Stanford Prison

Experiment:
Zimbardo’s Famous
Study
https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
By
Saul Mcleod, PhD
Updated on
May 18, 2023
Reviewed by
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Zimbardo and his colleagues (1973) were interested in finding out
whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons
was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e.,
dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e.,
situational).

For example, prisoners and guards may have personalities that

make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and
order and guards being domineering and aggressive.

Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner

due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in
prisons.

Zimbardo predicted the situation made people act the way they do
rather than their disposition (personality).

Procedure
To study people’s roles in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a
basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a
mock prison.

He advertised asking for volunteers to participate in a study of the

psychological effects of prison life.

The 75 applicants who answered the ad were given diagnostic

interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with
psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime
or drug abuse.

24 men judged to be the most physically & mentally stable, the

most mature, & the least involved in antisocial behaviors were
chosen to participate.

The participants did not know each other prior to the study and
were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner

or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were two
reserves, and one dropped out, finally leaving ten prisoners and 11
guards.

Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at

their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police
station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked.’

Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology

department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the
basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare
walls and small cells. Here the deindividuation process began.

When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked,
deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked
away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued
a uniform, and referred to by their number only.
The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel
anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number
and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number.

Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it,

but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their
hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.

All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they

carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from
the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye
contact with prisoners impossible.

Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards
remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they
thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and
to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was
permitted.

Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a

researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.

Findings
Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into
their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Asserting Authority

Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to

harass prisoners. At 2:30 A.M. prisoners were awakened from sleep
by blasting whistles for the first of many “counts.”

The counts served as a way to familiarize the prisoners with their

numbers. More importantly, they provided a regular occasion for
the guards to exercise control over the prisoners.
The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked
about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on
each other to the guards.

They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they
were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell
disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards
against prisoners who did not obey the rules.

Physical Punishment
The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were
given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were
generally dehumanized.
Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by
the guards. One of the guards stepped on the prisoners” backs
while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit on the backs of
fellow prisoners doing their push-ups.

Asserting Independence
Because the first day passed without incident, the guards were
surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion which broke out on
the morning of the second day.
During the second day of the experiment, the prisoners removed
their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded
themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door.

The guards called in reinforcements. The three guards who were

waiting on stand-by duty came in and the night shift guards
voluntarily remained on duty.

Putting Down the Rebellion

The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher which shot a stream
of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away
from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the
prisoners naked and took the beds out.
The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary
confinement. After this, the guards generally began to harass and
intimidate the prisoners.

Special Privileges
One of the three cells was designated as a “privilege cell.” The three
prisoners least involved in the rebellion were given special privileges.
The guards gave them back their uniforms and beds and allowed them
to wash their hair and brush their
teeth.
Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in the presence of
the other prisoners who had temporarily lost the privilege of eating.
The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.

Consequences of the Rebellion

Over the next few days, the relationships between the guards and the
prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the
other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the
prisoners were totally dependent on them.
As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more
derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let
the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the
prisoners became more submissive.

As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more

aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever greater obedience
from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards
for everything, so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as
telling tales on fellow prisoners.

Prisoner #8612
Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began
suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking,
uncontrollable crying, and rage.
After a meeting with the guards where they told him he was weak,
but offered him “informant” status, #8612 returned to the other
prisoners and said “You can”t leave. You can”t quit.”

Soon #8612 “began to act ‘crazy,’ to scream, to curse, to go into a

rage that seemed out of control.” It wasn’t until this point that the
psychologists realized they had to let him out.

A Visit from Parents

The next day, the guards held a visiting hour for parents and friends.
They were worried that when the parents saw the state of the jail,
they might insist on taking their sons home. Guards washed the
prisoners, had them clean and polish their cells, fed them a big dinner
and played music on the intercom.
After the visit, rumor spread of a mass escape plan. Afraid that they
would lose the prisoners, the guards and experimenters tried to
enlist help and facilities of the Palo Alto police department.

The guards again escalated the level of harassment, forcing them to

do menial, repetitive work such as cleaning toilets with their bare
hands.

Catholic Priest

Zimbardo invited a Catholic priest who had been a prison chaplain

to evaluate how realistic our prison situation was. Half of the
prisoners introduced themselves by their number rather than
name.

The chaplain interviewed each prisoner individually. The priest told

them the only way they would get out was with the help of a
lawyer.

Prisoner #819
Eventually, while talking to the priest, #819 broke down and began
to cry hysterically, just like two previously released prisoners had.

The psychologists removed the chain from his foot, the cap off his
head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the
prison yard. They told him they would get him some food and then
take him to see a doctor.

While this was going on, one of the guards lined up the other
prisoners and had them chant aloud:

“Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did,

my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer.”
The psychologists realized #819 could hear the chanting and went
back into the room where they found him sobbing uncontrollably.
The psychologists tried to get him to agree to leave the experiment,
but he said he could not leave because the others had labeled him a
bad prisoner.

Back to Reality

At that point, Zimbardo said, “Listen, you are not #819. You are
[his name], and my name is Dr. Zimbardo. I am a psychologist, not
a prison superintendent, and this is not a real prison. This is just an
experiment, and those are students, not prisoners, just like you.
Let’s go.”

He stopped crying suddenly, looked up and replied, “Okay, let’s

go,“ as if nothing had been wrong.

An End to the Experiment

Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for
two weeks, but on the sixth day it was terminated, due to the
emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression of the
guards.
Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct
interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when
she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards.

Filled with outrage, she said, “It’s terrible what you are doing to
these boys!” Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison,
she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.

Zimbardo (2008) later noted, “It wasn”t until much later that I
realized how far into my prison role I was at that point — that I was
thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research
psychologist.“

Conclusion
According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison
Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social
roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly
stereotyped as those of the prison guards.
Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they
began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal
lives.

The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the

guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as
guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study).

Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of

behavior rather than the dispositional one.

Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain

the prisoner’s “final submission.”
Deindividuation may explain the behavior of the participants;
especially the guards. This is a state when you become so
immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of
identity and personal responsibility.

The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel
what happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm.
The also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of
the uniform they wore.

Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner’s

submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they
did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison
the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give
up responding.

After the prison experiment was terminated, Zimbardo interviewed

the participants. Here’s an excerpt:

‘Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed.
The research had felt “real” to them. One guard said, “I was surprised
at myself.

I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their
bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept
thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something.”

Another guard said “Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a

great pleasure.” And another: “… during the inspection I went to Cell
Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed
me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to
let me mess it up.

He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was

pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin
although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry.”’
Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had
behaved in the brutalizing ways that they had. Many said they
hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of
such things.

The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had responded in the
submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to
be assertive types normally.

When asked about the guards, they described the usual three
stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were
good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.
A further explanation for the behavior of the participants can be
described in terms of reinforcement. The escalation of aggression
and abuse by the guards could be seen as being due to the positive
reinforcement they received both from fellow guards and
intrinsically in terms of how good it made them feel to have so
much power.

Similarly, the prisoners could have learned through negative

reinforcement that if they kept their heads down and did as they
were told they could avoid further unpleasant experiences.