Stanford prison experiment

• Background

  • 1960s America - a lot of brutality reported among guards in American prisons
  • Zimbardo wanted to know if it was due to the guards having sadistic personalities or the prison environment
• aim

  • to measure the extent that people conform to a social role
• sample

  • 24 male volunteers were in the study and we’re paid $15 a day
  • psychological tests were conducted to assume they were emotionally stable - they were all emotionally stable
  • Ppts were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner
• procedure

  • he set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford university for added realism
  • prisoners were arrested from their homes, strip searched, deloused, given a numbered uniform, chains placed on their ankles and an identification number
  • Guards had a uniform, handcuffs, a baton and dark reflective sunglasses
  • prisoners were told they couldn’t leave but would have to ask for parole
  • Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners but shouldn’t use physical violence
  • Zimbardo acted as warden and the experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks
• Findings

  • Prisoners rebelled within 2 days (ripped of uniforms and swore at guards)
  • Guards aimed to crush the rebellion - retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prionsers (frequent head counts including in the middle of the night)
  • Guards became more abusive - prisoners were woken in the night to stop them from sleeping and forced to clean the toilets with their bare hands and among other degrading jobs. Some guards were so dedicated they did Unpaid overtime
  • Prisoners became submissive - increasing submission to the guards and identified more with the subordinate role
• Strengths

  • Emotionally stable Ppts used and were randomly allocated to prison or guard - their behaviour was due to their role not their personality
  • Lab experiment - high control which increases internal validity, therefore can conclude the effect of social roles on conformity
• weaknesses

  • Banuazizi and Mohadevi - suggests Ppts were play acting - their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. Meaning it lacks external validity as it doesn’t necessarily reflect real life prisons
  • The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been over exaggerated - one third of guards acted in humanely, one third applied the rules fairly and one third acted empathetic towards prisoners
• Conclusion

  • 5 of the 6 prisoners were let go early due to their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment
  • The study stopped on day 6 - a fellow researcher had to convince Zimbardo that his experiment was cruel and inhumane. He couldn’t see it as he was too embedded in the experiment
  • Social roles are powerful influences on socia, behaviour - most confirmed strongly to their role even if it was against their morals
  • Situational factors largely responsible as individuals had never demonstrated these behaviours before
• Real world application

  • The same conformity can be evidenced the Abu Ghraib military prison
  • Zimbardo believed the guards who committed the abuses were the victims of situational factors that made abuse more likely (no accountability to a higher authority)
  • Opportunity to misuse power associated with the role of guard led to the abuse of prisoners in the study and Abu Ghraib