Zimbardo Experiment

Cards (17)

  • The Standford Prison Experiment's (Zimbardo Experiment) aim was to investigate the psychological effects of power and authority on individuals in a hierarchical system. Zimbardo was interested in knowing if brutality reported from guards was due to their brutal/sadistic personalities or had more to do with the prison environment(dispositional/personal vs situational).
  • The Zimbardo experiment's procedure:
    • Mock prison in basement of Standford Uni
    • Volunteered sampling from newspaper advertisements
    • Of the 75 respondents, 24 were chosen and were randomly assigned as prisoner or guard because they were most physically + mentally healthy “normal males” deemed by diagnostic interviews and personality tests. NOTE: 2 left on standby if anyone dropped out.
    • Participants didn't know each other and were paid $15/day to be in the experiment.
  • Standford Prison experiment participants:
    • Agreed to play their randomly assigned roles. 
    • Were under constant surveillance through observations, video and audio recordings.
    • Got necessities: food, medical care, clothing 
    • Lost basic civil rights - especially freedom for prisoners 
    • Needed to be available on a specified Sunday to start the experiment via phone
  • The guards were prepared when they:
    • Attended an orientation meeting (discussing roles) on the day before the experiment.
    • Met the researcher (superintendent of prison).
    • Told by warden shift: patterns, reports, administration of food, free time and work activities.
    • Believed purpose of the study was to observe the prisoner's behaviour.
    • Could go home to the normal lifestyle
    • The only direct instruction was that physical punishments were not to be used on prisoners.
  • The guards:
    • Helped finalise the simulated prison, i.e by moving furniture, arranging the beds in the cells.
    • Dressed in identical uniforms of beige, carried a whistle around their neck and a crowbar, wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible.
  • Zimbardo Experiment facts:
    • Self evaluations using questionnaires and tests were completed by prisoners and guards over the duration of the study in order to assess the individual’s moods and personality.
    • The experiment was terminated on day 6. This was 8 days earlier than scheduled because of emotional breakdowns.
    • The prisoners were extremely pleased at this but the guards were not as happy about the decision to end the study. When prisoners attended a parole (released earlier than sentence) meeting, ⅗ said they would give up their money to leave.
  • The prisoners were:
    • Arrested without warning at their homes and taken to their local police station
    • Fingerprinted and photographed at the Palo Alto City Police Department
    • Blindfolded and driven in a police car to Stanford Uni with their 2 week sentence
    • Stripped naked, deloused and removed from personal possessions upon prison arrival
    • Given prison clothes, uniform with nylon cap to cover hair + locked chain around 1 ankle, bedding
    • Referred only by their ID number (forced to remember it) to make prisoners feel anonymous
    • All intended to deindividuate the prisoners and humiliate them.
  • The guards read the rules to the prisoners by their number:
    • 3 supervised toilet visits a day
    • 3 counts each day from lining up
    • 3 meals per day
    • 2 visits from close people per week
    • scheduled exercise and movie times
    • testing their knowledge of the rules and their ID number
    • work assignments and payment for these ($15 daily).
  • Results:
    • After 1 hour guards began to harass the prisoners by awakening them from sleep at 2:30 am with loud whistles. This was the first of many "counts", intended for prisoners to be familiarised with their number so that guards could exercise control over prisoners.
    • Prisoners quickly adopted prisoner behaviour, taking the rules seriously (thinking violation would be disastrous)
    • Prisoners ‘told tales’ of each other to the guards, and some sided with the guards against prisoners who didn't obey the rules
  • As physical punishment, prisoners were 
    • Insulted
    • Given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish
    • Forced to do push-ups 
    • One guard stepped on a prisoner's back while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit on the backs 
    • Consequently, prisoners were dehumanised
  • Guards were cruel when the prisoners rebelled (early in the study)
    • Gave verbally aggressive orders for the prisoners
    • Modified/ignored the rules, forgetting about movie privileges
    • Made prisoners own rights as privileges (i.e eating, brushing teeth), highlighting the coercive power the guards have (using threats). It was intended to break the harmony with prisoners.
  • With their behaviour, the guards became more brutal/sadistic, while the prisoners became more obedient/submissive. The guards acquired social status and complete control over their role in the simulation, which intensified and became self serving.
  • Guards were very inclined with their roles:
    • Never late to work
    • Some voluntarily stayed after their shift had ended (with no pay)
  • Prisoners
    • Perceived guards to be "bigger than they are" despite random allocation and no physical differences with height, weight etc.
    • Felt depressed, isolated and anxious
    • Half were emotionally disturbed and left the study
    • Others were excessively well behaved i.e siding with guards
    • Forced to sit in an unfamiliar feminine way when wearing uniform without underclothes.
    • ↳ Loss of identity → compliance, dependency on those in power when being humiliated from those with masculine power.
  • Conclusion:
    • People will readily conform to their expected social roles
    • 3 Types of Guards:
    • Good (did little favours, and never punished)
    • Tough but fair (following rules)
    • Hostile (enjoying power and humiliating prisoners) - 1/3
  • P & C
    C: Findings apply to volunteered US male students; not reflecting diverse backgrounds in prisons i.e ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status.
    C: Can't be replicated (not accepted under today's ethics)
    P: Only "typical" males chosen by matched pair design, then randomly assigning participants to guard/prisoner to remove individual discrepancies.
    P: High internal validity because participants thought the situation was real.
    • 90% of prisoner's private conversations were about prison life
    • Guards either talked about prison topics or nothing during breaks.  
  • P & C
    C: Lack of ecological validity because although prison, missed aspects like the guilt of committing a crime.
    C: Breaching ethical guidelines:
    • Informed consent - not aware of arrestment at home + unpredictable nature for Zimbardo to say what'll happen
    • Protection of participants - emotional disturbance
    P: All participants debriefed + psychological evaluations for wellbeing