Homework: Read the article below about the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Afterwards,
write a full paragraph summary of the article (approximately 6 sentences) in which you
touch on how the experiment was set up, what happened during the experiment, and what
we learn from it.

From www.experiment-resources.com

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

This infamous Stanford Prison Experiment has etched its place in history, as a notorious
example of the unexpected effects that can occur when psychological experiments into
human nature are performed.
by Martyn Shuttleworth (2008)

Like a real life ‘Lord of the Flies’, it showed a degeneration and breakdown of the
established rules and morals dictating exactly how people should behave towards each
other.

The study created more new questions than it answered, about the amorality and darkness
that inhabits the human psyche.

As a purely scientific venture, the experiment was a failure, but it generated some results
that give an insight into human psychology and social behavior. The ethical implications
of this study are still discussed in college and undergraduate psychology classes all across
the world.

In the days of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuses, the Stanford Prison Experiment is
once again becoming relevant, showing that systematic abuse and denial of human rights
is never far away in any prison facility.

This study is so well known that a Hollywood movie about the Stanford Prison
Experiment is going to be released in 2009. The experiment has also been the basis of
many similar studies, over the years, but these have had much stricter controls and
monitoring in place.

BACKGROUND
In 1971, the psychologist Philip Zimbardo tried to show that prison guards and convicts
would tend to slip into predefined roles, behaving in a way that they thought was
required, rather than using their own judgment and morals.

Zimbardo was trying to show what happened when all of the individuality and dignity
was stripped away from a human, and their life was completely controlled.

He wanted show the dehumanization and loosening of social and moral values that can
happen to guards immersed in such a situation.

METHOD
To conduct the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo constructed a mock correctional
facility in the basement of Stanford University.
Adverts were placed in local newspapers offering $15 per day for participants in this
program. Of the 75 responses, the 24 male subjects judged to be most mentally and
emotionally stable were selected. Mainly middle class and white, they were divided into
two groups randomly, of 12 prisoners and 12 guards.

The group selected to be the guards were outfitted in ‘military-style’ intimidating

uniforms. They were also equipped with wooden batons and mirrored shades, to prevent
eye-contact and make the guards appear less human.

In an initiation meeting, Zimbardo, who acted as the warden for the duration of the
Stanford Prison Experiment, informed the guards that the only rule was that no physical
punishment was allowed. Other than that, the guards were to run the prison as they saw
fit, and would be divided into regular working shifts and patterns.

Prisoners, by contrast, were dressed in cheap smocks and were allowed no underwear.
They were to be addressed by, and answer to, identity numbers only. They also had a
small chain around one ankle to remind them that they were inmates in a correctional
facility. Conditions were tough, with only basic sleeping mattresses and plain food being
supplied.

The prisoners were instructed to wait at home "to be called" for the start of the
experiment; their homes were raided without any warning, arrested by the real local
police department and charged with armed robbery.

The Palo Alto Police had agreed to help with the experiment. As if they were real-life
suspects, the prisoners were read their rights and had their mug shots and fingerprints
taken. After being stripped, searched and de-loused, they were taken into the cells that
would be their homes for the next two weeks.

Zimbardo, acting as a prison warden, would be able to observe and make notes about
what happened during the course of the study.

RESULTS
The Stanford Prison Experiment degenerated very quickly and the dark and inhuman side
of human nature became apparent very quickly.

The prisoners began to suffer a wide array of humiliations and punishments at the hands
of the guards, and many began to show signs of mental and emotional distress.

On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners organized a mass revolt and riot, as a
protest about the conditions. Guards worked extra hours and devised a strategy to break
up and put down the riot, using fire-extinguishers.

No prompt for this action was given by Zimbardo; the guards used their own initiative to
formulate the plan.

Standard prisoner counts and roll-call became a trial of ordeal and ritual humiliation for
the prisoners, with forced exercise and physical punishments becoming more and more
common. Mattresses were confiscated from the prisoners and they were forced to sleep
on cold, hard floors.
Toilet facilities became a privilege, instead of a basic human right, with access to the
bathroom being frequently denied; the inmates often had to clean the toilet facilities with
their bare hands. Prisoners were often stripped and subjected to sexual humiliation, as a
weapon of intimidation.

The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that one third of the guards began to show an
extreme and imbedded streak of sadism, and Zimbardo himself started to become
internalized in the experiment. Two of the prisoners had to be removed early because
they were showing real signs of emotional distress.

Interestingly, none of the prisoners wanted to quit the experiment early, even when told
that they would be denied their participation pay. The prisoners became institutionalized
very quickly and adapted to their roles.

A replacement prisoner was introduced and was instructed to go on hunger strike as a

protest about the treatment of his fellow inmates, and as an attempt to obtain early
release. Surprisingly, his fellow inmates viewed him as a troublemaker rather than a
fellow victim trying to help them.

When the inmates were informed that, if the rest of their prisoners gave up their blankets,
he would be released from solitary confinement, all but one refused to give up their
blanket.

The Stanford Prison Experiment carried on for six days until an outsider, Christina
Mastack, was brought in to interview guards and prisoners and was shocked by the
scenes that she was witnessing.

Zimbardo terminated the experiment early and noted that out of over 50 external visitors,
this lady was the only one to raise concerns about what was happening.

CONCLUSIONS
Zimbardo believed that the experiment showed how the individual personalities of people
could be swamped when they were given positions of authority.

Social and ideological factors also determined how both groups behaved, with individuals
acting in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own judgment.

The experiment appeared to show how subjects reacted to the specific needs of the
situation rather than referring to their own internal morals or beliefs.

The results of the experiment have been used in many high profile court cases over the
years, to try and show that a prison must have clear instructions and guidelines from
higher level authorities, or prisoner abuse may occur.
CRITICISMS
The ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment have long been called into question, and,
certainly, without stricter controls this experiment would not be sanctioned today; it
could pose a genuine risk to people disposed towards mental and emotional imbalances.

In fairness to Zimbardo, most of these discussions take place with a lot of hindsight, and
he could not have guessed the internalization and institutionalization that would occur
during the course of the study.

Other criticisms include the validity of the results. It was a field experiment, rather than a
scientific experiment, so there are only observational results and no scientific evaluation.

In addition, it would be very difficult for anybody to replicate the experiment conditions.

The selection of the subjects has been questioned extensively with the wording of the
advert stating ‘wanted for prison experiments’, this may have caused people with more of
a pre-disposition towards violence to apply.

In the aftermath of the study, many of the guards and prisoners indicated that they were
only acting out roles that they thought were expected of them, so there is no consensus on
whether the study really portrayed human nature or not.

Whether the Stanford Prison Experiment relates to real prisons is another matter.
Although maltreatment of prisoners undoubtedly takes place all across the world, in most
facilities, the guards are carefully screened and undergo a long and extensive training
process.

They also have rigid protocols to which they are supposed to stick. In addition, the study
studied only male subjects and most western prisons do have a mix of sexes on the guard
staff.

Zimbardo also glossed over the fact that not all of the guards showed sadistic tendencies,
with some seeking to actively help the prisoners and show sympathy towards them.

Later studies have concluded that abuse in prisons often comes from the top down and
that when orders are given these can affect the results. If the guards had been given
stricter guidelines from Zimbardo at the beginning then there may have been fewer
sadistic tendencies shown by the guards selected for the Stanford Prison Experiment.