Stanford Prison Experiment
Introduction
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study conducted in August 1971 to investigate the power dynamics that exist between guards and inmates in a prison setting and to determine if the acquisition of power made guards turn brutal or whether brutality was intrinsic to human nature itself. Led by a Stanford psychology professor, the aim was to recreate life in a correctional facility with volunteer participants over a planned two-week period. The study sought to understand whether relationships within a prison environment were shaped more by the prison environment or the personalities of the guards.
Methodology
Twenty-four male college students, all White, were selected from 70 applicants who responded to an advertisement seeking participants for a "psychological study of prison life" offering $15 per day for 1-2 weeks. Applicants with criminal records, histories of drug abuse, personality disorders, physical disabilities, or psychological problems were excluded after interviews and personality tests. The chosen students had no idea what they were getting themselves into.
The 24 participants were randomly divided into two groups of 12: guards and prisoners. Nine from each group were active participants, with three alternates. A mock prison was constructed in the basement of Stanford University's Jordan Hall, designed after consultation with prison officials and ex-convicts to feel very real. It included cells with bar doors, cell numbers, and room for three prisoners, as well as a solitary confinement cell in a closet.
On August 17, 1971, the experiment began with the arrest of the 9 prisoners by actual police officers from the Palo Alto Police Department. They were taken into custody, had mug shots taken, were fingerprinted, blindfolded, and moved to a holding cell before being taken to the mock prison.
Upon arrival, prisoners were stripped nude, deloused, and dressed in sandals and ill-fitting numbered smocks without underwear. They were also given nylon stocking caps to wear instead of having their heads shaved and had a chain placed on their legs. Prisoners were only addressed by their number and had to refer to themselves and others by number.
Guards were given real prison guard uniforms, complete with nightsticks and whistles. Many also wore mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact and provide anonymity. The guards were instructed by the superintendent (the psychology professor) and the warden (a researcher) to maintain order and were allowed to use any means necessary short of physical violence, including harassment, withholding food, and deprivation of privileges at their discretion. Guards worked in shifts of three, lasting eight hours, and were on call during their off-duty time.
Events of the Experiment
On the first night, guards woke prisoners for a headcount at 2:30 AM, punishing those who didn't take it seriously with push-ups. By the second morning, prisoners rebelled, removing their numbers and caps and barricading themselves in their cells. The arriving guard shift, with reinforcements and off-duty guards, used fire extinguishers to force prisoners away from the barricades, then stripped the rebellious prisoners naked and placed them in solitary confinement, removing their beds upon their return.
To prevent further rebellions without constant full staffing, the guards implemented a "privilege cell" for well-behaved prisoners who received their uniforms, beds, and special meals, while others were denied these and normal food rations. Guards would randomly move prisoners to create confusion and distrust.
Conditions quickly deteriorated. Guards increasingly dehumanized prisoners, enforcing the use of identification numbers and forbidding bathroom use at night, providing buckets that were not emptied, using the smell as punishment. Despite staff reminders, guards became more aggressive, particularly when unobserved. Prisoners became increasingly submissive.
After only 36 hours, one prisoner experienced acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage and was eventually released. On the sixth day, a mock parole board was convened, during which researchers observed that prisoners seemed to have internalized their roles as inmates. The professor identified three types of guards: "tough but fair," "good guys," and those who appeared to thoroughly enjoy their power and were inventive in their humiliation of prisoners.
A real priest was brought in to speak with prisoners. One prisoner became so hysterical he needed to be seen by a doctor but initially refused to leave, believing he was a "bad prisoner". The professor had to forcefully remind him that he was not really an inmate and the experiment was not a real prison.
On the sixth day, a recent Ph.D. recipient interviewed the prisoners and, horrified by the conditions, confronted the professor about the suffering of the students. It was at this point that the professor decided to prematurely end the study.
Conclusions
The professor initially concluded that most people were ultimately willing to fulfill whatever role they were given in a respective social setting, and he even admitted to internalizing his role as superintendent over his role as a psychologist. The study appeared to suggest that when people feel anonymous and have power over depersonalized others, they can easily become evil, and that this occurs more often than we'd like to admit. The experiment brought up the question of whether evil is caused by the environment or the personalities within it. The initial conclusion heavily emphasized the power of the situation.
Later Criticisms and Reinterpretations
The experiment has faced significant ethical and methodological criticisms. Its scientific rigor has been questioned due to the inability to consistently replicate its results. The professor himself later admitted it was more of a demonstration than a scientific experiment.
Critics argue that the guards had been told what results they were supposed to produce and were advised and guided by the staff throughout the experiment. There is evidence suggesting that guards were explicitly corrected for not being tough enough and were encouraged to be oppressive, indicating the influence of demand characteristics, where participants act in ways they believe the experimenters want. One participant admitted to intentionally trying to be the "worst guard" to help the researchers demonstrate the negative effects of prison. This suggests that the behaviour observed may have been a result of playing a role and fulfilling perceived expectations rather than an organic emergence of cruelty due to the situation alone.
Later research attempted to isolate the core elements of the Stanford Prison Experiment (anonymity, depersonalization, and power differences) in a more controlled setting, screening participants for high moral characteristics and minimizing demand characteristics. These attempts struggled to elicit sadistic behaviour without explicit encouragement, suggesting that personality might play a more significant role than initially concluded. When participants were explicitly instructed to be distracting, they were more likely to engage in the task, highlighting the power of instructions and perceived expectations.
Some argue that even if demand characteristics played a significant role, the study still provides an important lesson: people are quick to be cruel if an authority figure suggests that doing so will serve a greater cause. The ongoing debate highlights the complex interplay between personality and situational factors in influencing behaviour.