Stanford Prison Experiment
Content
1
The Stanford Prison Experiment Analysis
Challenges and Change
John (Yunhan) Wang
2
Introduction Paul Zambardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most well-known and controversial studies in the field of psychology. As the years pass, it still continues to hold relevancy in explaining human psyche and behaviour. This report will focus on analyzing the knowledge learned from this study, aiming to understand the further implications that Zambardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Experiment has on prison culture and society in general.
Overview of Experiment
In August 1971, Paul Zambardo, a psychologist and professor at Stanford University, ran a study on the psychological effects of prison for guards and prisoners. To do this, he converted the basement of the Stanford psychology department into a mock jail, setting up real cells to house prisoners and providing authentic uniforms to guards and prisoners. Twenty-four male students out of seventy-five applicants were selected for this experiment, chosen for their history of having stable mental health and a clean criminal record. They were split into two equal numbered groups, the guards and the prisoners. The prisoners were picked up around school campus, saying that they had been arrested, and were brought to the mock jail. They were stripped naked and deloused, given matching white gowns, caps to hide their hair, and an identity number which they would then be known as from that moment on. This broke the individuals’ sense of individuality, turning them into just a prisoner, a number. As the experiment progressed, the prisoners’ mental and physical states began to deteriorate more and more as a result of the psychological and physical abuse of the guards. Two of the inmates had to be released early because the condition that they were in was dangerous to their health. The experiment planned to
3
run for two weeks, but was shut down on the sixth day because by that time most of the prisoners had been psychologically shattered and the guards were growing more and more sadistic. Zambardo himself had become absorbed into the experiment as the prison superintendent, and had to have another researcher argue with him before he realized just how unethical the treatment of the prisoners was. Though much knowledge about how individuals fit into society’s roles was gained from this experiment, this was at a heavy cost to the volunteer prisoners who had been put through such a traumatic experience. This study was hugely controversial because of the enethical nature of the experiment, and the fact that Zambardo was acting both as the prison superintendent and the researcher, so he did not have a neutral viewpoint. All in all, the Stanford Prison Experiment brought to light many of the darker facets of human nature and our willingness to harm others around us when put into a role where that is expected.
Analysis The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that the violence and brutality which pervades prison culture is not a result of the natures of the individuals in the prison, but is instead the result of the roles which society creates and the individual’s belief that they must act in accordance with these roles. Because the students used in this experiment already had their own preconceptions of how prisoners and guards acted, when they were placed into these roles, they fell into these parts. Though they were all middle-class boys who didn’t have a history of crime or mental illness, they committed inhumane acts in accordance with how they believed the way a guard should act. These guards then acted brutally towards the prisoners, depriving them of basic necessities, such as not allowing them to use the toilet, and forcing them into solitary confinement. Through these observations, it is clear that more often than not an evil environment
4
can overcome a good person. However, there is some hope in the results of this experiment. A few of the prison guards were not overcome by their position of power, acting humanely and with respect to the prisoners. Zimbardo later reflected in his book The Lucifer Effect, “a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class”. Thus, it can be seen that though the majority of people are easily influenced by their environments, there are some who have a stronger moral compass, allowing them to resist the desire to treat their fellow human beings unjustly when they have the power to do so. Even with the sad, grim findings of this experiment, there is still hope in human nature. As much as the Stanford prison experiment aimed to completely emulate a real life prison environment, there was still a disconnect between actual reality and the roles that the volunteers were playing. Many of the conditions set by Zambardo in his simulation would not of occurred in a real prison, such as the blindfolding of prisoners when they arrived, not allowing them to wear underwear or look out of windows, and the substitution of their names for identity numbers. Any of these facets could of psychologically affected the prisoners in a way that a real prison wouldn’t have done. Secondly, the role-players in this experiment were playing their roles by what they believed was real. The guards abused the prisoners because that was what they believed happened in prisons, even though they themselves had not had any first hand experiences in a prison. They were role-playing what they thought the reality was, but in actuality it was very possible that that the reality was different. It is likely that in a real life prison, the treatment of prisoners by prison guards and officials would be not the same as in the experiment. These points all add up to suggest that Zambardo’s experiment should not be taken
5
as a study on how guards and prisoners interact, but rather how humans play to the roles that society gives them. As well, this experiment shows that peer pressure can be a very harmful force. If guard one sees guard two doing an unethical act, such as depriving the prisoners of using the toilet, it validates to guard one that it is okay to commit these acts because he is an a position of power, where there will not be any repercussions. Then, this cycle continues on. When the guards see each other brutalising the inmates, it perpetuates the idea that this behaviour is acceptable. This is proven through the order of events which happened in the experiment. On the first day, there were no major occurrences, but on the second day the guards began to abuse the power that they had, forcing prisoners to do push ups and recite the numbers that they had. One guard acted unethically, and the others followed suit. Soon, this escalated further to the point where the guards were taking mattresses away from prisoners and beating them. It is the peer pressure of wanting to play to the image of macho bravado, of not wanting to be thought of as “soft” by their colleagues that caused the guards to act in the brutal way that they did. It truly does take a strong-minded individual to resist this group mentality and hold on to his own beliefs and morals, even if they are contrary to the group. This experiment showed that in prison culture, it is a dog-eat-dog world for prisoners. In our regular society, people help each other out because it’s easy, and at no expense to themselves. However, in a prison system where many necessities are deprived and helping another inmate out could mean losing a precious commodity such as food or a comfort item, it becomes much harder to choose to aid someone in need. This is shown especially well in this study. In the beginning, the prisoners were a cohesive group, working together to rebel against the guards. However, as the experiment continued and the guards became more forceful and
6
abusive to the prisoners, the collective will of the prisoners was broken. Some started to turn against each other, choosing to “snitch” for luxuries such as more food, comfort, and less abuse. By the time the experiment was near its end, most of the prisoners refused to give up their blankets to free a fellow prisoner who was locked in solitary confinement. This reinforces the idea that there are no real friends in prison. Each and every individual is willing to turn their back on a fellow prisoner so that they can get ahead and survive in the corrosive prison environment. From the results of this study, it is safe to conclude that when a good person is placed into an evil environment, the environment will overcome the nature of the person, causing him to commit acts in accordance to what he believes his role is, whether good of bad. This observation sheds light on why prisons so often fail, and produce repeat offenders who will just enter into the system again. Though the prison system aims to reform prisoners, the perpetuation of violence and peer pressure from both the guards and fellow prisoners does the opposite. As a result of abuse and isolation, prisoners come out of prison broken-minded, just as willing to commit a crime as before they were incarcerated. These people have been changed so much that they are more accustomed to life behind bars than life outside of prison. Furthermore, the results from this study can be used to understand why some areas and social classes in society commit crime at a higher rate than others. An example of a group with a high crime rate are people who live in inner-cities, where the incomes are low. These people are usually born into their situations, sometimes missing parents, and have very little money. Because they are surrounded in such a bad environment where jobs are hard to find and low paying, and they see the ones around them committing crime just to get enough money to survive, it influences them to follow suit. Therefore, the blame for the crimes committed should be shifted away from these people who are
7
surrounded by it to the society which allows these environments to exist. We, as a society, should aim to improve these areas where crime rates are high through schools and better job opportunities, so that the next generation can grow up in safe, caring neighbourhoods where they can be nurtured with a good education rather than be sucked into the cycle of crime and poverty. Ethics There were many concerns raised about the lack of ethics demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the premise itself seemed rather harmless, just a role-playing simulation (most of the volunteers just wanted a summer job before heading back to school), it was quickly realized that the way this experiment was run created the reality and toil of being in an actual prison. The blame for this can be placed completely on Dr. Zambardo’s shoulders. Due to a lack of foresight on his part, Zambardo instated himself as not only the prison superintendent, but also the psychological researcher. This led to the demise of the morality of the experiment, as these two positions encourage contrary mindsets. On one hand, you have the prison superintendent, who must be forceful to the prisoners and come up with the overall plan on the jail, and on the other hand you have the researcher who must stay emotionally detached, able to take notes from the outside looking in. Since Zambardo was both of these, his emotional response to the prisoners rebelling and misbehaving polluted the unbiased, scientific part of his mind. He thought that the prisoners were purposely “out to get him”, and as such did not realize soon enough when he and his guards crossed the moral line. Because there was no 3rd party observer, able to view the experiment with an unbiased opinion and stop the experiment when necessary, this experiment went on for longer than it should have, resulting in psychological and physical damage to the prisoners. Zimbardo himself, when reflecting on the experiment from an
8
observational, 3rd person perspective realized that the experiment was unethical “because people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their fellows over an extended period of time". As well, he said "although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough”, showing that he realized that he did have a lapse of judgement on the ethical standpoint of this experiment. It was not right to put the subjects of this experiment through so much emotional and physical toil. To paraphrase one of the prisoners, the experience to him was not a role-playing experiment, but instead it was a real prison that was not run by the state but instead by psychologists. Obviously, this is morally wrong, as it is essentially putting an innocent person into a jail. Even though the subjects did volunteer themselves, they expected a simulation that was within the moral confines of a civilized, developed society. Instead, what they got was a prison environment, comparable but not to the same extent as the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where detainees where physically and psychologically assaulted by US Army Personnel, to the point where some were close to death. Clearly, both this case and the Stanford Prison experiment are highly unethical. Though the information gained from this experiment was undoubtedly beneficial to the understanding of the human psyche, it was at the cost of the sanity of the volunteers. These were individuals who had done nothing wrong, but were punished to the same extent as people who had committed serious crimes. Thus, it was not right to subject these people to the suffering that they did go through. Conclusion The sad truth of the matter is that usually it is the controversial, unethical experiments which reveal the most about human nature and the deepest corners of our psyche. Ultimately, the Stanford Prison experiment brought to light the chilling fact that we, as humans, can do and be
9
anything when put into an appropriate situation. We are capable of great achievements, such as walking on the moon, but we are also capable of sadistic acts, such as inflicting physical and psychological pain onto another for no reason other than for the feeling of superiority it provides. More often than not, when a good person is placed into an evil environment, it is the environment around them that wins, causing these ordinary people to perform twisted acts that in an ordinary, stable environment they would never even think of committing. Even if it is just a role-play situation such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, over time people begin to become their roles, disregarding their moral compass and forgetting about reality. As Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be”.
10
References Bbcprisonstudy.org. (2014). The Study - The BBC Prison Study. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/bbc-prison-study.php?p=18 [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. Cherry, K. (2014). The Stanford Prison Experiment - Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment. [online] Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. Mcleod, S. (2014). Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment - Simply Psychology. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. Prisonexp.org. (2014). The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.prisonexp.org/ [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. The Stanford Prison Experiment (BBC). (2014). [video] BBC.
The Stanford Prison Experiment Analysis
Challenges and Change
John (Yunhan) Wang
2
Introduction Paul Zambardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most well-known and controversial studies in the field of psychology. As the years pass, it still continues to hold relevancy in explaining human psyche and behaviour. This report will focus on analyzing the knowledge learned from this study, aiming to understand the further implications that Zambardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Experiment has on prison culture and society in general.
Overview of Experiment
In August 1971, Paul Zambardo, a psychologist and professor at Stanford University, ran a study on the psychological effects of prison for guards and prisoners. To do this, he converted the basement of the Stanford psychology department into a mock jail, setting up real cells to house prisoners and providing authentic uniforms to guards and prisoners. Twenty-four male students out of seventy-five applicants were selected for this experiment, chosen for their history of having stable mental health and a clean criminal record. They were split into two equal numbered groups, the guards and the prisoners. The prisoners were picked up around school campus, saying that they had been arrested, and were brought to the mock jail. They were stripped naked and deloused, given matching white gowns, caps to hide their hair, and an identity number which they would then be known as from that moment on. This broke the individuals’ sense of individuality, turning them into just a prisoner, a number. As the experiment progressed, the prisoners’ mental and physical states began to deteriorate more and more as a result of the psychological and physical abuse of the guards. Two of the inmates had to be released early because the condition that they were in was dangerous to their health. The experiment planned to
3
run for two weeks, but was shut down on the sixth day because by that time most of the prisoners had been psychologically shattered and the guards were growing more and more sadistic. Zambardo himself had become absorbed into the experiment as the prison superintendent, and had to have another researcher argue with him before he realized just how unethical the treatment of the prisoners was. Though much knowledge about how individuals fit into society’s roles was gained from this experiment, this was at a heavy cost to the volunteer prisoners who had been put through such a traumatic experience. This study was hugely controversial because of the enethical nature of the experiment, and the fact that Zambardo was acting both as the prison superintendent and the researcher, so he did not have a neutral viewpoint. All in all, the Stanford Prison Experiment brought to light many of the darker facets of human nature and our willingness to harm others around us when put into a role where that is expected.
Analysis The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that the violence and brutality which pervades prison culture is not a result of the natures of the individuals in the prison, but is instead the result of the roles which society creates and the individual’s belief that they must act in accordance with these roles. Because the students used in this experiment already had their own preconceptions of how prisoners and guards acted, when they were placed into these roles, they fell into these parts. Though they were all middle-class boys who didn’t have a history of crime or mental illness, they committed inhumane acts in accordance with how they believed the way a guard should act. These guards then acted brutally towards the prisoners, depriving them of basic necessities, such as not allowing them to use the toilet, and forcing them into solitary confinement. Through these observations, it is clear that more often than not an evil environment
4
can overcome a good person. However, there is some hope in the results of this experiment. A few of the prison guards were not overcome by their position of power, acting humanely and with respect to the prisoners. Zimbardo later reflected in his book The Lucifer Effect, “a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class”. Thus, it can be seen that though the majority of people are easily influenced by their environments, there are some who have a stronger moral compass, allowing them to resist the desire to treat their fellow human beings unjustly when they have the power to do so. Even with the sad, grim findings of this experiment, there is still hope in human nature. As much as the Stanford prison experiment aimed to completely emulate a real life prison environment, there was still a disconnect between actual reality and the roles that the volunteers were playing. Many of the conditions set by Zambardo in his simulation would not of occurred in a real prison, such as the blindfolding of prisoners when they arrived, not allowing them to wear underwear or look out of windows, and the substitution of their names for identity numbers. Any of these facets could of psychologically affected the prisoners in a way that a real prison wouldn’t have done. Secondly, the role-players in this experiment were playing their roles by what they believed was real. The guards abused the prisoners because that was what they believed happened in prisons, even though they themselves had not had any first hand experiences in a prison. They were role-playing what they thought the reality was, but in actuality it was very possible that that the reality was different. It is likely that in a real life prison, the treatment of prisoners by prison guards and officials would be not the same as in the experiment. These points all add up to suggest that Zambardo’s experiment should not be taken
5
as a study on how guards and prisoners interact, but rather how humans play to the roles that society gives them. As well, this experiment shows that peer pressure can be a very harmful force. If guard one sees guard two doing an unethical act, such as depriving the prisoners of using the toilet, it validates to guard one that it is okay to commit these acts because he is an a position of power, where there will not be any repercussions. Then, this cycle continues on. When the guards see each other brutalising the inmates, it perpetuates the idea that this behaviour is acceptable. This is proven through the order of events which happened in the experiment. On the first day, there were no major occurrences, but on the second day the guards began to abuse the power that they had, forcing prisoners to do push ups and recite the numbers that they had. One guard acted unethically, and the others followed suit. Soon, this escalated further to the point where the guards were taking mattresses away from prisoners and beating them. It is the peer pressure of wanting to play to the image of macho bravado, of not wanting to be thought of as “soft” by their colleagues that caused the guards to act in the brutal way that they did. It truly does take a strong-minded individual to resist this group mentality and hold on to his own beliefs and morals, even if they are contrary to the group. This experiment showed that in prison culture, it is a dog-eat-dog world for prisoners. In our regular society, people help each other out because it’s easy, and at no expense to themselves. However, in a prison system where many necessities are deprived and helping another inmate out could mean losing a precious commodity such as food or a comfort item, it becomes much harder to choose to aid someone in need. This is shown especially well in this study. In the beginning, the prisoners were a cohesive group, working together to rebel against the guards. However, as the experiment continued and the guards became more forceful and
6
abusive to the prisoners, the collective will of the prisoners was broken. Some started to turn against each other, choosing to “snitch” for luxuries such as more food, comfort, and less abuse. By the time the experiment was near its end, most of the prisoners refused to give up their blankets to free a fellow prisoner who was locked in solitary confinement. This reinforces the idea that there are no real friends in prison. Each and every individual is willing to turn their back on a fellow prisoner so that they can get ahead and survive in the corrosive prison environment. From the results of this study, it is safe to conclude that when a good person is placed into an evil environment, the environment will overcome the nature of the person, causing him to commit acts in accordance to what he believes his role is, whether good of bad. This observation sheds light on why prisons so often fail, and produce repeat offenders who will just enter into the system again. Though the prison system aims to reform prisoners, the perpetuation of violence and peer pressure from both the guards and fellow prisoners does the opposite. As a result of abuse and isolation, prisoners come out of prison broken-minded, just as willing to commit a crime as before they were incarcerated. These people have been changed so much that they are more accustomed to life behind bars than life outside of prison. Furthermore, the results from this study can be used to understand why some areas and social classes in society commit crime at a higher rate than others. An example of a group with a high crime rate are people who live in inner-cities, where the incomes are low. These people are usually born into their situations, sometimes missing parents, and have very little money. Because they are surrounded in such a bad environment where jobs are hard to find and low paying, and they see the ones around them committing crime just to get enough money to survive, it influences them to follow suit. Therefore, the blame for the crimes committed should be shifted away from these people who are
7
surrounded by it to the society which allows these environments to exist. We, as a society, should aim to improve these areas where crime rates are high through schools and better job opportunities, so that the next generation can grow up in safe, caring neighbourhoods where they can be nurtured with a good education rather than be sucked into the cycle of crime and poverty. Ethics There were many concerns raised about the lack of ethics demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the premise itself seemed rather harmless, just a role-playing simulation (most of the volunteers just wanted a summer job before heading back to school), it was quickly realized that the way this experiment was run created the reality and toil of being in an actual prison. The blame for this can be placed completely on Dr. Zambardo’s shoulders. Due to a lack of foresight on his part, Zambardo instated himself as not only the prison superintendent, but also the psychological researcher. This led to the demise of the morality of the experiment, as these two positions encourage contrary mindsets. On one hand, you have the prison superintendent, who must be forceful to the prisoners and come up with the overall plan on the jail, and on the other hand you have the researcher who must stay emotionally detached, able to take notes from the outside looking in. Since Zambardo was both of these, his emotional response to the prisoners rebelling and misbehaving polluted the unbiased, scientific part of his mind. He thought that the prisoners were purposely “out to get him”, and as such did not realize soon enough when he and his guards crossed the moral line. Because there was no 3rd party observer, able to view the experiment with an unbiased opinion and stop the experiment when necessary, this experiment went on for longer than it should have, resulting in psychological and physical damage to the prisoners. Zimbardo himself, when reflecting on the experiment from an
8
observational, 3rd person perspective realized that the experiment was unethical “because people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their fellows over an extended period of time". As well, he said "although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough”, showing that he realized that he did have a lapse of judgement on the ethical standpoint of this experiment. It was not right to put the subjects of this experiment through so much emotional and physical toil. To paraphrase one of the prisoners, the experience to him was not a role-playing experiment, but instead it was a real prison that was not run by the state but instead by psychologists. Obviously, this is morally wrong, as it is essentially putting an innocent person into a jail. Even though the subjects did volunteer themselves, they expected a simulation that was within the moral confines of a civilized, developed society. Instead, what they got was a prison environment, comparable but not to the same extent as the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where detainees where physically and psychologically assaulted by US Army Personnel, to the point where some were close to death. Clearly, both this case and the Stanford Prison experiment are highly unethical. Though the information gained from this experiment was undoubtedly beneficial to the understanding of the human psyche, it was at the cost of the sanity of the volunteers. These were individuals who had done nothing wrong, but were punished to the same extent as people who had committed serious crimes. Thus, it was not right to subject these people to the suffering that they did go through. Conclusion The sad truth of the matter is that usually it is the controversial, unethical experiments which reveal the most about human nature and the deepest corners of our psyche. Ultimately, the Stanford Prison experiment brought to light the chilling fact that we, as humans, can do and be
9
anything when put into an appropriate situation. We are capable of great achievements, such as walking on the moon, but we are also capable of sadistic acts, such as inflicting physical and psychological pain onto another for no reason other than for the feeling of superiority it provides. More often than not, when a good person is placed into an evil environment, it is the environment around them that wins, causing these ordinary people to perform twisted acts that in an ordinary, stable environment they would never even think of committing. Even if it is just a role-play situation such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, over time people begin to become their roles, disregarding their moral compass and forgetting about reality. As Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be”.
10
References Bbcprisonstudy.org. (2014). The Study - The BBC Prison Study. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/bbc-prison-study.php?p=18 [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. Cherry, K. (2014). The Stanford Prison Experiment - Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment. [online] Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. Mcleod, S. (2014). Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment - Simply Psychology. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. Prisonexp.org. (2014). The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.prisonexp.org/ [Accessed: 26 Mar 2014]. The Stanford Prison Experiment (BBC). (2014). [video] BBC.
