustard gas, and bullets to test biological weapons. They infected prisoners with diseases and monitored their deaths.
• At least 3,000 prisoners died from these brutal experiments. Many were killed and dissected.
• The doctors in Unit 731 obeyed orders unquestioningly and conducted these experiments in the name of “medical science.”
• After the war, the vast majority of doctors who participated faced no punishment and went on to have prestigious careers. This was largely covered up by the U.S. in exchange for data.
• It shows how normal, intelligent professionals can be led by situational forces to systematically dehumanize victims and conduct incredibly cruel and lethal experiments on people.
• Even healers trained to preserve life used their expertise to destroy lives when the situational forces compelled obedience, nationalism, and wartime enmity.

Evidence for an interactionist approach

The results are also relevant for explaining abuses by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

An interactionist perspective recognizes that volunteering for roles as prison guards attracts those already prone to abusive tendencies, which are intensified by the prison context.

This counters a solely situationist view of good people succumbing to evil situational forces.

Ethical Issues

The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being “arrested” at home. The prisoners were not told partly because final approval from the police wasn’t given until minutes before the participants decided to participate, and partly because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise. However, this was a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all of the participants had signed.

Protection of Participants

Participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying, and anger.

Here’s a quote from Philip G. Zimbardo, taken from an interview on the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th anniversary (April 19, 2011):

“In the Stanford prison study, people were stressed, day and night, for 5 days, 24 hours a day. There’s no question that it was a high level of stress because five of the boys had emotional breakdowns, the first within 36 hours. Other boys that didn’t have emotional breakdowns were blindly obedient to corrupt authority by the guards and did terrible things to each other. And so it is no question that that was unethical. You can’t do research where you allow people to suffer at that level.”

“After the first one broke down, we didn’t believe it. We thought he was faking. There was actually a rumor he was faking to get out. He was going to bring his friends in to liberate the prison. And/or we believed our screening procedure was inadequate, [we believed] that he had some mental defect that we did not pick up. At that point, by the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of “Stanford Prison Superintendent.” And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics.”

However, in Zimbardo’s defense, the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset.

Approval for the study was given by the Office of Naval Research, the Psychology Department, and the University Committee of Human Experimentation.

This Committee also did not anticipate the prisoners’ extreme reactions that were to follow. Alternative methodologies were looked at that would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.

Withdrawal 

Although guards were explicitly instructed not to physically harm prisoners at the beginning of the Stanford Prison Experiment, they were allowed to induce feelings of boredom, frustration, arbitrariness, and powerlessness among the inmates.

This created a pervasive atmosphere where prisoners genuinely believed and even reinforced among each other, that they couldn’t leave the experiment until their “sentence” was completed, mirroring the inescapability of a real prison.

Even though two participants (8612 and 819) were released early, the impact of the environment was so profound that prisoner 416, reflecting on the experience two months later, described it as a “prison run by psychologists rather than by the state.”

Extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held, and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, and then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects.

Zimbardo also strongly argues that the benefits gained from our understanding of human behavior and how we can improve society should outbalance the distress caused by the study.

However, it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were, in fact, more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.

Discussion Questions

What are the effects of living in an environment with no clocks, no view of the outside world, and minimal sensory stimulation?

Consider the psychological consequences of stripping, delousing, and shaving the heads of prisoners or members of the military. Whattransformations take place when people go through an experience like this?

The prisoners could have left at any time, and yet, they didn’t. Why?

After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt?

If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you have conducted a follow-up study?

Frequently Asked Questions

What happened to prisoner 8612 after the experiment.

Douglas Korpi, as prisoner 8612, was the first to show signs of severe distress and demanded to be released from the experiment. He was released on the second day, and his reaction to the simulated prison environment highlighted the study’s ethical issues and the potential harm inflicted on participants.

After the experiment, Douglas Korpi graduated from Stanford University and earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. He pursued a career as a psychotherapist, helping others with their mental health struggles.

Why did Zimbardo not stop the experiment?

Zimbardo did not initially stop the experiment because he became too immersed in his dual role as the principal investigator and the prison superintendent, causing him to overlook the escalating abuse and distress among participants.

It was only after an external observer, Christina Maslach, raised concerns about the participants’ well-being that Zimbardo terminated the study.

What happened to the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards exhibited abusive and authoritarian behavior, using psychological manipulation, humiliation, and control tactics to assert dominance over the prisoners. This ultimately led to the study’s early termination due to ethical concerns.

What did Zimbardo want to find out?

Zimbardo aimed to investigate the impact of situational factors and power dynamics on human behavior, specifically how individuals would conform to the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment.

He wanted to explore whether the behavior displayed in prisons was due to the inherent personalities of prisoners and guards or the result of the social structure and environment of the prison itself.

What were the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

The results of the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that situational factors and power dynamics played a significant role in shaping participants’ behavior. The guards became abusive and authoritarian, while the prisoners became submissive and emotionally distressed.

The experiment revealed how quickly ordinary individuals could adopt and internalize harmful behaviors due to their assigned roles and the environment.

Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30 , 152-160.

Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 603-614.

Drury, S., Hutchens, S. A., Shuttlesworth, D. E., & White, C. L. (2012). Philip G. Zimbardo on his career and the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th anniversary.  History of Psychology ,  15 (2), 161.

Griggs, R. A., & Whitehead, G. I., III. (2014). Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory social psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 41 , 318 –324.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison . Naval Research Review , 30, 4-17.

Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment.  American Psychologist, 53 (7), 709–727.

Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. (1992) (DVD) Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment Documentary.

Zimbardo, P. G. (Consultant, On-Screen Performer), Goldstein, L. (Producer), & Utley, G. (Correspondent). (1971, November 26). Prisoner 819 did a bad thing: The Stanford Prison Experiment [Television series episode]. In L. Goldstein (Producer), Chronolog. New York, NY: NBC-TV.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment.  Cognition ,  2 (2), 243-256.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts.  Japanese Journal of Social Psychology ,  11 (2), 125-133.

Zimbardo, P.G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil . New York, NY: Random House.

Further Information

• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 45 , 1.
• Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks
• The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Website

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

• Participants
• Setting and Procedure

In August of 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues created an experiment to determine the impacts of being a prisoner or prison guard. The Stanford Prison Experiment, also known as the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, went on to become one of the best-known studies in psychology's history —and one of the most controversial.

This study has long been a staple in textbooks, articles, psychology classes, and even movies. Learn what it entailed, what was learned, and the criticisms that have called the experiment's scientific merits and value into question.

Purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo was a former classmate of the psychologist Stanley Milgram . Milgram is best known for his famous obedience experiment , and Zimbardo was interested in expanding upon Milgram's research. He wanted to further investigate the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

Specifically, the researchers wanted to know how participants would react when placed in a simulated prison environment. They wondered if physically and psychologically healthy people who knew they were participating in an experiment would change their behavior in a prison-like setting.

Participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment

To carry out the experiment, researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building. They then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards.

Participants were chosen from a larger group of 70 volunteers based on having no criminal background, no psychological issues , and no significant medical conditions. Each volunteer agreed to participate in the Stanford Prison Experiment for one to two weeks in exchange for $15 a day.

Setting and Procedures

The simulated prison included three six-by-nine-foot prison cells. Each cell held three prisoners and included three cots. Other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the jail guards and warden. One tiny space was designated as the solitary confinement room, and yet another small room served as the prison yard.

The 24 volunteers were randomly assigned to either the prisoner or guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24 hours a day during the study. Guards were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, they were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift.

Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

So what happened in the Zimbardo experiment? While originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety .

It was noted that:

• While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were hostile or even dehumanizing.
• The guards began to become aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive and depressed.
• Five of the prisoners began to experience severe negative emotions , including crying and acute anxiety, and had to be released from the study early.

Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the jail guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment.

One possible explanation for the results of this experiment is the idea of deindividuation , which states that being part of a large group can make us more likely to perform behaviors we would otherwise not do on our own.

Impact of the Zimbardo Prison Experiment

The experiment became famous and was widely cited in textbooks and other publications. According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior.

Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not usually act in their everyday lives or other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control , became submissive and depressed.

In 2011, the Stanford Alumni Magazine featured a retrospective of the Stanford Prison Experiment in honor of the experiment’s 40th anniversary. The article contained interviews with several people involved, including Zimbardo and other researchers as well as some of the participants.

In the interviews, Richard Yacco, one of the prisoners in the experiment, suggested that the experiment demonstrated the power that societal roles and expectations can play in a person's behavior.

In 2015, the experiment became the topic of a feature film titled The Stanford Prison Experiment that dramatized the events of the 1971 study.

Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

In the years since the experiment was conducted, there have been a number of critiques of the study. Some of these include:

Ethical Issues

The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited as an example of unethical research. It could not be replicated by researchers today because it fails to meet the standards established by numerous ethical codes, including the Code of Ethics of the American Psychological Association .

Why was Zimbardo's experiment unethical?

Zimbardo's experiment was unethical due to a lack of fully informed consent, abuse of participants, and lack of appropriate debriefings. More recent findings suggest there were other significant ethical issues that compromise the experiment's scientific standing, including the fact that experimenters may have encouraged abusive behaviors.

Lack of Generalizability

Other critics suggest that the study lacks generalizability due to a variety of factors. The unrepresentative sample of participants (mostly white and middle-class males) makes it difficult to apply the results to a wider population.

Lack of Realism

The Zimbardo Prison Experiment is also criticized for its lack of ecological validity. Ecological validity refers to the degree of realism with which a simulated experimental setup matches the real-world situation it seeks to emulate.

While the researchers did their best to recreate a prison setting, it is simply not possible to perfectly mimic all the environmental and situational variables of prison life. Because there may have been factors related to the setting and situation that influenced how the participants behaved, it may not truly represent what might happen outside of the lab.

Recent Criticisms

More recent examination of the experiment's archives and interviews with participants have revealed major issues with the research method , design, and procedures used. Together, these call the study's validity, value, and even authenticity into question.

These reports, including examinations of the study's records and new interviews with participants, have also cast doubt on some of its key findings and assumptions.

Among the issues described:

• One participant suggested that he faked a breakdown so he could leave the experiment because he was worried about failing his classes.
• Other participants also reported altering their behavior in a way designed to "help" the experiment .
• Evidence suggests that the experimenters encouraged the guards' behavior and played a role in fostering the abusive actions of the guards.

In 2019, the journal American Psychologist published an article debunking the famed experiment. It detailed the study's lack of scientific merit and concluded that the Stanford Prison Experiment was "an incredibly flawed study that should have died an early death."

In a statement posted on the experiment's official website, Zimbardo maintains that these criticisms do not undermine the main conclusion of the study—that situational forces can alter individual actions both in positive and negative ways.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is well known both inside and outside the field of psychology . While the study has long been criticized for many reasons, more recent criticisms of the study's procedures shine a brighter light on the experiment's scientific shortcomings.

Stanford University. About the Stanford Prison Experiment .

Stanford Prison Experiment. 2. Setting up .

Sommers T. An interview with Philip Zimbardo . The Believer.

Ratnesar R. The menace within . Stanford Magazine.

Jabbar A, Muazzam A, Sadaqat S. An unveiling the ethical quandaries: A critical analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment as a mirror of Pakistani society . J Bus Manage Res . 2024;3(1):629-638.

Horn S. Landmark Stanford Prison Experiment criticized as a sham . Prison Legal News .

Bartels JM. The Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks: A content analysis .  Psychol Learn Teach . 2015;14(1):36-50. doi:10.1177/1475725714568007

American Psychological Association. Ecological validity .

Blum B. The lifespan of a lie . Medium .

Le Texier T. Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment . Am Psychol . 2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401

Stanford Prison Experiment. Philip Zimbardo's response to recent criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

More From Forbes

The stanford prison experiment and its enduring lessons on authority.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

A new Nat Geo docuseries explores what really went on during the infamous Stanford Prison ... [+] Experiment.

In 1971, a groundbreaking experiment was conducted in the basement of Stanford University, aiming to unearth dark truths about power, authority, and the human psyche. This study, known as the Stanford Prison Experiment , has captivated and horrified the world for over five decades, becoming a staple in psychology courses and pop culture as a stark warning about how quickly people can become oppressive under the right conditions. But was the story as straightforward as it seemed?

I am familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment—or at least, I am familiar with the common myths that are perpetuated about it. So, I was very interested when the Nat Geo team told me about this docuseries, and revealed that the actual participants are providing a behind-the-scenes perspective after all these years.

The new Nat Geo docuseries, “The Stanford Prison Experiment: Unlocking the Truth,” revisits this infamous study with fresh eyes, revealing untold perspectives and challenging the entrenched narrative around it. Through candid interviews with former participants, we see a new angle on the experiment’s ethical ambiguities and its complex psychological impact.

I had an opportunity to speak with two of them, Dave Eshleman (a “guard”) and Clay Ramsay (a “prisoner”). Their reflections paint a picture of manipulation, blurred ethical lines, and a study that may have revealed less about human nature than about the dangers of constructed power dynamics.

Breaking Down the Myth

The Stanford Prison Experiment is often summarized as a stark demonstration of how easily ordinary people can commit extraordinary cruelties when given authority. Under Dr. Philip Zimbardo's guidance, 24 students were assigned roles as either guards or prisoners and were placed in a simulated prison environment that was ostensibly planned to run for two weeks. What followed were six days of escalating mistreatment by the guards, leading Zimbardo to end the experiment prematurely. Over the years, this has been taken as proof that anyone, under the right conditions, can become an oppressor.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

RECREATION - A Stanford Prison Experiment guard blows a whistle in prisoners faces. (National ... [+] Geographic/Katrina Marcinowski)

But as Eshleman and Ramsay reveal, the reality was more complicated. Eshleman recalls that he adopted his “mean guard” persona to meet Zimbardo’s expectations. "After the first day, I sensed that, unless things changed, the experiment would not succeed,” he shared, explaining that he felt compelled to push boundaries, partly influenced by his background in theater. According to Eshleman, his portrayal of a brutal guard wasn’t merely a descent into cruelty—it was a performance, shaped by the perceived demands of the experiment’s leaders. As he reflects, he sees himself as having been manipulated into fulfilling a role more than revealing a dark truth about himself.

Ramsay, who was assigned the role of a prisoner, was equally shocked by the conditions he encountered. When he first entered the “prison,” he anticipated a controlled academic study, not the intense psychological strain he endured. His decision to go on a hunger strike was born out of frustration with what he saw as the experiment’s exploitative nature. “I did that only because I was certain that I had to create some kind of fear of consequences in the experimenters,” he shared. Reflecting on the psychological toll, Ramsay now feels that much of the trauma came not from the experiment itself but from its ongoing notoriety and the way Zimbardo used their experiences to bolster his career and reputation in psychology.

RECREATION - Stanford Prison Experiment prisoners attempt an escape. (National Geographic/Katrina ... [+] Marcinowski)

Together, these perspectives dismantle the simplistic narrative of ordinary people revealing latent cruelty, instead suggesting a story of manipulation and carefully constructed roles. Eshleman and Ramsay’s accounts, as well as the insights from other participants throughout the docuseries, raise significant questions about whether the behaviors exhibited were the result of human nature or the design of the experiment itself.

Power, Authority, and the Manipulation of Human Behavior

The Stanford Prison Experiment was intentionally set up to enforce rigid power hierarchies. Participants like Eshleman and Ramsay weren’t left to discover their roles naturally; instead, they were explicitly guided into behaviors that fit Zimbardo’s vision for the study. From the beginning, Zimbardo’s role as both designer and “warden” gave him immense authority, a power that likely influenced how participants felt they should behave.

RECREATION - A Stanford Prison Experiment guard deploys a fire extinguisher. (National ... [+] Geographic/Katrina Marcinowski)

Eshleman, for instance, describes feeling as though he was part of the research team rather than just a subject, and he believed it was his responsibility to ensure the experiment’s success. He recalls adopting an aggressive stance because he felt it would help Zimbardo achieve his goals. Ramsay, too, describes feeling a disconnect between his initial expectations and the intensity of his experience as a prisoner. Both felt their actions were constrained by Zimbardo’s expectations, an ethical gray area that calls into question the validity of the experiment’s findings​.

The ethical implications of these power dynamics are significant. When researchers exert authority over participants, encouraging specific behaviors, it complicates the line between observation and manipulation. In SPE, this blurred line means that the guards’ behavior may have been less a revelation of human nature and more a performance based on external pressures and perceived expectations.

Challenging the Legacy—A Critical Look at Zimbardo’s Role

Zimbardo, who recently passed away at the age of 91, has long defended the Stanford Prison Experiment as a legitimate insight into the darker side of human nature, but as the years have passed, his narrative has shifted. In this series he appears to continue justifying the study’s design, defending the outcomes as reflective of genuine psychological responses to authority. However, both Eshleman and Ramsay challenge this view. Eshleman recalls being “duped” by the experiment’s setup, manipulated into a performance that ultimately served Zimbardo’s professional aspirations rather than science. Ramsay similarly feels that the experiment’s legacy has been shaped by selective retellings that favor Zimbardo’s version of events.

For Eshleman and Ramsay, Zimbardo’s ongoing fame and evolving narrative underscore a key problem in the scientific community: the risk of “bad science” perpetuated by personal ambition. Ramsay points out that the real value of the documentary is in exposing this flaw, allowing viewers to see how scientific mythologies are constructed and maintained. The SPE has inadvertently become a case study in the ethical responsibility researchers bear, especially when their work influences public perception and societal beliefs.

Enduring Lessons on Human Nature, Authority, and Compliance

The Stanford Prison Experiment, along with other controversial studies like the Milgram Experiment , has shaped our understanding of authority and obedience for generations. Yet, the revelations shared with me from Eshleman and Ramsay suggest that the lessons we draw from such studies need revisiting. Instead of accepting that ordinary people easily succumb to cruelty, these firsthand accounts remind us to consider how authority, expectation, and environmental factors shape our actions.

Eshleman’s struggle with personal responsibility, even as he admits to feeling manipulated, adds a complex dimension to the conversation on authority. His reflections echo a broader truth: while we may find ourselves acting out roles in response to authority, we are also responsible for understanding the impact of those roles on others. Ramsay’s reflections remind us that compliance can often be a survival mechanism rather than an indication of inherent cruelty.

Together, their experiences suggest that the SPE’s real lesson lies not in some dark truth about humanity’s core nature, but in how easily our behaviors can be shaped by the authority figures and structures around us.

Rethinking Psychological Research on Authority

The Stanford Prison Experiment has long stood as a cautionary tale about human nature, but perhaps the caution should be directed at how we conduct and interpret research. The reflections in this series shared by participants reveal an experiment not of human depravity but of a flawed methodology, guided by preconceived conclusions.

In an era where the ethics of psychological research are more scrutinized than ever, the story of the SPE offers crucial lessons. Studies that shape public perception must be held to high ethical standards, ensuring that they respect participants and present findings responsibly.

As readers, we are left to question how authority shapes behavior—not just in experiments, but in our own lives. In any hierarchical structure, understanding the impact of power and responsibility is essential. The Stanford Prison Experiment remains a powerful example, not of human cruelty, but of how narratives are constructed, and of the enduring influence of authority.

“The Stanford Prison Experiment: Unlocking the Truth” is now streaming on Disney+.

• Editorial Standards
• Forbes Accolades

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

More Information

Frequently asked questions.

This page offers brief answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the Stanford Prison Experiment:

About the Study

About the Prisoners

About the Guards

Research Ethics

Aftermath of the Study

About the Website

ABOUT THE STUDY

Q:  What was the purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

A:   The purpose was to understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations in a simulated  prison environment.

Q:  Who funded the experiment?

A:   The study was funded by a government grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research to study antisocial behavior.

Q:  How were participants recruited?

A:   The research team placed newspaper advertisements in the Palo Alto Times and The Stanford Daily offering $15/day to male college students for a study on the psychology of imprisonment.

Q:  What were students told before the study began?

A:   Students were told that they would be assigned to play the role of prisoner or guard in a study of prison life, that they would observed and filmed, and that they would be expected to participate for the full duration of the study (see  Description of Study Given to Applicants ).

Q:  Who participated in the experiment?

A:    From more than 75 people who responded to the ad, 24 students were chosen: 12 to role play prisoners (9 plus 3 alternates) and 12 to role play guards (also 9 plus 3 alternates). These students had no prior record of criminal arrests, medical conditions, or psychological disorders.

Q:  How were students assigned to the role of prisoner or guard?

A:   The assignment was done randomly, as with the toss of a coin, to make sure that the prisoners and guards were comparable to each other at the beginning of the experiment.

Q:  Did participants live in the prison 24 hours per day?

A:   Prisoners remained in the prison throughout the day and night, but guards generally rotated in three 8-hour shifts. Thus, there were typically three students guarding nine prisoners.

Q:  What were the main results?

A:   There were many results, but perhaps the most important was simply this: The simulation became so real, and the guards became so abusive, that the experiment had to be shut down after only 6 days rather than the two weeks planned.

Q:  How does the movie differ from the actual Stanford Prison Experiment?

A:  Although the Stanford Prison Experiment movie was inspired by the classic 1971 experiment, there are key differences between the two. In the actual experiment, guards and prisoners were prevented from carrying out acts of physical violence such as those shown in the movie. In addition, the study ended differently than the movie. In the actual study, Professor Zimbardo's former graduate student (and future wife) Christina Maslash confronted him and said that by taking on the role of prison superintendent, he had become indifferent to the suffering of his participants. He then realized that she was right and announced that he would end the experiment the next day. The movie depicts this confrontation, but to heighten the drama, Professor Zimbardo is shown returning to the experiment and observing guards sexually humiliate the prisoners, after which he immediately ends the study.

ABOUT THE PRISONERS

Q:  How did the prisoner arrests take place?

A:   The Palo Alto police conducted surprise arrests at the home of prisoners. Students were handcuffed, searched, read their rights, and driven in a squad car to the police station for booking and fingerprinting. The first five prisoners were charged with burglary, and the last four were charged with armed robbery.

Q:  What rules were the prisoners required to follow?

A:   The prison warden and guards drew up a list of rules that prisoners were required to follow, such as remaining silent during rest periods, eating at meal times, and keeping the prison cells clean (see  Prisoner Rules ).

Q:  Were prisoners allowed to quit the experiment?

A:   Yes, and some prisoners did discontinue their participation. For the most part, however, prisoners seemed to forget or misunderstand that they could leave "through established procedures," and they reinforced a sense of imprisonment by telling each other that there was no way out.

Q:  How many prisoners left the experiment early?

A:    Half the prisoners were released early due to severe emotional or cognitive reactions.

ABOUT THE GUARDS

Q:  Were the guards given any special training?

A:    No. The guards were given only a brief orientation telling them to maintain law and order, avoid physical violence, and prevent prisoner escapes.

Q:  Did personality scores predict which guards were most abusive?

A:   No. The most and least abusive guards did not differ significantly in authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, or other personality measures. Abusive guard behavior appears to have been triggered by features of the situation rather than by the personality of guards.

Q:  How many guards left the experiment early?

A:    None, although one guard later said that he had considered it.

RESEARCH ETHICS

Q:  Did students give informed consent before participating?

A:   Yes, all students signed a  Consent Form  before participating in the study.

Q:  Was the Stanford Prison Experiment approved by an Institutional Review Board?

A:   Yes, the study was approved by the Stanford  Human Subjects Review Committee , the Stanford Psychology Department, and the Group Effectiveness Branch of the Office of Naval Research. In addition, the Student Health Department was alerted to the study and prior arrangements were made for any medical care the participants might need.

Q:  Did the APA ever review the experiment's ethics?

A:   Yes. In 1973 Professor Zimbardo asked the American Psychological Association to conduct an ethics evaluation, and the APA concluded that all existing ethical guidelines had been followed.

Q:  Has Professor Zimbardo ever apologized for the suffering that occurred?

A:   Yes. In his book  The Lucifer Effect , Professor Zimbardo wrote: "I was guilty of the sin of omission -- the evil of inaction -- of not providing adequate oversight and surveillance when it was required... the findings came at the expense of human suffering. I am sorry for that and to this day apologize for contributing to this inhumanity." (pp. 181, 235)

AFTERMATH OF THE STUDY

Q:  Did any of the participants suffer lasting trauma?

A:   Despite suffering extreme emotional stress during the experiment, all participants appear to have regained their baseline emotional states after the study. Extensive follow-up testing revealed no lasting trauma to participants.

Q:  After the study ended, what became of the experimenters?

A:   All went on to distinguished careers in psychology or medicine:

David Jaffe, an undergraduate research associate who played the role of prison warden, is now a professor of pediatrics at Washington University.

Curtis Banks, a graduate student researcher, became the first African American psychology professor to receive tenure at Princeton University.

Craig Haney , a graduate student researcher, became a psychology professor at UC--Santa Cruz and is a leading expert on prison conditions.

Christina Maslach , a former graduate student who helped end the study early, became a psychology professor and vice provost at UC--Berkeley.

Philip Zimbardo , who served as principle investigator and prison superintendent, became APA President in 2001 and is now a professor emeritus at Stanford University.

Q:  Are materials from the experiment archived anywhere?

A:   Yes, materials from the experiment have been preserved by the Center for the History of Psychology and the Stanford University Archives .

ABOUT THE WEBSITE

Q:  Who designed this website?

A:   The website was originally designed by Scott Plous and Mike Lestik in 1999. The site was redesigned in 2015 by Jeff Breil, Scott Plous, and David Jensenius.

Q:   Who manages the website?

A:   The site is managed by Social Psychology Network (SPN), a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.

Q:   Who funds the website?

A:   The site is funded with generous support from the National Science Foundation (grants #9950517, #0339002, #0843855, and #1456048), SPN members, and other sources. As an Amazon Associate, this site also receives revenue from qualified purchases. To support this website or join Social Psychology Network, please visit the SPN Membership page.

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Stanford Prison Experiment: A Landmark Study in Social Psychology

A chilling descent into the darkest corners of the human psyche, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains a haunting testament to the power of social roles and the fragility of moral boundaries. This notorious study, conducted in 1971 by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo, set out to explore the psychological effects of perceived power in a simulated prison environment. Little did anyone know that this experiment would become one of the most controversial and influential studies in the history of social psychology, leaving an indelible mark on our understanding of human behavior and the ethics of scientific research.

Imagine, if you will, a sunny California summer day. Twenty-four young men, all college students, arrive at Stanford University, eager to participate in what they believe will be a simple two-week study on prison life. They have no idea that they’re about to embark on a journey that will push them to their psychological limits and forever change the landscape of social psychology.

As they step into the makeshift prison in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building, these ordinary students are about to become unwitting actors in a drama that will captivate and horrify the world. Some will don the uniforms of prison guards, while others will wear the drab garments of prisoners. What unfolds next is a stark reminder of how quickly our moral compasses can spin out of control when placed in extraordinary circumstances.

The Birth of a Psychological Powder Keg

The Stanford Prison Experiment was born from Zimbardo’s curiosity about the nature of human behavior in institutional settings. He wanted to understand why prisons were often such brutal places. Was it the individuals who were inherently cruel, or did the environment itself breed cruelty? To answer this question, Zimbardo and his team meticulously designed an experiment that would blur the lines between reality and simulation.

The study began with a seemingly simple process: participant selection. Zimbardo advertised for male college students to take part in a study of prison life, offering $15 per day for two weeks of participation. From the respondents, 24 were chosen based on their physical and mental stability, maturity, and lack of criminal background or psychological issues. These “cream of the crop” young men were then randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners.

The prison environment was crafted with painstaking attention to detail. The basement of Stanford’s psychology building was transformed into a mock prison, complete with barred doors, cramped cells, and surveillance systems. The goal was to create an atmosphere as authentic as possible without crossing ethical boundaries – or so they thought.

Rules and procedures were implemented to mimic real prison life. Prisoners were to be addressed only by their assigned numbers, not names. Guards were given uniforms and mirrored sunglasses to create a sense of anonymity and authority. They were instructed to maintain order but were given no specific training on how to do so.

What happened next would shock even the researchers themselves. Within days, the experiment spiraled out of control. The guards became increasingly authoritarian and abusive, while the prisoners showed signs of extreme stress and breakdown. The planned two-week study was abruptly terminated after just six days, but not before leaving an indelible mark on all involved.

Unraveling the Human Psyche: Key Observations

As the experiment unfolded, researchers observed a rapid and disturbing shift in the behavior and psychological state of both guards and prisoners. The power dynamics that emerged were both fascinating and horrifying, offering a glimpse into the darker recesses of human nature.

One of the most striking observations was the speed at which the guards embraced their roles. Given virtually unlimited power over the prisoners, many guards began to exhibit sadistic and cruel behavior. They created arbitrary rules, doled out punishments, and even devised psychological tactics to break the prisoners’ spirits. This Zimbardo Effect in Psychology: Exploring the Power of Situational Influences demonstrated how quickly ordinary individuals could adopt authoritarian personas when placed in positions of power.

On the flip side, the prisoners experienced a rapid deindividuation and loss of personal identity. Stripped of their names and personal belongings, dressed in identical smocks, and referred to only by numbers, they quickly began to lose their sense of self. This loss of identity made it easier for them to submit to the guards’ authority and accept increasingly degrading treatment.

The experiment also shed light on the powerful forces of conformity and obedience to authority. Even when faced with clearly unethical or abusive behavior, many participants struggled to break free from their assigned roles. This phenomenon echoes the findings of other landmark studies in social psychology, such as the Asch Conformity Experiments: Revolutionizing Social Psychology , which demonstrated how social pressure can lead individuals to conform to group norms, even when those norms contradict their own perceptions or beliefs.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the experiment revealed the ease with which abusive behaviors can emerge in power imbalanced situations. Guards who had previously shown no signs of sadistic tendencies began to engage in increasingly cruel and humiliating acts towards the prisoners. This escalation of abuse occurred not over months or years, but in a matter of days, highlighting the fragility of our moral boundaries when placed in extreme situations.

The Ethical Quagmire: Criticisms and Concerns

While the Stanford Prison Experiment yielded fascinating insights into human behavior, it also sparked intense debate about the ethics of psychological research. The study has become a prime example in discussions about Top 10 Unethical Psychological Experiments: A Dark Chapter in Scientific History , raising critical questions about the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

One of the primary ethical concerns was the lack of informed consent. While participants were aware they would be taking part in a study about prison life, they were not fully informed about the potential psychological risks involved. The intensity of the experience and the rapid deterioration of the participants’ mental states far exceeded what anyone had anticipated.

The potential for psychological harm became glaringly apparent as the experiment progressed. Prisoners exhibited signs of severe stress, anxiety, and even symptoms reminiscent of traumatic disorders. Some broke down crying, others became physically ill, and a few had to be released early due to extreme emotional distress. The long-term effects on participants’ mental health raised serious questions about the ethical implications of such intense psychological manipulations.

Critics have also questioned the scientific validity of the experiment. The small sample size, lack of a control group, and potential for researcher bias have all been cited as weaknesses in the study’s design. Zimbardo’s dual role as both lead researcher and prison superintendent has been particularly scrutinized, with some arguing that his involvement may have influenced the participants’ behavior and skewed the results.

Furthermore, the experiment’s focus on young, predominantly white, middle-class American males limits its generalizability to broader populations. This narrow demographic representation raises questions about how different cultural, socioeconomic, or gender groups might respond in similar situations.

Ripples Through Time: Impact on Social Psychology

Despite its ethical controversies, the Stanford Prison Experiment has had a profound and lasting impact on the field of social psychology and beyond. Its findings have influenced our understanding of human behavior in institutional settings and have led to significant changes in research practices and ethics guidelines.

One of the experiment’s most significant contributions has been its influence on our understanding of situational behavior. The study dramatically illustrated how powerful situational forces can be in shaping human behavior, often overriding individual personality traits or moral values. This concept of Situationism Psychology: How Environment Shapes Behavior and Personality has become a cornerstone in social psychology, challenging previous notions that behavior is primarily determined by individual characteristics.

The ethical concerns raised by the experiment have led to substantial changes in research ethics guidelines. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) now scrutinize proposed studies much more closely, particularly those involving potential psychological risks to participants. Informed consent procedures have been strengthened, and there’s a greater emphasis on protecting participants’ well-being throughout the research process.

While direct replications of the Stanford Prison Experiment are no longer possible due to ethical constraints, modern researchers have found creative ways to study similar phenomena. For instance, some have used role-playing games or virtual reality simulations to explore power dynamics and social influence without putting participants at risk of real psychological harm.

The experiment’s findings have also found applications in real-world settings. Its insights into the corrupting influence of power have informed training programs for law enforcement officers, prison guards, and other authority figures. Organizations have used these lessons to develop strategies for preventing abuse of power and promoting ethical behavior in hierarchical structures.

The Experiment’s Enduring Legacy

Half a century after its abrupt conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment continues to provoke debate and fascinate both academics and the general public. Its legacy extends far beyond the realm of academia, permeating popular culture and shaping our collective understanding of human nature.

In scientific circles, the experiment remains a topic of ongoing debate. Some researchers argue that its findings, despite methodological flaws, offer valuable insights into human behavior under extreme circumstances. Others contend that its ethical violations and questionable scientific validity render its conclusions suspect. This debate has spurred further research into the dynamics of power, conformity, and institutional behavior, enriching our understanding of these complex phenomena.

The experiment’s influence on popular culture is undeniable. It has inspired numerous books, films, and documentaries, including the 2015 feature film “The Stanford Prison Experiment.” These portrayals have brought the study’s disturbing findings to a wider audience, prompting public discussions about power, authority, and the human capacity for both cruelty and resilience.

Perhaps one of the most enduring lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment is its implications for understanding power structures in society. The ease with which ordinary individuals adopted abusive behaviors when given unchecked authority serves as a stark warning about the potential for abuse in any system with significant power imbalances. This insight has informed discussions on everything from Life Without Parole: Psychological Effects on Inmates and Society to corporate governance structures.

The experiment has also had a profound impact on our approach to prison reform and institutional behavior. By highlighting how quickly a prison-like environment can lead to dehumanization and abuse, it has fueled arguments for more humane prison conditions and better training for correctional officers. The study’s findings on the Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement: A Deep Dive into Isolation’s Impact have been particularly influential in debates about the use of isolation in correctional facilities.

Reflections on the Human Condition

As we reflect on the Stanford Prison Experiment and its far-reaching implications, we’re left grappling with fundamental questions about human nature and the power of social influence. The study serves as a chilling reminder of our capacity for cruelty when placed in positions of unchecked authority, but it also highlights our vulnerability to systemic forces beyond our control.

The experiment forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves and our society. It challenges the comforting notion that we would always do the right thing in difficult situations, revealing instead how easily we can be swayed by social roles and expectations. This realization, while unsettling, is also empowering. By understanding the powerful influence of situational factors, we can be more vigilant in guarding against abuses of power and more compassionate towards those caught in oppressive systems.

The legacy of the Stanford Prison Experiment extends beyond its specific findings to encompass broader questions about the nature of evil and the human potential for both darkness and light. It resonates with other landmark studies in psychology, such as Philip Zimbardo’s Contributions to Psychology: Shaping Our Understanding of Human Behavior and his later work on the Lucifer Effect Psychology: The Dark Side of Human Nature , which explore how ordinary people can be led to commit extraordinary acts of evil.

As we move forward, the Stanford Prison Experiment continues to offer valuable lessons for researchers, policymakers, and individuals alike. It underscores the importance of ethical safeguards in scientific research, reminding us of the potential costs of pursuing knowledge at any price. This cautionary tale echoes other controversial studies in psychology’s history, such as The Monster Study: A Dark Chapter in Psychology’s History , reinforcing the critical importance of ethical considerations in scientific inquiry.

For policymakers and institutional leaders, the experiment serves as a stark reminder of the need for checks and balances in any system where power imbalances exist. It highlights the importance of transparency, accountability, and ongoing training to prevent abuses of power.

On an individual level, the study challenges us to examine our own behavior and biases. It prompts us to question how we might act in similar situations and encourages us to develop the moral courage to stand up against unethical behavior, even when it comes from authority figures.

As we look to the future, the Stanford Prison Experiment continues to inspire new avenues of research in social psychology. Modern researchers are exploring innovative ways to study power dynamics, conformity, and institutional behavior while adhering to strict ethical guidelines. Virtual reality and other technologies offer promising tools for simulating extreme situations without putting participants at risk.

Ultimately, the Stanford Prison Experiment stands as a powerful reminder of the complexity of human nature and the profound influence of social contexts on our behavior. It challenges us to remain vigilant against the darker aspects of our nature while striving to create social structures that bring out the best in humanity. As we continue to grapple with issues of power, authority, and moral responsibility in our societies, the lessons of this controversial experiment remain as relevant and thought-provoking as ever.

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment, despite its ethical controversies, has left an indelible mark on the field of psychology and our understanding of human behavior. It serves as both a cautionary tale about the potential for abuse in psychological research and a powerful illustration of how situational forces can shape our actions. As we move forward, let us carry the lessons of this experiment with us, using them to foster more ethical research practices, create more just institutions, and cultivate a deeper understanding of our own capacity for both good and evil.

References:

1. Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.

2. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.

3. Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30(2), 152-160.

4. Griggs, R. A. (2014). Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 41(3), 195-203.

5. Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823-839.

6. Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-40.

7. Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 603-614.

8. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426.

9. Bartels, J. M. (2015). The Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks: A content analysis. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(1), 36-50.

10. Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm (pp. 193-237). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Patrick Brain Fried: Unraveling the Viral Sensation and Internet Meme

Skeleton and Brain Dip: A Spooky Halloween Party Snack

Power Causes Brain Damage: The Neurological Impact of Authority

Male Brain After Breakup: Neuroscience of Heartbreak and Recovery

Courtesy Bias in Psychology: Understanding Its Impact on Research and…

Conflict Theory in Psychology: Exploring Social Dynamics and Power Struggles

Horn Effect Psychology: How Negative First Impressions Shape Our Judgments

Cognitive Dissonance: Definition, Theory, and Examples in Psychology

Schadenfreude Psychology: Unraveling the Pleasure in Others’ Misfortune

Cute Aggression Psychology: The Science Behind Our Urge to Squeeze…

The Other Legacy of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The lessons of the stanford prison experiment aren't about cruelty..

Posted January 28, 2021 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

Psychology has dealt with only one of the two major legacies of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The Stanford Prison Experiment (which was not technically an experiment) appears in introductory textbooks as an illustration of the “power of the situation” to influence behavior. Philip Zimbardo recruited college students to conduct a simulation of a prison and found that even nice college men could be cruel and dehumanizing to each other in the prison simulation. The implication was that otherwise good people could easily be led to do bad things in the right situation—and the situation of running a prison brought this bad behavior out.

One lasting effect of the Stanford Prison Experiment is the ethical reform it helped inspire in psychology. Zimbardo put college students through a humiliating, traumatizing experience, and only stopped when he was describing the study to his girlfriend (now wife) who told him how cruel his behavior was. Outside oversight, in the form of institutional review boards, would have likely prevented this. Institutional review boards are now a ubiquitous feature of scientific research, and almost all universities and scientific journals require that psychology research on human subjects undergo this review.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a trending topic a few years ago, when researchers and journalists reported on archived material showing that Zimbardo instructed his prison guard participants to behave more viciously. This undercuts the characterization and interpretation of the results Zimbardo gave for years. The guards in the study were not spontaneously cruel. They had to be prodded. A 2019 article by Thibault Le Texier in the journal American Psychologist lays out this case.

Le Texier quotes Zimbardo’s public statements about the study: “neither group [prisoners or guards] received any specific training in these roles” and “guards had no formal training in becoming guards.” Evidence from Zimbardo’s publicly available archives of the study, contradict this in several ways.

First, Zimbardo instructed his guards what result he wanted to see, explaining that the purpose of the study was to recreate the psychological conditions in a prison that are related to mob behavior, violence, and loss of individuality. During guard orientation, he provided them with several psychological effects he hoped the study would have on prisoners, including feeling fear , frustration, loss of individuality, and powerlessness. Psychologists have long known the participants in experiments have a tendency to try to produce the results they believe the researcher wants, and so good research procedures involve not telling subjects what you expect them to do during the study. These are called demand characteristics. By telling participants what he wanted from them, it appears Zimbardo was eliciting the bad behavior he said emerged spontaneously and naturally. Guards confirmed this in interviews, with one saying “I was thinking: ‘I got to do this thing or else the experiment won’t come off right.’”

Zimbardo also gave the guards instructions for how to create the psychological effects he wanted to study. For example, he provided the guards with a list called “Processing In—Dehumanizing Experience” where he had written “Ordered around. Arbitrariness. Guards never use name, only number. Never request, order.” These were explicit written instructions for how to create the psychologically toxic situation. During orientation, a research assistant also told guards that routine counts of prisoners were a good time to “somewhat humiliate or be sarcastic” to them. Instructions continued throughout the study.

One guard reported that “the warden or Prof. Zimbardo specifically directed me (us) to act a certain way (ex. hard attitude Wednesday following Tuesday leniency).” An undergraduate student who was recruited to play the role of warden said after the experiment: “I believed (and I still do) that without rules, without gruff and mildly realistic guard behavior, the simulation would have appeared more like a summer camp than a prison … I was asked to suggest tactics based on my previous experience as master sadist , and, when I arrived at Stanford [after a summer job in Chicago, Illinois], I was given the responsibility of trying to elicit ‘tough-guard’ behavior.” This outside hire was credited by participants in the guard role for coming up with many of the most creative techniques of psychological cruelty: “I thought that the warden was very creative ... through the experiment, he gave us very good sado-creative ideas.”

Finally, reinforcing the idea that the prison guards’ cruelty was part of a role they believed they were taking, many said they were led to believe by Zimbardo that they were not subjects in the study but research assistants. One guard wrote after the study: “[F]rom the beginning of the experiment, to the end, I thought of the guards as being a helping agent to the ‘experiment,’ not actually part of it. … I took care to make sure that I played a guard (as I thought a guard to be). I felt that any niceness on my part would eliminate me from the experiment.”

These quotes highlight that the study was not conducted the way Zimbardo said it was. The major insight that Zimbardo drew from and promoted about this study was that the prison situation inherently created bad behavior—but in actuality, he and an outside consultant were prodding the participants continuously to elicit this behavior. However, the point isn’t that, because Zimbardo’s study had flaws, his thesis was wrong. A better-run study in Australia in 1979 found that the instructions given to prison guards made a big difference in the atmosphere of the mock prison, supporting the interpretation that the prison situation can elicit bad behavior. Instead, it shows that Zimbardo was able to gain fame in his field and in the broader culture by presenting a misleading and incorrect version of what happened in his study.

Psychology researchers may complain about the requirements of institutional review boards, but the field generally accepts and agrees that this type of oversight is useful to maintain an ethical research field. The Credibility Revolution in psychology is pushing for reforms in scientific practice that should lead to more credible, reliable research. What is still missing is a way to make sense of research misconduct in the past. We do not necessarily need to judge all of Zimbardo’s research as misleading or flawed, based on this one example. Yet we do need to be able to create a scientific record that is trustworthy, and to establish a system where misleading statements lead to proportional career consequences. That is the legacy of the Stanford Prison Experiment that still has not been addressed.

Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823-839.

Alexander Danvers, Ph.D. , is a social psychologist by training with an interdisciplinary approach to research. Currently, he works on measuring and improving mental health outcomes.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

When we fall prey to perfectionism, we think we’re honorably aspiring to be our very best, but often we’re really just setting ourselves up for failure, as perfection is impossible and its pursuit inevitably backfires.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Benefits Of The Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Experiment” was an experiment that turned into more of a catastrophe for all parties involved. It started out as an experiment to observe whether brutality in prison was due to the guards' predisposition and their “sadistic” personalities or if it was due to the general environment of the prison (Mcleod). Both the guards and the prisoners assumed their roles very quickly and behaved according to their role. It did not take long for the rules of the experiment (no physical abuse) to be broken. It was clear that this power and role of authority went to the guards’ heads and the prisoners adapted to a helpless obedient role. There were, in fact, some benefits to this experiment. It brought to light the harsh environments in prisons and the brutality and mistreatment that takes place inside of them for people who have no prior knowledge of prisons. It also led into the future implications for a study or experiment such as this one. It caused rules and guidelines to be set in place in order to protect people participating in studies such as this one. The detriments of this experiment were the psychological and physical harm that the prisoners were forced to endure even if it wasn’t long term. They consented to terms of the …show more content…

While there is some value in the findings of this study, it ultimately was more detrimental than it was beneficial. Some of the value of this study came from what was learned about the ethical guidelines that need to be set in place in experiments and studies. It has also been valuable to learn the necessity of explicit rules in behavior control and the use of punishment over rewards in training agents (Ethics of intervention Stanford prison experiment ). While there were things of value learned from this experiment, it would have been better off if this damage could have been avoided altogether and these lessons did not have to be learned the hard

Effects Of The Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo

Within 24 hours of the experiment, the prison guards began to humiliate and mentally abuse the prisoners. The prison guards were given little instructions about how to treat the prisoners, except that there was not to be any physical force used on the prisoners. The lack of instructions that

Compare And Contrast Stanford Prison Experiment And Philip Zimbardo

In summary, the purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment was supposed to demonstrate that powerful situational forces, much like Abu Ghraib, could over-ride individual dispositions and choices, leading good people to do bad things simply because of the role they found themselves

The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Psychological Study

Second, The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study that was too inhumane to continue because of the behavior of the prison guards when handed with superiority and the mental breakdowns of the prisoners. E: “Now, you 'll all be given sunglasses and uniforms to give the prisoners a sense of a unified, singular authority… And from this point forward you should never refer to this as a study or experiment again,’’ (Dr. Phil Zimbardo).

How Did Philip Zimbardo Conform

However, the ethical decisions they made during the experiment were directly related to the roles they were assigned – the guards believed it was ‘right’ to punish and humiliate the prisoners because the prisoners were ‘bad’. As for the ethics of the experiment, Zimbardo said he believed the experiment was ethical before it began but unethical in hindsight because he and the others involved had no idea the experiment would spiral to the point of abuse that it did. The Stanford Prison Experiment reveals the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior.

Stanford Prison Experiment By Philip Zimbardo

The Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, revealed the significant influence of social structure on violence and brutality in prisons. This essay will look at how Zimbardo's study revealed a link between the way relationships are structured inside of prisons and the rise of aggressive and abusive conduct. It will also suggest adjustments to the social structure of jails that might lessen violence. It will also include any potential opposition to the reforms and the difficulties in putting them into practice. College students were given roles as guards or convicts at random in Zimbardo's experiment, which involves simulating a prison setting.

Randy Gragg

them binary through the authority implied by the direct guard inmate relationship. In quiet rage, the purpose of the experiment was to show what an increase in power and status can do to a person. Essentially Zimbardo's power and authority (being the phycologist) led him to overlooking horrible situations and allowing them to take place. In fact, his own experiment even tricked him. Look at all the police brutality and all the violence in the prisons.

Compare And Contrast The Milgram Experiment And The Stanford Prison Experiment

This experiment was conducted in Stanford University by Dr. Zimbardo. During this two week long session, Dr. Zimbardo had several volunteers agree to act as prisoners and as prison guards. The prisoners were told to wait in their houses while the guards were to set up the mock prison, a tactic used by Dr. Zimbardo to make them fit into their roles more. The official police apprehended the students assigned to the role of prisoner from their homes, took mug shots, fingerprinted them, and gave them dirty prison uniforms. The guards were given clean guard uniforms, sunglasses, and billy clubs borrowed from the police.

Stanford Prison Experiment Evil Vs Evil

Stanford Prison Experiment: "Evil" by Nature vs. "Evil" by Circumstance? Overview of the Experiment The "Stanford Prison Experiment" was conducted by a psychologist at Stanford University known as Philip Zimbardo. The experiment itself was conducted in order to find out the effect of becoming a prison guard and being a prisoner from a psychological standpoint, and Zimbardo was interested in seeing how good people acted in an evil and oppressive regime. The test subjects voluntarily joined the experiment; the prison guards were paid a low sum of money for their participation, while the prisoners were undergraduates attending Stanford University.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: What Happens When Good People Turn Evil?

The Stanford Prison Experiment What happens when good people turn evil? That was the question asked when Dr. Philip Zimbardo wanted to conduct a new experiment about just that. He wanted to show the world just how crazy people can get while given roles of authority. Never in a million years though, did he think that this study could become one of the most iconic experiments ever.

Essay On Stanford Prison Experiment

They also concluded that the environment of the prison played a vital role in the way the guards treated the prisoners. It is believed that this experiment changed the way some U.S. prisons are

The Stanford Prison And The Milgram Experiment

In the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison and asked 75 applicants to participate. 24 men were chosen to participate and were paid $15 per day. Prisoners were arrested at their own homes, blindfolded, and driven to Stanford University's psychology department, where the deindividuation process began. Within no time the guards and the prisoners began to change. In the video

Effects Of The Stanford Prison Study

The Stanford Prison Study, conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, is one of the most controversial and widely criticized experiments in the history of social psychology. The study aimed to investigate the psychological effects of power and authority in a simulated prison environment, but it ended up causing significant harm to the participants and raising ethical concerns about the use of deception, manipulation, and coercion in research. This essay will discuss the harm caused by the Stanford Prison Study and propose mitigation strategies that could have been done by the scientists, the media, and the public to avoid or fix those harms (Leithead, 2011; Mcleod, 2023; Van BavelS Alexander HaslamStephen Reicher, 2019). One of the

Stanford Prison Experiment Literature Review

Unit 1 Written Assignment Literature Review of article on Standard Prison Experiment Introduction This article concerns the Stanford Prison experiment carried out in 1971 at Stanford University. The experiment commenced on August 14, and was stopped after only six days. It is one of the most noted psychological experiments on authority versus subordinates. The studies which emerged from this have been of interest to those in prison and military fields due to its focus on the psychology associated with authority.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Unethical Or Not

Stanford Experiment: Unethical or Not Stanford Prison Experiment is a popular experiment among social science researchers. In 1973, a psychologist named Dr. Philip Zimbardo wants to find out what are the factors that cause reported brutalities among guards in American prisons. His aim was to know whether those reported brutalities were because of the personalities of the guards or the prison environment. However, during the experiment, things get muddled unexpectedly. The experiment became controversial since it violates some ethical standards while doing the research.

Stanford Prison Experiment Case Study

As stated in the name of the actual experiment, it was a simulation of how it was like to be imprisoned. The participants were 24 college students. The

More about Benefits Of The Stanford Prison Experiment

Related topics.

• Stanford prison experiment
• Milgram experiment
• The Experiment
• Das Experiment