Stanford Prison Experiment

Background Landmark psychological study of the human response to captivity. Conducted in 1971 Led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. Volunteers played the roles of the guards and prisoners.

Funded by the U.S Navy to explain conflicts in its and the Marine Corps’ prison systems

Hypothesis Prison guards and convicts were self – selecting that would naturally lead to poor conditions in that situation.

Participants Recruited via a newspaper ad Offered $15 a day Participate in a mock prison simulation for 2 weeks 24 were chosen to be the most psychologically stable and healthy White, middle class, young males.

Roles Divided in half into equal groups of prisoners and guards. Coin toss

Prison Mock jail Basement of Stanford Psych. Dept Research Assistant was the “Warden” Zimbardo was the “Superintend ent”

Goals Depersonalization Deindividualization Disorientation

Guards Wooden Batons, military style uniforms and mirrored sunglasses. Work in shifts and return home during off hours. Given no formal guidelines except no physical violence

Prisoners ill fitting smocks (no underwear) Sandals Assigned #’s –no names Nylon pantyhose caps Small chain around ankles

The Beginning Participants were charged with armed robbery by real police officers Fingerprinting, mug shots, strip searched and deloused.

Results Prisoners suffered sadistic and humiliating treatment Developed severe emotional disturbances (crying and disorganized thinking) Riots Physical punishments were imposed Prison became unsanitary and bathroom rights became privileges

Results (cont) Clean toilets with bare hands Sleep on concrete floor naked Denied food Forced nudity and homosexual acts of nudity. Guards became more and more sadistic

The End After only 6 days the experiment was shut down!!

Conclusions Argued to demonstrate obedience of people and power of authority Situation caused the behavior not inherent personalities Compared to Miligram experiment

Criticisms Unethical Unscientific Cannot be reproduced or replicated Zimbardo was not a neutral observer Not like an actual prison Sample size was too small

Questions Was it right to trade suffering experienced by the participants for the knowledge gained by the research? Why or why not? If you were an experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? How could you have made the study more ethical? From a sociocultural perspective, what would the outcome be if gender, race or socioeconomic status changed? Give an example.