Story Time: The Stanford Prison Experiment

On the quiet Sunday morning of August 17, 1971, police cars swept through the streets of Palo Alto, California. Nine college-aged men were handcuffed, searched, and taken away as their families and neighbors watched from their windows. Charged with burglary and armed robbery, the men were taken to the Palo Alto police station where they were booked, fingerprinted, and placed in a holding cell [3]. Next, they were transported to the Stanford County Prison where they were to serve out their sentence. In reality, this “prison” was none other than the basement of Jordan Hall, part of Stanford University’s psychology department.

These men were the willing participants of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, which remains today as one of the most notorious research projects ever done. Not one of the students knew what they were really getting themselves into. The participants were all middle-class college students who responded to a newspaper ad promising them fifteen dollars per day for participating in the two-week psychological study. More than 70 applicants answered questions about their mental stability, criminal history, and family backgrounds, and only 24 were recruited for the experiment [1,4]. Half of them were randomly assigned to be “prisoners” and the other half assigned to be “guards” in this mock prison.

Before the participants’ arrival, the basement of the Stanford psychology department was completely transformed to look like a real prison. Corridor ends were sealed to create “The Yard,” a communal space where prisoners were permitted to walk, eat, and exercise. If they needed to use the bathroom, prisoners were blindfolded and escorted to the restroom to prevent them from memorizing escape routes. Three six-by-nine foot prison cells were crafted by removing doors from lab rooms and installing new ones fitted with steel bars and designated cell numbers. Each one would hold three prisoners with three cots closely crammed into the cell. A strategically placed small hole at one end of the hallway allowed the researchers to directly film and observe the activity inside. A cramped, dark compact closet was converted into what was referred to as “The Hole,” serving as solitary confinement [4].

The mastermind behind this social experiment was Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University. Zimbardo was interested in the psychological effects of power and authority on individuals in a hierarchical system. His brilliant idea was to place subjects in a simulated prison environment in order to examine how these situational forces affect human behavior. Over 50 years later, Zimbardo’s experiment is noted as a highly influential study, dramatically illustrating how easily good people can be swayed to do evil things [8]. The Stanford Prison Experiment is remembered today as one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology. In fact, the events that unfolded over the course of the experiment were so disturbing that the two-week study had to be terminated after only six days.

Upon their arrival at the prison, inmates underwent a demeaning intake process where they were searched, stripped, and deloused. They were issued a uniform that consisted of a short dress or smock with their prison ID printed on the front and back, and they were to wear it at all times with no clothes underneath. Each prisoner had a heavy chain locked to their right ankle and were given rubber sandals. They were also instructed to wear nylon stockings as a hair cap. Of course, this is not the uniform that is worn in a real prison, but that was not the goal. The idea was to create a basic simulation of a prison, not a real one. The dress worn with no underclothes was meant to humiliate the prisoners, and the nylon cap was an alternative to having their heads shaved. The prison ID numbers on their uniform was to replace their names, and they were only allowed to refer to themselves and others by their ID numbers. The chain on their ankles was to give the participants a feeling of entrapment, so that even when they are sleeping, eating, or doing any activity, they constantly remember that they cannot escape [4,6]. The goal at this point was to humiliate the prisoners, and strip them of their identity to minimize their sense of individuality, just as it would be in a real prison.

The guards, on the other hand, were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki with a whistle around their neck, and were armed with billy clubs. They also wore special reflective sunglasses. By not showing their eyes, they would not reveal their emotions, making them appear cold, strict, and remain anonymous. While the prisoners were required to be a part of the experiment at all times, the guards took turns, with three guards working each of the three hour shifts. After each shift, the guards were allowed to return home until their next shift [4,6]. Although studying how the participants react to their new prison environment was an important part of the experiment, it was also important to also study the way in which the guards behaved in their given position of power.

Zimbardo himself also played a character in his prison simulation. He acted as the prison warden and overlooked the behavior of the participants. The guards received minimal instruction regarding their responsibilities. They were granted the freedom, with certain constraints, to take whatever actions they deemed necessary to maintain order within the prison and to demand the prisoners’ obedience and respect. Zimbardo urged the guards to perceive themselves as actual prison authorities. He emphasized that while physical harm to the prisoners was prohibited, he encouraged the guards to foster an atmosphere that induced a feeling of powerlessness in the inmates [5]. At first, the guards were hesitant about ordering the prisoners around, and the prisoners did not take their submissive roles seriously. Within a day, however, the guards began to get increasingly aggressive with the prisoners, showing displays of dehumanization and physical violence.

Critics of the Stanford Prison Experiment have raised questions about its methodological rigor and the validity of its findings. Some argue that the artificial environment of the experiment, along with the participants’ awareness that they were in an experiment, could have influenced their behavior in ways that do not accurately reflect real-world dynamics. Additionally, the experiment’s lack of a control group makes it difficult to determine how much of the behavior was due to the specific conditions of the simulated prison environment versus other factors [7]. Philip Zimbardo’s dual role as both the principal investigator and the prison superintendant has also been criticized for potentially influencing the outcomes of the experiment. His involvement may have inadvertently guided the guards towards more authoritarian behavior, thus impacting the experiment’s direction and outcomes. Today, many psychologists regard Zimbardo’s study as simply a demonstration of of the influence of power on behavior rather than a traditional experiment.

On just the second day of the experiment, the prisoners rebelled against the guards who came into the prison at 2:30 am blowing their whistles and banging their batons for a wake up call. Prisoners discarded their head coverings, tore off their identification numbers, and pushed their beds up to the door of the prison cell to prevent the guards from entering [4]. This only fueled the guards’ anger, and made them even more violent with the prisoners. The rebellion, though quickly extinguished, marked a turning point in the experiment. The guards, feeling their authority challenged, escalated their tactics. They began to employ psychological manipulation, such as granting privileges to some prisoners and not to others, encouraging a divide among the inmates. This strategy not only broke the unity of the prisoners but also intensified the reality of their confinement. As the days passed, the atmosphere within the makeshift prison grew increasingly tense and oppressive. Guards devised ever more cruel and unusual punishments for perceived infractions. They forced prisoners to engage in pointless and exhausting exercises, conducted middle-of-the-night roll calls, and subjected them to public humiliation.

Dr. Zimbardo observed these developments with a mixture of fascination and horror. Initially, he rationalized the guards’ behavior as part of the dynamics of power and authority he sought to study. However, as the experiment progressed, the lines between reality and role-playing blurred. The participants–both guards and prisoners–had become deeply engrossed in their roles. For the prisoners, the sense of dehumanization and loss of personal identity became a crushing weight. For the guards, the intoxication of unchecked power manifested in a loss of empathy and a disconnection from their moral compass [6]. The distress of the prisoners became evident, and some began to exhibit signs of emotional breakdown, despair, and psychological trauma. It was a scenario that Zimbardo had not fully anticipated. The experiment was supposed to simulate a prison environment to study behavior under a controlled setting, but it had spiraled into an ethical nightmare. The boundary between the study of power dynamics and the infliction of real harm had been crossed.

Zimbardo was forced to confront the consequences of his creation. The emotional and psychological toll on the participants was undeniable. Concerns raised by external observers, including Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D and Zimbardo’s future wife, highlighted the inhumanity of the experiment. Maslach’s horror at the conditions of the simulated prison and the treatment of the prisoners brought Zimbardo to a realization of how far he had allowed things to go [5]. After only six days, the Stanford Prison Experiment was terminated–its planned two-week duration cut short. The aftermath was a mix of relief and introspection. The participants were debriefed, and the psychological impacts were addressed, but the scars, both physical and mental, were real.

One of the most concerning aspects of the Stanford Prison Experiment was the lasting emotional toll it took on its participants. Notably, on the third day, one prisoner began to exhibit signs of severe emotional distress, culminating in what has been described as a mental breakdown. This participant’s quick descent into distress necessitated his early release from the experiment, raising immediate concerns about the oversight and ethical considerations of the study [4]. The incident was a clear indication of the experiment’s impact on participants and served as a critical moment that should have prompted a reevaluation of the experiment’s ethical underpinings. Some participants, including guards and prisoners, later spoke out about their experiences, offering a more nuanced view of the experiment’s impact on them. These personal accounts highlighted the psychological damage caused by the experiment and raised questions about the long-term effects of participation in such psychologically demanding roles.

The Stanford Prison Experiment became a subject of intense scrutiny and debate within the psychological community and the public at large. It raised profound questions about the ethics of experimental design, the responsibility of researchers to their subjects, and the dark potentials that lie within all individuals when placed in certain conditions [2]. Zimbardo’s study, intended to explore the effects of perceived power, ended up demonstrating the susceptibility of individuals to situational forces beyond their control. It also showed the ease with which ordinary people could engage in acts of tyranny and oppression when provided a framework that justifies such behavior. The experiment stood as a dark reflection of the complexities of human nature, the dangers of unbridled authority, and the thin line that separates civilized behavior from barbarism.

In the years that followed, the Stanford Prison Experiment would be cited as a cautionary tale about the ethical boundaries of psychological research. It underscored the need for rigorous oversight and the importance of prioritizing the well-being of participants in any study. Moreover, it served as a stark reminder of the capacity for cruelty inherent in all humans, challenging the notion of innate goodness and prompting a deeper examination of the structures of power and authority in society. The legacy of the Stanford Prison Experiment stands as a multifaceted narrative, marked by the pursuit of scientific ambition, ethical challenges, and the intricate layers of human psychology. It stands as a pivotal moment in the history of psychological research, a grim lesson in the potential costs of scientific inquiry, and an enduring subject of analysis and debate about the nature of humanity itself.

References

[1] Britannica, “Stanford Prison Experiment | History & Facts,” Encyclopædia Britannica. Aug.

26, 2022. Available: https://www.britannica.com/event/Stanford-Prison-Experiment

‌[2] L. Geggel, “One of Psychology’s Most Famous Experiments Was Deeply Flawed,”

livescience.com, Jun. 15, 2018. https://www.livescience.com/62832-stanford-prison-experiment-flawed.html

[3] M. Konnikova, “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment,” The New Yorker, Jun.

12, 2015. https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment

[4] P. Zimbardo, “Stanford Prison Experiment,” Stanford Prison Experiment, 2014.

https://www.prisonexp.org/the-story

[5] S. magazine, “The Menace Within,” stanfordmag.org, Sep. 02, 2011.

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-menace-within#:~:text=Zimbardo%20encouraged%20the%20guards%20to

[6] “The Connection Between the Stanford Prison Experiment and PTSD,” Psych Central, Aug.

27, 2011. https://psychcentral.com/ptsd/stanford-prison-experiment-ptsd#impact-on-participants

[7] T. Le Texier, “Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment.,” American Psychologist, vol. 74,

no. 7, pp. 823–839, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000401.

‌‌[8] “Why the Stanford Prison Experiment Is Still Infamous Decades Later,” Verywell Mind.

https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stanford-prison-experiment-2794995#:~:text=Zimbardo%2C%20who%20acted%20as%20the