BBC

News: Is it in anyone to abuse a captive?

BBC News: Why everyone's not a torturer
Ronald Hilton: US soldiers' bad behavior and Stanford Prison Experiment
Slate.com: Situationist Ethics: The Stanford Prison Experiment doesn't
explain Abu Ghraib, by William Saletan
IMDb: Untitled Stanford Prison Experiment Project
VIDEO: Talk to MIT re: new book: The Lucifer Effect
Psychology Articles for Undergrad Degree and A-Level Study

Categories:
1971 in science
1971 in the United States
Academic scandals
Conformity
Group processes
History of psychology
Human subject research in the United States
Imprisonment and detention
Psychology experiments
Research ethics
Social psychology
Stanford University
1971 in California

Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the United States House Committee
on the Judiciary, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II,
Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Zimbardo, P. G (2007) Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Interview
transcript. Democracy Now!, March 30, 2007. Accessed 17 January 2015.
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and
guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 30, 4-17. Retrieved
November 12, 2015
Mcleod, S. (2008). Zimbardo - Standford Prison Experiment/Simply
Psychology. Retrieved November 12, 2015
Ricker, J. (2011, November 25). Comparing Milgrams Obedience and
Zimbardo's Prison Studies. Retrieved November 12, 2015
External links[edit]
Stanford Prison Experiment, a website with info on the experiment and its
impact
Summary of the experiment
Interviews with guards, prisoners, and researchers in July/August 2011
Stanford Magazine
Zimbardo, P. (2007). From Heavens to Hells to Heroes. In-Mind Magazine.
The official website of the BBC Prison Study
The Experiment (IMDb) German movie (Das Experiment) from 2001
inspired by the Stanford Experiment
The Lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment Criticism from Carlo Prescott,
ex-con and consultant/assistant for the experiment
The Artificial Prison of the Human Mind Article with Comments.
Philip Zimbardo on Democracy Now! March 30 2007
Philip Zimbardo on The Daily Show, March 2007
BBC news article 40 years on, with video of Philip Zimbardo
Philip G. Zimbardo Papers (Stanford University Archives)
Abu Ghraib and the experiment:

29. Jump up^ "A Look at the Original Students of The Third Wave and
Their Teacher Ron Jones, 40 Years Later"
30. ^ Jump up to:a b "Comparing Milgram's Obedience and Zimbardo's
Prison Studies". PSY 101 - Introduction to Psychology by Jeffry Ricker,
Ph.D. (in en-US). Retrieved 2015-11-12.
31. Jump up^ Wolfe, Gene (1975). When I was Ming the Merciless.
32. Jump up^ "Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment (1992
documentary)". Justice videos.
33. Jump up^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LviGTHud5w
References[edit]
Carnahan, T.; McFarland, S. (2007). "Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment:
could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty?". Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 33 (5): 603614.doi:10.1177/0146167206292689.
Griggs, R. A. (2014). "Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in
introductory psychology textbooks".Teaching of Psychology 41: 195
203.doi:10.1177/0098628314537968.
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). "Study of prisoners and
guards in a simulated prison",Naval Research Reviews, 9, 117. Washington,
DC: Office of Naval Research.
Haney, C.; Banks, W. C.; Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). "Interpersonal dynamics in a
simulated prison".International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1: 6997.
Haslam, S. A.; Reicher, S. D. (2003). "Beyond Stanford: questioning a role-based
explanation of tyranny".Dialogue (Bulletin of the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology) 18: 2225.
Haslam, S. A.; Reicher, S. D. (2006). "Stressing the group: social identity and the
unfolding dynamics of responses to stress". Journal of Applied Psychology 91:
10371052. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1037.
Haslam, S. A.; Reicher, S. D. (2012). "When prisoners take over the prison: A
social psychology of resistance".Personality and Social Psychology Review 16:
154179.doi:10.1177/1088868311419864.
Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1991). Quiet rage: The Stanford prison
study. Videorecording. Stanford, CA: Psychology Dept., Stanford University.
Reicher; Haslam, S. A. (2006). "Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC
Prison Study". British Journal of Social Psychology 45: 140.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). "The power and pathology of
imprisonment", Congressional Record (Serial No. 15, 1971-10-25).






11. Jump up^ "Slide tour". The Stanford Prison Experiment.
12. ^ Jump up to:a b Zimbardo, P.G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect:
Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.
13. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Lucifer Effect". lucifereffect.com.
14. Jump up^ "The Standard Prison Experiment". Stanford University News
Service.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g "Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment | Simply
Psychology". www.simplypsychology.org. Retrieved 2015-11-11.
16. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Index of /downloads". www.zimbardo.com.
Retrieved 2015-11-11.
17. Jump up^ "Conclusion". Stanford Prison Experiment.
18. Jump up^ Fromm (1973). "Sociology Shop". Angelfire.com. pp. 7690.
19. Jump up^ "'John Wayne' (name withheld) Interview: 'The Science of
Evil'". Primetime: Basic Instincts (KATU). January 3, 2007.
20. Jump up^ Eshelman, David (July 2011). "The Menace Within".Stanford
Alumni Magazine.
21. Jump up^ Carnahan, Thomas; Sam McFarland (2007). "Revisiting the
Stanford prison experiment: could participant self-selection have led to
the cruelty?" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (5):
60314.doi:10.1177/0146167206292689.
22. Jump up^ Gray, Peter (2013). "Why Zimbardos Prison Experiment Isnt
in My Textbook". Freedom to Learn blog.
23. Jump up^ "What You Didn't Know about the Stanford Prison
Experiment" (Podcast). Brian Dunning. May 27, 2008. Retrieved 201407-15.
24. Jump up^ "English-language transcript of March 2008 interview with
Lynndie England". Stern magazine. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
25. Jump up^ The BBC Prison Study Official Site
26. Jump up^ Interview of Alex Haslam at The Guardian
27. Jump up^ Reicher, Steve; Haslam, Alex. Learning from the Experiment.
Interview with Briggs, Pam. The Psychologist. Archived from the
original on 2009-02-21.
28. Jump up^ "The Third Wave, Evidence from the people who were
there."

In an October 2015 episode of the ITV television show Lewis the second half
mentions the Stanford prison experiment, and eventually the whole case
revolves around it.
See also[edit]
San Francisco Bay Area portal

1970s portal

Prison portal

Peer pressure
Person-situation debate
Trier social stress test
Unethical human experimentation in the United States
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
The Stanford Prison Experiment - 2015 film.
Footnotes[edit]
1. Jump up^ The Stanford Prison Experiment A Simulation Study of
the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University
2. Jump up^ FAQ on official site
3. Jump up^ http://www.prisonexp.org/30years.htm
4. Jump up^ Intro to psychology textbooks gloss over criticisms of
Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment
5. Jump up^ Beyond Ethics to Post-ethics: A Preface to a New Theory of
Morality and Immorality, Peter Baofu
6. Jump up^ The Successes and Failures of Whistleblower Laws, Robert
G. Vaughan
7. Jump up^ Smith, J. R. & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.) (2012). Social Psychology:
Revisiting the Classic Studies. Sage.
8. Jump up^ "Slideshow on official site". Prisonexp.org. p. Slide 4.
9. Jump up^ "C82SAD L07 Social Influence II The BBC Prison Experiment
(handout)". Psychology.nottingham.ac.uk.
10. Jump up^ Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973)."Research
reviews" (PDF). Zimbardo.com.

In popular culture[edit]
American science fiction writer Gene Wolfe published a story, When I was
Ming the Merciless (1975), inspired by the Stanford Prison Experiment. In the
story, college student volunteers are randomly assigned to factions (Blue,
Green, and Yellow) and locked in a campus building. Violence ensues.[31]
In 1977, Italian director Carlo Tuzii adapted the experiment to an Italian
environment. Italian students made a film based on it, La Gabbia (The Cage).
Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment (1992), is a documentary about
the experiment, made available via the Stanford Prison Experiment website.
The documentary was written by Zimbardo and directed and produced by
Ken Musen.[32]
The novel Black Box, written by Mario Giordano and inspired by the
experiment, was adapted for the screen by German director Oliver
Hirschbiegel as Das Experiment (2001).
In the third season of the television series Veronica Mars(2006-2007), a
variant of the experiment is recreated as an activity for a sociology class, the
main difference being that the guards were expected to get information out
of the prisoners.
In an October 2008 episode of the NBC television showLife, Detectives Crews
and Reese investigated a murder that took place at a prison experiment
loosely modeled on the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The Experiment (2010), is a film released by Inferno Distribution which is an
English-language remake of the 2001 film Das Experiment.
Prison School (first published February 7, 2011) is a Japanese serialized
manga that heavily references the Stanford Prison Experiment as the
inspiration for Kate's revenge plot.
Broadening, a play in the 2012 Dublin Fringe Festival, was based on the
Stanford experiment.
The experiment was featured in a 2012 episode ofScience's Dark Matters:
Twisted But True in the documentary short "Creative Evil".
The Stanford Prison Experiment (released July 17, 2015) is another film based
on the experiment.[33]
"PhDead" espisode 154 of Castle, season 8 (air date: October 5, 2015) Castle
and Beckett investigate a murder and discover its relationship to a recreation
of the Stanford Prison Experiment.






leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social
Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly,
and Personality and Social Psychology Review. The BBC Prison Study is
now taught as a core study on the UK A-level Psychology OCR
syllabus.
While Haslam and Reicher's procedure was not a direct replication of
Zimbardo's, their study casts further doubt on the generality of his
conclusions. Specifically, it questions the notion that people slip
mindlessly into role and the idea that the dynamics of evil are in any
way banal. Their research also points to the importance of leadership
in the emergence of tyranny of the form displayed by Zimbardo when
briefing guards in the Stanford experiment.[26][27]
Experiments in the United States[edit]
The Stanford prison experiment was in part a response to the Milgram
experiment at Yale beginning in 1961 and published in 1963.[citation
needed]
The Third Wave was a 1967 recreation of Nazi Partydynamics by high
school teacher Ron Jones in Palo Alto, California. Although the veracity
of Jones' accounts has been questioned,[28] several participants in the
study have gone on record to confirm the events.[29]
In both experiments participants found it difficult to leave the study
due to the roles they were assigned. Both studies examine human
nature and the effects of authority. Personalities of the subjects had
little influence on both experiments despite the test prior the prison
experiment.[30]
In the Milgram and the Zimbardo study participants comply to social
pressures. Conformity is strengthened by allowing some participants
to feel more or less powerful than others.[30] In both experiments
behaviour is altered to match the group stereotype.
Physical aspects of the prison[edit]
The prison used for the experiment was a 35-foot section of a
basement in the University of Stanford. The prison had two fabricated
walls, one at the entrance, and one at the cell wall to block
observation. Each cell (6x9 feet), contained only a cot for the
prisoners.[16] The guards lived in a very different environment
separated from the prisoners. They were given a spot for relaxation
and rest, completely different from the prisoners. These were some of
the perks that were giving from being a guard.






Zimbardo drew from his participation in the Frederick case to write
the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn
Evil, published by Random House in 2007, which deals with the
striking similarities between his own Stanford Prison Experiment and
the Abu Ghraib abuses.[13]
Ethical issues[edit]
The experiment continued even with participants not wanting to
continue. All participants of any study, have rights and the ability to
leave when needed. Zimbardo violated their rights from not allowing
their freedom.[15] This led to anethical dilemma, the experiment could
have the possibility of outstanding results if continued, however may
affect participants well-being if not stopped.
Now there are ethical guidelines that need to be followed. That the
harmful treatment of participant are led to the formal recognition of
ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association. Studies
must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review
board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented [15]
These guidelines review if the potential benefit for science outweighs
the possible risk for physical and psychological harm. One prisoner
had to be released from being in too many incidents of humiliation
and distress.
Zimbardo conducted a debriefing sessions several years later, but the
by that time all was forgotten and said there were no lasting negative
effects.[15] Debriefing should take place immediately after an
experiment to insure what psychological harm has been done, and to
rehabilitate them back to their original self.
Similar studies[edit]
BBC prison study[edit]
Psychologists Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher conducted the BBC
Prison Study in 2002 and was published in 2006.[25] This was a partial
replication of the Stanford prison experiment conducted with the
assistance of the BBC, which broadcast events in the study in a
documentary series calledThe Experiment. Their results and
conclusions differed from Zimbardo's and led to a number of
publications on tyranny,stress, and leadership. Moreover, unlike
results from the Stanford prison experiment, these were published in






students of about the same age, has been called into question as being
too small and restrictive to be generally applicable to the population
at large...(and the fact that) Zimbardo has dedicated much of his
career to the promotion of the idea that bad environments drive bad
behavior.[23]
Guards and prisoners were playing the role of their authority, which is
subjective.[15] They may have not acted the same in real life situations.
The environment and authority roles changed their actions.
The lack of validity is a factor, from only being US male students. Not a
diverse group of people with different objectives and views in
life.[15] It is generalized, not everyone would act this way. If different
types of citizens participated, results could have been entirely
different.
Cannot be applied to female prisons, since only males participated in
the subject. Therefor results may vary depending on gender, so it
should not be associated with women.
Comparisons to Abu Ghraib[edit]

Lynndie England pointing to a naked prisoner being forced to masturbate in front of
his captors[24]
When acts of prisoner torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraqwere publicized in March 2004, Zimbardo himself, who paid close
attention to the details of the story, was struck by the similarity with
his own experiment. He was dismayed by official military and
government representatives' shifting the blame for the torture and
abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prison on to "a few bad
apples" rather than acknowledging it as possibly systemic problems of
a formally established military incarceration system.
Eventually, Zimbardo became involved with the defense team of
lawyers representing one of the Abu Ghraib prison guards, Staff
Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick. He was granted full access to all
investigation and background reports, and testified as an expert
witness in SSG Frederick's court martial, which resulted in an eightyear prison sentence for Frederick in October 2004.






What came over me was not an accident. It was planned. I set out with
a definite plan in mind, to try to force the action, force something to
happen, so that the researchers would have something to work with.
After all, what could they possibly learn from guys sitting around like
it was a country club? So I consciously created this persona. I was in
all kinds of drama productions in high school and college. It was
something I was very familiar with: to take on another personality
before you step out on the stage. I was kind of running my own
experiment in there, by saying, "How far can I push these things and
how much abuse will these people take before they say, 'knock it off?'"
But the other guards didn't stop me. They seemed to join in. They
were taking my lead. Not a single guard said, "I don't think we should
do this." - David Eshelman[20]
Also, researchers from Western Kentucky University argued
that selection bias may have played a role in the results. The
researchers recruited students for a study using an advertisement
similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with some
ads saying "a psychological study" (the control group), and some with
the words "prison life" as originally worded in Dr. Zimbardo's
Stanford Prison Experiment. It was found that students who
responded to the classified advertisement for the "prison study" were
higher in traits such as social dominance, aggression,authoritarianism,
etc. and were lower in traits related toempathy and altruism when
statistically compared to the control group participants.[21]
The study has been criticized for demand characteristics by
psychologist Peter Gray. He argues that participants in psychological
experiments are more likely to do what they believe the researchers
want them to do. The guards were essentially told to be cruel.
However, it was precisely this willingness to comply with the
experiment's questionable practices that showed how little was
needed for the students to engage in such practices.[22]
Skeptical author Brian Dunning states:
Most of the Stanford guards did not exhibit any cruel or unusual
behavior, often being friendly and doing favors for the prisoners...The
statistical validity of the sample of participants, 24 male Stanford






The guards and prisoners adapted to their roles more than Zimbardo
expected, stepping beyond predicted boundaries, leading to
dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the
guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine sadistic tendencies",
while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized; five of them had
to be removed from the experiment early. After Maslach confronted
Zimbardo and forced him to realize that he had been passively
allowing unethical acts to be performed under his supervision,
Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become
grossly absorbed in their roles and realized that he had likewise
become as grossly absorbed in his own, and he terminated the
experiment.[17]Ethical concerns surrounding the experiment often
draw comparisons to a similar experiment, conducted ten years
earlier in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram.[citation needed]
Because of the nature and questionable ethics of the experiment,
Zimbardo found it impossible to keep traditionalscientific controls in
place. He was unable to remain aneutral observer, since he influenced
the direction of the experiment as the prison's superintendent.
Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were
largelysubjective and anecdotal, and the experiment is practically
impossible for other researchers to accurately reproduce.Erich
Fromm claimed to see generalizations in the experiment's results and
argued that the personality of an individual does affect behavior when
imprisoned. This ran counter to the study's conclusion that the prison
situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argued
that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be
determined with the methods employed to screen them.[18]
"John Wayne" (the real-life Dave Eshelman), one of the guards in the
experiment, said the study placed undue emphasis on the cruelty of
the guards, and that he caused the escalation of events between
guards and prisoners after he began to emulate a character from
the Paul Newman filmCool Hand Luke (1967). He further intensified
his actions because he was nicknamed "John Wayne", even though he
was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin, who had played the role of
the sadistic Captain in the movie.[19]






In other words, it seemed that the situation, rather than their
individual personalities, caused the participants' behavior. Under this
interpretation, the results are compatible with the results of
the Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to
administer what appeared to be agonizing and dangerouselectric
shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.[citation needed]
Shortly after the study was completed, there were bloody revolts at
both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo
reported his findings on the experiment to theU.S. House Committee
on the Judiciary.
Participants behaviour was modified due to the fact that they were
watched as opposed to a lurking variable (Hawthorne effect).[15] Even
knowing they were being observed, guards and prisoners acted
differently than normal. Guards felt the need to show their dominance
even when it was not necessary. Many of the guards brutal behaviour
was changed due to the harsh environments of the prison.
Prisoners were being disrespected by the guards in many ways.
Prisoners were being referred to a number instead of their real name.
It created a de-humanizing aspect of the prisoners, which resulted in a
loss of personal identity. With no control, prisoners learnt they had
little effect on what happens to them, ultimately caused them to stop
responding, and give up.[16] Quickly to realize the guards were the
highest on the hierarchy, prisoners began to take their roles as a less
important human being.
The uniforms were giving to all participants to enhance individual
identity, participants randomly chosen to be either a prisoner or
guard to reduce individuality.[16] Guards were given batons, glasses, to
show power and strength. When prisoners were given night gowns
and chains it enhanced their vulnerability, and powerlessness. It was a
constant reminder of how unimportant they were during the
experiment.(a)
A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are
run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer
housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence
against them).[15]
Criticism[edit]





the remaining inmates. Zimbardo and the guards disassembled the
prison and moved it onto a different floor of the building. Zimbardo
himself waited in the basement, in case the released prisoner showed
up, and planned to tell him that the experiment had been terminated.
The released prisoner never returned, and the prison was rebuilt in
the basement.
Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had internalized their roles, since
some had stated they would accept "parole" even if it would mean
forfeiting their pay, despite the fact that quitting would have achieved
the same result without the delay involved in waiting for their parole
requests to be granted or denied.[12] Zimbardo argued they had no
reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost
all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had
internalized the prisoner identity.
Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed
concern about the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards
responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages,
saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary
confinement", a dark closet: "the guards then instructed the other
prisoners to repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at
416."[13] The guards said he would be released from solitary
confinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on
their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.
Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a
graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later
married),[14] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was
introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted
that, of more than 50 people who had observed the experiment,
Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six
days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford prison
experiment was discontinued.[12]
Conclusions[edit]
On August 20, 1971, Zimbardo announced the end of the experiment
to the participants. The experiment has also been used to
illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.
The results of the experiment favor situational attribution of behavior
rather than dispositional attribution (a result caused by internal
characteristics).






After a relatively uneventful first day, on the second day the prisoners
in Cell 1 blockaded their cell door with their beds and took off their
stocking caps, refusing to come out or follow the guards' instructions.
Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours, to assist in
subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire
extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding
that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was
challenging, one of the guards suggested they use psychological tactics
to control them. They set up a "privilege cell" in which prisoners who
were not involved in the riot were treated with special rewards, such
as higher quality meals. The "privileged" inmates chose not to eat the
meal in commiseration with their fellow prisoners.
After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", as Zimbardo
described: "#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go
into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we
became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to
release him."
Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers[11] to
reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used
these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical
punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner
count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the
guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate
anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the
guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket.
Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would
punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep
on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of
degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the
experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately
one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of
the guards were upset when the experiment concluded after only six
days.
Zimbardo mentions his own absorption in the experiment. On the
fourth day, some of the guards stated they heard a rumor that the
released prisoner was going to come back with his friends and free






arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system,
you, me, and they'll have no privacy ... We're going to take away their
individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a
sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the
power and they'll have none."[9]
The researchers provided the guards with wooden batons to establish
their status,[10] clothing similar to that of an actual prison guard (khaki
shirt and pants from a local military surplus store), and mirrored
sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Prisoners wore uncomfortable, illfitting smocks and stocking caps, as well as a chain around one ankle.
Guards were instructed to call prisoners by their assigned numbers,
sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name.
The prisoners were "arrested" at their homes and "charged" with
armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police department assisted
Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on
the prisoners, which includedfingerprinting and taking mug shots.
The prisoners were transported to the mock prison from the police
station, where they were strip searched and given their new
identities.
The small mock prison cells were set up to hold three prisoners each.
There was a small space for the prison yard, solitary confinement, and
a bigger room across from the prisoners for the guards and warden.
The prisoners were to stay in their cells all day and night until the end
of the study. The guards worked in teams of three for eight-hour
shifts. The guards did not have to stay on site after their shift.
Results[edit]

This article needs

additional citations
for verification. Please
help improve this
article by adding
citations to reliable
sources. Unsourced
material may be
challenged and
removed. (October
2015)







7.1BBC prison study
7.2Experiments in the United States
8Physical aspects of the prison
9In popular culture
10See also
11Footnotes
12References
13External links
Goals and methods[edit]
Zimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent
personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of
abusive behavior in prison. Participants were recruited and told they
would participate in a two-week prison simulation. Out of 75
respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom
they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and
healthy.[7] These participants were predominantly middle class.[8] The
group was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal
backgrounds, psychological impairments, or medical problems. They
all agreed to participate in a 714-day period and received $15 per
day (equivalent to $88 in 2015).
The experiment was conducted in the basement of Jordan Hall
(Stanford's psychology building). Twelve of the 24 participants were
assigned the role of prisoner (nine plus three alternates), while the
other 12 were assigned the role of guard (also nine plus three
alternates). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent, and an
undergraduateresearch assistant the role of the warden. Zimbardo
designed the experiment in order to
induce disorientation,depersonalization, and deindividualization in
the participants.
The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before
the experiment, during which they instructed them not to physically
harm the prisoners. In the footage of the study, Zimbardo can be seen
talking to the guards: "You can create in the prisoners feelings of
boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of






o
o

Stanford prison experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the psychology experiment. For the American punk
band, see Stanford Prison Experiment (band). For the 2015 film, see The
Stanford Prison Experiment (film).

The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was a study of
thepsychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The
experiment was conducted at Stanford University on August 1420,
1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip
Zimbardo using college students.[1] It was funded by the U.S. Office of
Naval Research[2] and was of interest to both the U.S. Navy andMarine
Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military
guards and prisoners. The experiment is a classic study on the
psychology of imprisonment[3] and is a topic covered in most
introductory psychology textbooks.[4]

The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's
expectations, as the guards enforcedauthoritarian measures and
ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture.
Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at
the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who
attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo
himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to
continue.[5][6] Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early, and the
entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days, to an
extent because of the objections of Christina Maslach. Certain portions
of the experiment were filmed, and excerpts of footage are publicly
available.
Contents
[hide]
1Goals and methods
2Results
3Conclusions
4Criticism
5Comparisons to Abu Ghraib
6Ethical issues
7Similar studies