Stanford prison experiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling.
You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available, as is general documentation.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

The Stanford prison experiment was a psychological study of the human response to captivity, in particular to the real world circumstances of prison life and the effects of imposed social roles on behaviour. It was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. Undergraduate volunteers played the roles of guards and prisoners living in a mock prison that was constructed in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.

Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their assigned roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to genuinely dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early.

Despite the now highly unsanitary and out of control conditions evident, only one of 50 observers, graduate interviewer Christina Maslach, objected to the experiment. Maslach was a former student of Zimbardo's, who was a 'young professor' at UC Berkeley. They were also in a romantic relationship. Maslach told Zimbardo that she thought he was a kind man, but she didn't know if she could love someone who would do what he was doing. This caused Zimbardo to reflect on his role, resulting in him ending the experiment earlier than planned.[1]

Ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1963 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former high school friend.

Contents

[edit] Goals and methods

The study was funded by the U.S. Navy to explain conflict in its prison system and the Marine Corps. Zimbardo and his team intended to test the hypothesis that prison guards and convicts were self-selecting, of a certain disposition that would naturally lead to poor conditions in that situation.

Participants were recruited via a newspaper ad and offered $15 a day ($75 adjusted for inflation in 2007) to participate in a two-week "prison simulation." Of the 75 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected 24 whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white, middle-class young males. All were college undergraduates.

The group of twenty-four young men were divided in half at random into an equal group of "prisoners" and "guards". Interestingly, prisoners later said they thought the guards had been chosen for their larger physical size, but in reality they had been picked by a fair coin toss and there was no objective difference in stature between the two groups.

The prison itself was run in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department, which had been converted into a mock jail. An undergraduate research assistant was the "warden" and Zimbardo the "superintendent".

Zimbardo set up a number of specific conditions on the participants which he hoped would promote disorientation, depersonalization and deindividuation.

Guards were given wooden batons and a khaki, military-style uniform they had chosen themselves at a local military surplus store. They were also given mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Unlike the prisoners, the guards were to work in shifts and return home during off hours, though at times many would later volunteer for added duty without additional pay.

Prisoners were to wear only intentionally ill-fitting muslin smocks without underwear and rubber thong sandals, which Zimbardo said would force them to adopt "unfamiliar body postures" and discomfort in order to further their sense of disorientation. They were referred to by assigned numbers instead of by name. These numbers were sewn onto their uniforms, and the prisoners were required to wear tight-fitting nylon pantyhose caps to simulate shaven heads similar to those of military basic training. In addition, they wore a small chain around their ankles as a "constant reminder" of their imprisonment and oppression.

The day before the experiment, guards attended a brief orientation meeting, but were given no formal guidelines other than that no physical violence was permitted. They were told it was their responsibility to run the prison, which they could do in any way they wished.

Zimbardo provided the following statements to the "guards" in the briefing:

“ You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none. — The Stanford Prison Study video, quoted in Haslam & Reicher, 2003. ”

The participants who had been chosen to play the part of prisoners were told simply to wait in their homes to be "called on" on the day the experiment began. Without any other warning, they were "charged" with armed robbery and arrested by the actual Palo Alto police department, who cooperated in this part of the experiment.

The prisoners were put through a full booking procedure by the police, including fingerprinting and having their mug shots taken, and were informed of their Miranda rights. They were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched, "deloused" and given their new identities.

[edit] Results

Guards force prisoners to do push-ups, while another (standing) is made to sing.
Guards force prisoners to do push-ups, while another (standing) is made to sing.

The experiment very quickly got out of hand. Prisoners suffered—and accepted—sadistic and humiliating treatment at the hands of the guards, and by the end many showed severe emotional disturbance.

After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on day two. Guards volunteered extra hours and worked together to break up the revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff. After this point, the guards tried to divide the prisoners and pit them against each other by setting up a "good" cell block and a "bad" cell block. This was supposed to make the prisoners think that there were "informers" amidst their ranks. The efforts were largely effective, and there were no further large-scale rebellions. According to Zimbardo's former convict consultants, the tactic was similar to those used successfully in real U.S. prisons.

Prisoner "counts", which had initially been devised to help prisoners get acquainted with their identity numbers, devolved into hour-long ordeals, in which guards tormented the prisoners and imposed physical punishments including long bouts of forced exercise.

The prison quickly became unsanitary and inhospitable. Bathroom rights became privileges, which could be, and frequently were, denied. Some prisoners were made to clean toilets using their bare hands. Mattresses were removed from the "bad" cell, and prisoners were forced to sleep on the concrete floor without clothing. Food was also frequently denied as a means of punishment. Prisoners endured forced nudity and even acts of sexual humiliation.

Zimbardo himself has cited his own increasing absorption in the experiment, which he actively participated in and guided. On the fourth day, he and the guards reacted to a rumor of an escape plot by attempting to move the entire experiment to a real, unused cell block at the local police department because it was more "secure". The police department refused him, citing insurance concerns, and Zimbardo recalls being angry and disgusted at the lack of cooperation between his and the police's correctional facilities.

As the experiment proceeded, several of the guards became progressively more sadistic—particularly at night, when they thought the cameras were off. Experimenters said approximately one-third of the guards exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment was cut off early.

One point that Zimbardo used to argue that the participants internalized their roles, was that when offered "parole" in exchange for forfeiture of all of their pay, most prisoners accepted the deal. Then, when their parole was nonetheless "rejected", none left the experiment. Zimbardo argues that there was no reason for them to continue participating if they would have given up the material compensation in order to leave.

Prisoners began to show acute emotional disturbances. One prisoner developed a psychosomatic rash all over his body upon finding out that his "parole" had been turned down (Zimbardo turned him down because he thought he was merely trying to "con" his way out of the prison by faking illness). Uncontrollable crying and disorganized thinking were common among the prisoners. Two of the prisoners suffered such severe trauma that they were removed from the experiment early and replaced.

Prisoner 416
Prisoner 416

One of the replacement prisoners, Prisoner #416, was horrified at the guards' treatment and went on a hunger strike in protest. He was forced into solitary confinement in a small closet for three hours. During this time, the guards made him hold the sausages he had refused to eat. The other prisoners saw him as a troublemaker. To exploit this feeling, the guards offered the other prisoners a choice: Either the prisoners could give up their blankets, or #416 would be kept in solitary confinement overnight. The other prisoners chose to keep their blankets. Later Zimbardo intervened and had #416 returned to his cell.

Zimbardo decided to terminate the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student Zimbardo was dating at the time (later his wife) and previously unfamiliar with the experiment, objected to the appalling conditions of the "prison" after she was brought in to conduct interviews. Zimbardo has noted that of the over fifty outsiders who had seen the prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality. After only six days of the planned two weeks, the experiment was shut down.

[edit] Conclusions

The Stanford experiment ended on August 20, 1971. The experiment's result has been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. It is also used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

In psychology, the results of the experiment are said to support situational attributions of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed to entail that the situation caused the participants' behavior rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities. In this way, it is compatible with the results of the also-famous Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be damaging electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.

Coincidentally, shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

[edit] Criticism of the experiment

The experiment was widely criticized as being unethical and bordering on unscientific. Critics including Erich Fromm challenged how readily the results of the experiment could be generalized. Fromm specifically writes about how the personality of an individual does in fact affect behavior when imprisoned (using historical examples from the Nazi concentration camps). This runs counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argues that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be determined with the methods employed to screen them.

Because it was a field experiment, it was impossible to keep traditional scientific controls. Zimbardo was not merely a neutral observer, but influenced the direction of the experiment as its "superintendent". Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce.

One of the most abused prisoners,#416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.
One of the most abused prisoners,#416, and the guard known as "John Wayne", who was one of the most abusive guards, confront each other in an "encounter session" two months later.

Some of the experiment's critics argued that participants based their behavior on how they were expected to behave, or modeled it after stereotypes they already had about the behavior of prisoners and guards. In other words, the participants were merely engaging in role-playing. In response, Zimbardo claimed that even if there was role-playing initially, participants internalized these roles as the experiment continued.

The experiment was also criticized on a basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming "prisoners", making them wear women's clothing, not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and that it was necessary to enact these procedures to put the "prisoners" in the proper frame of mind; however, it is difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and the experiment's methods would be difficult to reproduce exactly so that others could test them.

Some said that the study was too deterministic: reports described significant differences in the cruelty of the guards, the worst of whom came to be nicknamed "John Wayne," (who alleges he started the escalation of events between "guards" and "prisoners" after he began to emulate a character from the movie Cool Hand Luke and further intensified his actions because he was nicknamed "John Wayne" when he was trying to mimic actor "Luke"'s Warden Martin instead[1]) but others were kinder and often did favors for prisoners. Zimbardo made no attempt to explain or account for these differences.

Lastly, the sample size was very small, with only 24 participants taking place over a relatively short period of time.

Haslam and Reicher (2003), psychologists from the University of Exeter and University of St Andrews, conducted a partial replication of the experiment with the assistance of the BBC, who broadcast scenes from the study as a reality TV program called The Experiment. Their results and conclusions were very different from Zimbardo's. While their procedure was not a direct replication of Zimbardo's, their study does cast further doubt on the generality of his conclusions.[2]

[edit] Epilogue: Abu Ghraib

When news of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal broke in March 2004, many observers were immediately struck by similarities to the Stanford experiment — among them, Philip Zimbardo, who paid close attention to the unfolding details of the story. He was dismayed by efforts to shift the blame for the abuses at Abu Ghraib onto "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging the role of systemic problems.

Zimbardo eventually became involved with the defense team representing one of the Abu Ghraib guards, Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick. He had full access to all investigative and background reports, and testified as an expert witness at Frederick's court martial, which resulted in an 8-year prison sentence for Frederick in October 2004.

Zimbardo drew on the knowledge he gained from his participation in the Frederick case to write a new book entitled, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, (Random House, 2007), which discusses the many connections between the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib abuses.[2]

[edit] Popular culture

  • A 1999 novel by German author Mario Giordano entitled Black Box was inspired by the Stanford experiment.
  • In 2001 the BBC commissioned a live fly on the wall documentary, The Experiment, recreating this experiment with volunteers. This was halted after concern for the welfare of the participants.[3]
  • A 2001 German film, Das Experiment, was based upon the Giordano novel.
  • The Black Box, a play adapted from Das Experiment, was directed by Dr. Anthony S. Beukas and performed by the Yeshiva College Dramatics Society at Yeshiva University in December 2005.
  • In 2006, a documentary entitled The Human Behavior Experiments, directed by Alex Gibney, aired on CourtTv and the Sundance Channel.
  • The story of the experiment is soon to be filmed by Christopher McQuarrie (Oscar-winning writer of The Usual Suspects) from a script he wrote with Tim Talbott.
  • The episode "My Big Fat Greek Rush Week" of the television series Veronica Mars alludes to the experiment when several main characters participate in a recreation of it. Two characters in particular are paralleled to "Prisoner #416" and "John Wayne".
  • In Britain's Big Brother 7, the house mates were separated into Prisoners and Guards in a way that was reminiscent of the Stanford prison experiment.
  • A German BDSM film company, Mood Pictures Inc., released a film titled "Stanford Prison Experiment" with the premise of the experiment being replicated with all female subjects as opposed to the original experiment's group of all male subjects.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "John Wayne" (name withheld). Interview. "The Science of Evil." Primetime. Basic Instincts. KATU. 3 Jan. 2007.
  2. ^ see interview at http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/interviews/experiment.htm
  3. ^ education.guardian.co.uk/higher/socialsciences/story/0,9846,638487,00.html. Retrieved on March 20, 2007.
  • Zimbardo, P. G (2007) [3] "Understanding How Good People Turn Evil". Interview transcript. "Democracy Now!", March 30, 2007. Accessed March 31, 2007
  • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1-17. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research
  • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
  • Haslam, S. Alexander & Reicher, Stephen (2003). Beyond Stanford: Questioning a role-based explanation of tyranny. Bulletin of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 22-25.
  • Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1991). Quiet rage: The Stanford prison study. Videorecording. Stanford, CA: Psychology Dept., Stanford University.
  • Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment. Congressional Record. (Serial No. 15, 1971-10-25). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[edit] External links

Abu Ghraib and the experiment:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Stanford_prison_experiment.html"