| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m |
| n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z |
Stanford Prison Experiment
This study was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University.The aim of the simulation was to investigate the effects of being assigned to the role of either a prison guard or prisoner.
The participants were respondents to a newspaper advertisement, which asked for male volunteers to participate in a psychological study of ‘prison life’ in return for payment of $15 per day.
The 75 respondents completed a Questionnaire about their family background, physical and mental health, prior experiences and attitudinal tendencies with respect to psychopathology and any involvement in crime.
Based on the results of the tests 24 men were selected. These 24 were judged to be the most physically and mentally stable, most mature, and least involved in antisocial behaviours. The participants were described as “normal, healthy male college students who were predominantly middle class and white.” The 24 participants did not know each other prior to the study. The 24 participants were randomly assigned to the role of ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’ and informed by telephone to be available at their homes on a particular Sunday when the Experiment would begin.
A simulated prison was built in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University. The simulated prison comprised of three small cells (each 6 x 9 ft) with three prisoners to a cell. The cells contained three cots (with mattress, sheet and pillow) for each prisoner. A small unlit room (2 x 2 x 7 ft) was used as ‘solitary confinement’.
Those participants allocated the role of guards had to attend an orientation meeting the day before the induction of the prisoners. The guards were instructed in their administrative details. However the guards were not told how to behave apart from being explicitly told that they were not allowed to use physical Punishment or physical aggression.
The uniforms of both prisoners and guards were intended to increase group identity and reduce individuality within the two groups.
The guards’ uniform consisted of a plain khaki shirt and trousers, a whistle, a police night stick (a wooden batten) and reflecting sunglasses, which made eye contact impossible. The guards’ uniforms were intended to convey a military attitude, while the baton and whistle were symbols of control and power.
The prisoners’ uniform consisted of a loose-fitting muslin smock with an identification number on the front and back, no underwear, rubber sandals, a hat made from a nylon stocking and they had a light chain and lock around their ankle. Each prisoner was also issued with a toothbrush, soap, soap-dish, towel and bed linen. No personal belongings were allowed in the cell. The prisoners’ uniforms were designed to de-individuate the prisoners and to be humiliating and serve as symbols of subservience and dependence.
The prisoner participants were unexpectedly ‘arrested at their homes with the cooperation of the local police department. A police officer then charged them with suspicion of burglary or armed robbery, advised them of their rights, handcuffed them, thoroughly searched them (often in full view of their neighbours and passers by) and drove them in the back of a police car to the police station.
At the police station they had their fingerprints and photograph taken and were put in a detention cell. Each prisoner was then blindfolded and driven to the mock prison by one of the experimenters and a guard. Throughout this arrest procedure, the police officers involved maintained a formal, serious attitude, and did not tell the participants that this had anything to do with the mock prison study.
At the mock prison, each prisoner was stripped, sprayed with a delousing preparation (a deodorant spray) and made to stand alone and naked in the ‘yard’. After being given their uniform and having a mug shot (ID picture) taken, the prisoner was put in his cell and ordered to remain silent.
The warden read them the rules of the institution (developed by the guards and the warden), which were to be memorised and had to be followed. Prisoners were to be referred to only by the number on their uniforms, also in an effort to depersonalise them.
Every day the participants were allowed three bland meals, three supervised toilet visits, and given two hours for the privilege of reading or letter writing. Work assignments had to be carried out and two visiting periods per week were scheduled, as were movie rights and exercise periods.
Three times a day prisoners were lined up for a ‘count’ (one on each guard work-shift). The original purpose of the ‘count’ was to establish that all prisoners were present, and to test them on the knowledge of the rules and their Id numbers. The first ‘counts’ lasted only about ten minutes but as conditions in the prison deteriorated, they increased in length until some lasted for several hours.
The results showed that the Behaviour of the ‘normal’ students who had been randomly allocated to each condition, was affected by the role they had been assigned, to the extent that they seemed to believe in their allocated positions.
The guards became more and more verbally and physically aggressive. Zimbardo described this as pathology of power. The prisoners became increasingly depersonalised and several experienced extreme emotional depression, crying, rage and acute anxiety.
The Experiment had to be stopped after just six days instead of the planned 14 days, mainly because of the pathological reactions of the participants. Five prisoners had to be released even earlier because of extreme emotional depression.
Zimbardo believed that the study demonstrate the powerful effect roles can have on peoples’ behaviour. Basically the participants were playing the role that they thought was expected of, either a prisoner or prison guard.
You can read a more detailed summary here which also includes an evaluation.
