Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment: reviews, analysis, conclusions

2024 Author: Miguel Ramacey | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 06:11

What do you know about the Stanford prison experiment? Surely many of you have heard something about him. Indeed, one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century was conducted at Stanford in 1971. The basement of the psychology department turned into a prison for one week with all its horrors. Why were the guards so cruel? Who decided to participate in this study? What is the fate of its organizers and participants? You will learn about all this by reading the article.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a famous socio-psychological study led by Philip Zimbardo, an American psychologist. As part of the simulation of the prison environment, the influence of the roles of "prisoner" and "warden" was studied. The roles were assigned randomly. Study participants played them for about a week.

"Guards" when included in the situation, as well as when keeping "prisoners" behind bars, had a certain freedom of action. Volunteers who agreed to the terms of the experiment coped with trials and stress in different ways. The behavior of bothgroups were recorded and analyzed.

Selection of participants in the experiment

Stanford prison experiment - a study in which 22 men participated. They were selected from 75 who responded to an ad in a newspaper. Participation was offered a fee of $15 per day. Respondents had to fill out a questionnaire that included questions about family, mental and physical he alth, relationships with people, life experiences, preferences and inclinations. This made it possible for the researchers to exclude people with a criminal history or psychopathology. One or two experimenters interviewed each applicant. As a result, 24 people were selected who seemed the most stable mentally and physically, the most mature, and also the least capable of antisocial acts. Several people for one reason or another refused to participate in the experiment. The rest were divided at random, assigning half of them the role of "prisoners" and the other half - "guards".

Subjects are male students who spent the summer at or near Stanford. They were mostly well-to-do whites (with the exception of one Asian). They did not know each other before participating in the experiment.

The roles of "prisoner" and "guard"

The Stanford prison experiment simulated prison conditions - "prisoners" were in prison around the clock. They were randomly assigned to cells, each of which had 3 people. "Guards" worked in an eight-hour shift, also in threes. They arewere in prison only during the shift, and at other times they were engaged in ordinary activities.

In order for the "guards" to behave in accordance with their true reactions to the conditions of the prison, they were given minimal instructions. However, physical punishment was strictly prohibited.

Imprisonment

The test subjects who were supposed to be prisoners were unexpectedly "arrested" in their homes. They were told that they were detained on suspicion of armed robbery or burglary, informed of their rights, searched, handcuffed and brought to the station. Here they went through the procedures of entering into the card file and taking fingerprints. Each prisoner upon arrival at the prison was stripped naked, after which he was treated with a special "lice remedy" (ordinary deodorant) and left for some time alone in the nude. After that, he was given special clothes, photographed and placed in a cell.

The "senior guard" read the "prisoners" the rules that should be followed. For the purpose of depersonalization, each of the "criminals" should have been addressed only by the number indicated on the form.

Prison conditions

"Prisoners" received three meals a day, three times a day, under the supervision of the jailer, they could visit the toilet, two hours were allocated for writing letters or reading. 2 dates were allowed perweek, as well as the right to exercise and watch movies.

"Roll call" first aimed to make sure that all the "prisoners" were present, to test their knowledge of their numbers and rules. The first roll calls lasted about 10 minutes, but every day their duration increased, and in the end some of them lasted several hours. "Guards" changed or completely canceled many items of the daily routine, previously established. In addition, during the experiment, some privileges were simply forgotten by the staff.

The prison quickly became gloomy and dirty. The right to bathe became a privilege and was often denied. In addition, some "prisoners" were even forced to clean toilets with their bare hands. The mattresses were removed from the "bad" cell, and the prisoners were forced to sleep on the concrete floor. Food was often denied as punishment.

The first day was relatively calm, but on the second day a riot broke out. To suppress it, the "guards" volunteered to work overtime. They attacked the "prisoners" with fire extinguishers. After this incident, the "prisoners" tried to pit the "prisoners" against each other, to separate them, to make them think that there were "informers" among them. This had an effect, and in the future such large disturbances did not occur.

Results

The Stanford prison experiment showed that the conditions of detention have a big impact on the emotional state of both guards,and criminals, as well as interpersonal processes between and within groups.

The "prisoners" and "guards" in general have a pronounced tendency to increase negative emotions. Their outlook on life became more and more gloomy. The "prisoners" in the continuation of the experiment increasingly showed aggression. Both groups experienced a decrease in self-esteem as they learned the "prison" behavior.

External behavior in general coincided with the mood and personal self-reports of the subjects. "Prisoners" and "guards" established various forms of interaction (negative or positive, offensive or supportive), but their attitude towards each other in reality was offensive, hostile, devoid of humanity.

Almost immediately, the "criminals" adopted a mostly passive demeanor. On the contrary, the guards showed great activity and initiative in all interactions. Their verbal behavior was limited mainly to commands and was extremely impersonal. The "prisoners" knew that physical violence against them would not be allowed, however, aggressive behavior was often observed, especially on the part of the guards. Verbal abuse replaced physical violence and became one of the most common forms of communication between "guards" and those behind bars.

Early Released

Strong evidence of how conditions affect peopleare the reactions of the five "prisoners" involved in Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. Due to deep depression, intense anxiety and rage, they had to be "released". In four subjects, the symptoms were similar and began to appear already on the 2nd day of detention. Another was released after developing a nervous rash on his body.

Guards' behavior

Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment was completed ahead of schedule in just 6 days, although it was supposed to last two weeks. The remaining "prisoners" were very happy about this. On the contrary, the "guards" were mostly upset. It seems that they managed to fully enter the role. The "guards" took great pleasure in the power they possessed, and they parted with it very reluctantly. However, one of them said that he was saddened by the suffering of the "prisoners", and that he intended to ask the organizers to make him one of them, but he never did. It should be noted that the "guards" came to work on time, and on several occasions even volunteered to work overtime without receiving additional pay.

Individual differences in participant behavior

The pathological reactions that were noted in both groups speak of the power of social forces acting on us. However, Zimbardo's prison experiment showed individual differences in how people manage to cope with an unusual situation, how successfully they adapt to it. The oppressive atmosphere of life in prison survived halfprisoners. Not all guards were hostile to "criminals". Some played by the rules, that is, they were harsh, but fair. However, other warders went beyond their role in the mistreatment and cruelty towards the prisoners.

In total, for 6 days, half of the participants were pushed to the limit by inhumane treatment. The "guards" mocked the "criminals", did not let them go to the toilet, did not let them sleep. Some prisoners fell into hysterics, others tried to rebel. When Zimbardo's prison experiment got out of control, the researchers continued to observe what was happening until one of the "prisoners" spoke his mind frankly.

Ambiguous assessment of the experiment

Zimbardo became world famous thanks to his experiment. His research aroused great public interest. However, many scientists reproached Zimbardo for the fact that the experiment was carried out without regard to ethical standards, that young people should not be put in such extreme conditions. However, the Stanford Humanities Committee approved the study, and Zimbardo himself said that no one could have predicted that the guards would turn out to be so inhuman.

The American Psychological Association in 1973 confirmed the compliance of the experiment with ethical standards. However, this decision was revised in subsequent years. With the fact that no similar study of behavior should be carried out in the futurepeople, agreed Zimbardo himself.

Documentaries have been made about this experiment, books have been written, and one punk band even named itself after him. It remains a subject of controversy to this day, even among former members.

Feedback on Philip Zimbardo's experiment

Philip Zimbardo said that the purpose of the experiment was to study people's reactions to the restriction of freedom. He was much more interested in the behavior of the "prisoners" than the "guards". At the end of the first day, Zimbardo notes, he thought that the "guards" were people with an anti-authoritarian mindset. However, after the "prisoners" began to rebel little by little, they began to behave more and more violently, forgetting that this was just Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. Philip's photo is presented above.

The role played by Christina Maslakh

Christina Maslakh, Zimbardo's wife, was one of the explorers. It was she who asked Philip to stop the experiment. Christina noted that at first she was not going to participate in the study. She did not notice any changes in Zimbardo until she herself went down to the basement of the prison. Christina couldn't understand how Philip didn't understand what a nightmare his research had become. The girl admitted many years later that it was not so much the appearance of the participants that made her demand to stop the experiment, but the way the man she was about to marry behaved. Christina realized that in captivity of unlimited power andthe situation was the one who modeled it. It was Zimbardo who most needed to be "disenchanted". The lovers never fought like they did that day. Christina made it clear that if this experiment continued for at least a day, she would no longer be able to love her chosen one. The next day, Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment was stopped, the conclusions from which turned out to be so ambiguous.

By the way, Christina married Philip in the same year. 2 girls were born in the family. The young father was very interested in education. Philip was captured by a topic far from a prison experiment: how to raise children so that they are not shy. The scientist has developed an impeccable method of dealing with excessive shyness in a child, which made him famous all over the world.

The most cruel "guard"

The most brutal "watchman" turned out to be Dave Eshelman, who then became the owner of a mortgage business in the city of Saragota. He recalled that he was just looking for a summer job and thus became involved in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. articles. So Eshelman deliberately became rude in his attempt to make the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment interesting. It was not difficult for him to transform, because he studied at the theater studio and had extensive acting experience. Dave notes that hesay, he conducted his own experiment in parallel. Eshelman wanted to find out how long he would be allowed before a decision was made to stop the study. However, no one stopped him in cruelty.

Review by John Mark

Another warden, John Mark, who studied anthropology at Stanford, has a slightly different take on the Stanford Prison Experiment. The conclusions he came to are very interesting. He wanted to be a "prisoner", but he was made a "guard". John noted that nothing outrageous happened during the day, but Zimbardo did his best to escalate the situation. After the "guards" began to wake up the "prisoners" at night, it seemed to him that this was already overstepping all boundaries. Mark himself didn't like waking them up and demanding their numbers. John noted that he did not consider Zimbardo's Stanford experiment to be something serious, having to do with reality. For him, participation in it was nothing more than a prison sentence. After the experiment, John worked for a medical company as a cryptographer.

Richard Yakko's Opinion

Richard Yakko had to be in the role of a prisoner. After participating in the experiment, he worked on television and radio, and taught at a high school. Let us also describe his view of the Stanford prison experiment. The analysis of his participation in it is also very curious. Richard noted that the first thing that confused him was that the "prisoners" were prevented from sleeping. When they were first awakened, Richard had no idea that only 4 hours had passed. The prisoners were forced to do exercises, andthen they were allowed to lie down again. It was only later that Yakko realized that this was supposed to disrupt the natural sleep cycle.

Richard says he doesn't remember exactly when the "prisoners" started rioting. He himself refused to obey the guard, realizing that because of this he could be transferred to solitary confinement. The solidarity of the "prisoners" is explained by the fact that only together can one somehow resist and complicate the work of the "guards".

When Richard asked what should be done in order to be released early, the researchers replied that he himself agreed to participate, so he must stay until the end. That's when Richard felt like he was in jail.

However, he was released the day before the end of the study. The commission during the Stanford prison experiment considered that Richard was about to break. To himself, it seemed to him that he was far from depressed.

Purity of the experiment, use of the obtained results

Note that the people involved in the Stanford Prison Experiment have had mixed reviews. The attitude towards Zimbardo is also ambivalent, and Christina is considered a heroine and savior. However, she herself is sure that she didn’t do anything special - she just helped her chosen one see herself from the side.

The results of the experiment were further used to demonstrate the humility and receptivity of people when there is a justifying ideology supported by the state and society. In addition, they serve as an illustration of two theories: the influence of the power of authorities and cognitive dissonance.

So we've told you about Professor F. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. It's up to you to decide how you treat him. In conclusion, we add that on its basis, Mario Giordano, an Italian writer, created a story called "The Black Box" in 1999. This work was later filmed in two films. In 2001, "Experiment", a German film, was filmed, and in 2010 an American film of the same name appeared.