Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Exp

• what was the aim of the exp?

  • to investigate how readily people would conform to the assigned social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that stimulated prison life.
• sampling of the exp?

  • 24 male students recruited via volunteer/self-selected sampling. p's tested for psychatric vunerabilities and deemed 'emotionally stable'. p's randomly assigned to either role of prisoner or guard.
  • zimbardo was the prison superintendent.
• where did the exp take place?

  • converted a basement of the stanford uni psych building into a mock prison.
• method of the exp?

  • prisoners were arrested in the early hours of the morning & taken off to 'prison'. p's unaware this was going to happen.
  • prisoners and guards encouraged to conform to their social roles which was reinforced by the uniforms.
  • guards instructed to set out prison rules, hand out punishments (physical punishments weren't allowed) & control prisoners (e.g. when they could exercise).
  • prisoners referred to by assigned numbers, rather than by names.
  • uniforms designed to erode personal identity & emphasise each p's social role = deindividuation.
• results of the exp?

  • both guards & prisoners settled into their new roles very quickly. guards adopted their social role quickly, easily & w/enthusiasim.
  • within hours of beginning the exp, some guards began to harass prisoners & treat them harshly. 2 days into the exp, the prisoners rebelled by ripping their uniforms and shouting & swearing at guards.
  • guards employed range of tactics, e.g. fire extinguishers, psychological warfare & punishments for slightest transgression.
  • exp terminated on 6th day, was supposed to be 2 weeks.
• conclusions of the exp?

  • social roles exert a strong influence on individual identity.
  • power corrupts those who wield it, partic. if environmental factors legitimise this. 1 prisoner has a mental breakdown & zimbardo had to remind p's it wasn't a real prison.
  • harsh institutions brutalise people & results in deindividuation (both for guards & prisoners).
  • prisoners adopted prisoner-like behaviour, e.g. quiet, subdued, depressed, obedient. some became informants, snitching to guards.
• strengths of the exp?

  • good degree of control was exerted over the procedure.
  • random allocation to role- both of the above measures ensured that individual differences didn't confound the results; chance who got prisoner or guard.
  • study may have mundane realism (rare for an exp).
  • 90% of prisoner's private convos revolved around prison life.
  • guards talked about 'problem prisoners' on their breaks, never discussed home life or other topics.
• weaknesses of the exp?

  • atrocious ethics, informed consent didn't cover all aspects of what the p' could expect about the procedure (e.g. night arrests).
  • right to withdraw given, but routines & mechanisms of prison world made this difficult for all involved.
  • protection from harm absent- zim encouraged guards to be cruel & oppressive, some prisoners developed PTSD.
  • some p's may have been acting according to demand characteristics, lowering validity of the findings. p's may have guessed aim & behaved accordingly, e.g. guards brutality.
• what behaviours did the guards display that demonstrated that they had conformed to their social roles?

  • made them sleep on bare mattresses if they didn't obey: verbal, physical & sexual abuse.