Stanford Prison Experiment: A Disturbing Study

Background and Setup

• Investigator: Professor Philip Zimbardo
• Year: August 1971
• Objective: To examine power dynamics between guards and inmates in a prison setting.
• Goal: Determine if the acquisition of power made guards brutal or if brutality is intrinsic to human nature.

Funding and Context

• Sponsored by: US Office of Naval Research
• Interest: US Navy and Marine Corps were interested in power hierarchies in military prisons.
• Grant: Used to create a mock prison and pay participants.

Recruitment and Selection

• Advertised for Participants: "Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks."
• Initial Applications: 70 people, only 24 selected.
• Criteria: No criminal record, narcotic abuse, personality disorders, physical disabilities, or psychological problems.
• Demographics: All white, male college students.

Experiment Grouping

• Division: Randomly assigned as prisoners or guards by a coin toss.
• Groups: 12 prisoners and 12 guards (9 active, 3 alternates).

Experimental Procedure

• Prisoner Experience

  • Arrested by real police, blindfolded, and taken to a mock prison in Stanford's Jordan Hall basement.
  • Prison clothing: Sandals, ill-fitting smocks, no underwear, nylon stocking caps.
  • Dehumanization tactics: Only addressed by numbers, chains on legs.

• Guard Experience

  • Uniforms: Prison guard outfits, nightsticks, whistles, mirrored sunglasses.
  • Instructions: Maintain order by any means necessary short of physical violence (harassment, deprivation).
  • Work shifts: 8-hour shifts, on-call for emergencies.

Experiment Dynamics

• First Night: Guards initiated a 2:30 AM headcount using a whistle.
• Rebellion: On the second day, prisoners removed uniforms, barricaded cells.
• Response: Guards used fire extinguishers, solitary confinement, privilege and deprivation tactics.

Dehumanization and Control

• Deprivation: Denied restroom use at night, forced to use buckets.
• Psychological Manipulation: Privilege cell strategy to sow distrust and confusion.

Ethical Concerns and Conclusion

• Emotional Impact: Doug Korpi suffered acute emotional disturbance, released early.
• Role Internalization: Zimbardo and participants internalized their roles.
• Parole Board: Used to assess prisoner internalization of roles.

End of Experiment

• Catalyst for Ending: Christina Maslack's intervention questioning ethics, leading Zimbardo to end the study on the sixth day.

Legacy and Controversy

• Scientific Criticism: Questions about scientific rigor and ethics.
• Critics: Thibault Le Texier's book argues results were influenced by Zimbardo's guidance.
• Zimbardo's Reflection: Acknowledged the study was more demonstration than experiment.