Stanford Prison Experiment. Background Landmark psychological study of the human response to captivity. Conducted in 1971 Led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford.

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 based on a series of tests

that proved they were 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 “Superintendent”

Goals

DepersonalizationDeindividualizationDisorientation

Guards

Wooden Batons, military style uniforms and mirrored sunglasses.

Work in shifts and return home during off hours.

Given no formal guidelines except that they were not allowed to touch the prisoners.

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 Strenuous punishments were imposed. (i.e.

push-ups) Prison became unsanitary and bathroom

rights became privileges.

Results (cont)

Clean toilets with bare hands. Sleep on concrete floor naked. Denied food. 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 Results cannot be reproduced or replicated Zimbardo was not a neutral observer Not like an actual prison Sample size was too small People who were drawn to the ad in the

newspaper, may be predisposition for violent behavior.

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?