Introduction to the Experiment
Zimbardo and three Stanford University colleagues conducted a jail experiment in 1971 that became famous worldwide. It investigated the nature of violence and cruelty that occurs as a human reaction to a constraint of freedom within the context of an assigned societal duty. The researchers cast final-year students as guards or inmates to investigate social psychology in a prison context. More than 70 people responded to the advertisement, hoping to earn $15 each day (Perlstadt, 2024).
All participants underwent testing and diagnostic interviews to exclude those with psychiatric issues, impairments, criminal histories, or drug misuse. Twenty-four students from the US and Canada were chosen. In a two-week trial, half of them were randomly assigned (by coin toss) as inmates and the other half as guards. To make the jail simulation plausible, the psychologists sought the help of counselors. The most seasoned of them was a criminal who had served seventeen years in prison. He discussed his jail experience and introduced the researchers to other former inmates and correctional staff.
The “prison” was established in the basement of Stanford’s psychology department. To build jail cells, doors were removed from lab rooms and replaced with custom-made bars and cell numbers. The subterranean passage served as the yard and was the only location where “prisoners” were permitted to stroll, eat, or exercise, except when going to the bathroom, when “prisoners” were blinded so they did not know how to get out. One tranquil morning, “criminals” were “arrested” by police and hauled to jail, where they were undressed, searched, and uniformed (Perlstadt, 2024).
The guards were handed sticks, handcuffs, whistles, and keys to their cell blocks. Their priority was to maintain “law and order” (Liu, 2023). The interaction between guards and convicts immediately took on a traditional tone, with guards seeing prisoners as inferior and dangerous. The prisoners viewed the guards as bullies and sadists. A few days later, the inmates mounted a genuine insurrection. They locked themselves inside their cells, putting their bunks against the door. The guards used fire hoses to douse them. After that, the mattresses were completely removed from the cells.
The guards were aware of the fast spread of sadism among them. One of the guards, who considered himself a nice and non-aggressive pacifist before the experiment, uncovered traits in himself on the fifth day that he had previously overlooked. On the sixth day, the researchers were forced to halt the experiment early for everyone involved (Liu, 2023). Furthermore, it resulted in long-term physical and mental stress for healthy and educated young people.
Therefore, the jail experiment was never repeated. The convicts were pleased with the outcome of the experiment, while the jail guards were unhappy (Perlstadt, 2024). They felt discarded despite being on time for work, working more than they should have without extra compensation, and believing they had performed their tasks faithfully. Despite the usual reactions, one security guard did not share his coworkers’ behavioral choices. He did not take part in their acts, nor did he approve of the convicts’ conduct. He even asked to trade roles, but his wish was refused.
Overall, the outcomes were mixed. Not all guards were brutal, and not all inmates followed the same concept. Nonetheless, it was sufficient to understand the psychological makeup of the jail experiment. All of the individuals went beyond their assigned duties in some way. Because the convicts were thoroughly immersed in the intricacies of the experiment, 90% of their chats were about the jail, and 10% were about other topics (Scott-Bottoms, 2020).
The jailers were also only concerned with prison issues and, when interrogated, behaved strictly as correctional officers. Critics of the experiment said that the environment lacked some of the variables prevalent in real jails, such as homosexuality, racism, physical abuse and mutilation, and threats to life, for a complete understanding of incarceration. As a result, the definition of the psychological phenomena of captivity is still debated.
Evidence
Participants in the trial were not told of the potential implications, which included devastating mental health impacts, according to ethical allegations. They also refused to submit to arrests – the “prisoners” Zimbardo ordered were abruptly removed from their homes. This breaches Principle E, which stipulates that psychologists must respect the rights to dignity, privacy, and secrecy of persons with whom they work professionally (American Psychological Association, 2002).
The volunteers were also not shielded from harm because the experiment generated psychological anguish and even trauma. This suggests that Ethical Principles for Psychologists 3.04a was broken (American Psychological Association, 2002). The wardens’ attitudes ranged from utterly sadistic to occasional harshness, from a hard, rigid warden who maintained strict order to a “kind warden” who tolerated mercy (Scott-Bottoms, 2020).
However, there were just a few “kind” people. They did not humiliate or insult the prisoners, and they even gave them small indulgences on occasion. Still, none of these so-called “good jailers” ever protested against any of the sadistic warders’ orders, never intervened to stop or prevent another warder’s inappropriate behavior, and never arrived late or left early for work.
Assumptions
Zimbardo was born in New York City on March 23, 1933, to Sicilian Italian immigrants. Growing up poor on assistance and Italian, he suffered discrimination and prejudice from a young age. He was frequently confused with people of different races and ethnicities, such as Jews, Puerto Ricans, and blacks (Scott-Bottoms, 2020).
According to Zimbardo, these early encounters sparked his interest in human behavior and affected his schoolwork (Zimbardo, 2011). In 1954, he graduated from Brooklyn College with honors, earning a BA in psychology, sociology, and anthropology. He obtained his MA (1955) and PhD in psychology from Yale University, where Neil Miller served as his adviser (Zimbardo, 2011). Philip Zimbardo was a psychologist and a Stanford University professor.
Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment to examine the power of good over evil in a limited social-group environment because he doubted his capacity to remain optimistic in the face of unfavorable circumstances. During his experiment, he hoped to unveil the essence of human nature: the subconscious desire to dominate others, particularly if the institution supports the emergence of such ambitions (Kaminski, 2022).
In essence, it was a study on human aggressiveness commissioned by the United States Navy Research Office to investigate the nature of conflict in both penal facilities and the military (Zimbardo, 2011). The aggression research was conducted in settings that closely resembled prison life, where individuals “played” the assigned roles of convicts and wardens. At the same time, a team of scientists observed changes in their conduct.
Student’s Position
The experiment was unethical and violated the psychologist’s ethical norms. The study’s participants were not warned of the potential implications or damages. Meanwhile, the experiment brought up the notion of power pathology. When given the option to use any control or issue resolution, the guards chose an aggressive, violent pattern of conduct. The levels of impact rose with each day and change.
From the first day of the experiment, prisoners’ rights to sleep, food, and cleanliness were transformed into perks for compliance (Zimbardo, 2022). Going to the restroom or eating became a perk for affluent convicts. The convicts developed a power pathology. After experiencing domination over the weaker individuals, the inmates were unable to resist the impulse to oppress others.
Despite the many ethical violations, Zimbardo’s study inspired the development of social psychology. The researchers emphasize that this experiment motivated scholars to conduct further research, citing political scientists and sociologists who base their studies of twentieth- and twenty-first-century conflicts on the jail experiment’s theory and practice (Ariail & Crumbley, 2023). This scientific environment also served as the foundation for a similar one led by Steven Reichert and Alexander Haslam.
Conclusions and Implications
Thus, in an attempt to answer the age-old question of good and evil in the human spirit, Zimbardo concludes that man is fundamentally bad and cruel. Philosophers in the past reached such findings through observation and speculative reasoning. In the twentieth century, it became the topic of scientific, sociological, and experimental investigation. Several scenarios might have a significant impact on people, prompting them to behave unpredictably towards themselves.
When attempting to explain the origins of complex, unintelligible conduct, it is advisable to begin with situational analysis and proceed to dispositional analysis only if the former fails. Situational influence is most powerful in an unfamiliar context, when people are unable to rely on previous patterns of conduct and have no prior experience to draw on. In such a setting, their regular behaviors and coping techniques are not encouraged. In such cases, a personality study cannot predict much because it is based on previous reactions and, on rare occasions, current settings. However, Zimbardo’s experiment was highly immoral, raising questions about the interpretation of the results.
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073.
Ariail, D., & Crumbley, D. L. (2023). An innovative pedagogy for teaching accounting ethics using videos of landmark studies in psychology. The Accounting Educators’ Journal, 33.
Kaminski, M. M. (2022). Games prisoners do not play: Against the Hobbes-Zimbardo approach of unmitigated prison violence. Journal of Institutional Economics, 18(3), 483-500.
Liu, L. (2023). What do Milgram and Zimbardo experiments teach us about the power of organizations to control people’s behaviors? In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 158, p. 01023). EDP Sciences.
Perlstadt, H. (2024). The Stanford Prison Experiment: The power of the situation. In Assessing Social Science Research Ethics and Integrity: Case Studies and Essays (pp. 183-210). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Scott-Bottoms, S. (2020). The dirty work of the Stanford Prison Experiment: Re-reading the dramaturgy of coercion. Incarceration, 1(1).
Zimbardo, P. (2011). The Lucifer effect: How good people turn evil. Random House.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2022). 6 my contributions to social psychology over many decades. Pillars of Social Psychology: Stories and Retrospectives, 43.