Stanford prison experiment

The experiment was carried out in the Standord University in the summer of 1971. The experiment
who lead Philip Zimbardo

The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was designed to examine the effects of situational variables on
participants' reactions and behaviors in a two-week simulation of a prison environment. Stanford
University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo led the research team who ran the study in the summer
of 1971.[1]
Participants were recruited from the local community with an ad in the newspapers offering $15 per day
to male students who wanted to participate in a "psychological study of prison life." Volunteers were
chosen after assessments of psychological stability, and then randomly assigned to being prisoners or
prison guards.[2] Critics have questioned the validity of these methods.[3]
Those volunteers selected to be "guards" were given uniforms specifically to de-individuate them, and
instructed to prevent prisoners from escaping. The experiment officially started when "prisoners" were
arrested by real Palo Alto police. Over the following five days, psychological abuse of the prisoners by
the "guards" became increasingly brutal. After Christina Maslach visited to evaluate the conditions, she
was so upset to see how study participants were behaving that she confronted Zimbardo. He ended the
experiment on the sixth day.[4]
SPE has been referenced and critiqued as one of the most unethical psychology experiments in history.
The harm inflicted on the participants prompted universities worldwide to improve their ethics
requirements for human subjects experiments to prevent them from being similarly harmed. Other
researchers have found it difficult to reproduce the study, especially given those constraints. [5]

The Standford Prison Experiment

When it was conducted
The experiment was conducted in august 14th 1971.
What is the objective of the research?
The professor Philip Zimbardo with the support U.S. Office of Naval Research of 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.
Who led it and who took part?
The professor Philip Zimbardo for the Stanford University who lead research. The
experiment was carried out in a 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 and offer pay $15 per day to the
participants.
The participants live on a
The participants lived in a Mock prison in the basement of the Stanford University
psychology building just for 6 days.
What the research /participants did
They were college students; they all had the same middle-class background and they had all
been screened for any kind of physical or psychological conditions before start of the study.
Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated
prison environment.
What the findings were
The study has historically pointed to how ordinary people in the right environment will
inevitably become broken victims or violent aggressors. The story showed with a very short
time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting
theirs quickly and easily.
What the public reaction was at that time
The study has received many ethical criticisms. Also, participants playing the role of
prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of
humiliation and distress. s. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours
because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger.
The impact of the experiment
Conclusion: 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.
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. 5/8
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.
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.