Obedience Test 2 - Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20, 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo. It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.

Professor Philip Zimbardo

Twenty-four male students out of seventy-five were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Building 420, Stanford Psychology Department. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.

Here are a footage behind the scene of the experiment (source:youtube);

Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. The prison simulation was kept as “real life” as possible. Prisoners were arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. Guards were also issued a khaki uniform, together with whistles, handcuffs and dark glasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible. No physical violence was permitted. Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards.

Here they were treated like every other criminal. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’.  Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells.  Here the deindividuation process began.

When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only. Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap, and a chain around one ankle.There were 3 guards to the 9 prisoners, taking shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call)

The findings

Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners. They behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner, apparently enjoying it. Other guards joined in, and other prisoners were also tormented. 

The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized.

The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behaviour too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards. They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not conform to the rules.

Over the next few days the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other.  Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.

As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive. 

As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.

One prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. His thinking became disorganized and he appeared to be entering the early stages of a deep depression. Within the next few days three others also had to leave after showing signs of emotional disorder that could have had lasting consequences. 

Zimbardo had intended that the experiment should run for a fortnight, but on the sixth day he closed it down. There was real danger that someone might be physically or mentally damaged if it was allowed to run on. After some time for the researchers to gather their data the subjects were called back for a follow-up, debriefing session.

The Conclusion

People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behaviour (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study). Therefore, the roles that people play can shape their behaviour and attitudes.

Zimbardo explains that the reason for the deterioration in guard behaviour was power.   The guards were given control over the lives of other human beings and did not have to justify their displays of power as they would normally have to in their daily lives.  They started to enjoy this power very earlier on in the study (pathology of power) as demonstrated that even after the first day all prisoner rights became redefined as privileges, and all privileges were cancelled. 

Zimbardo explains the social deterioration of the prisoners as the pathological prisoner syndrome. At the beginning of the study, the prisoners rebelled against their conditions, but the guards undermined every attempt at rebellion, and any solidarity between the prisoners collapsed.  Half of the prisoners responded by becoming sick, and eventually had to be released before the study was finally brought to a conclusion.  The remaining prisoners became passive, dependent and had flattened emotions. 

Zimbardo suggested that there were a number of processes that contributed to the pathological prisoner syndrome;

• The loss of personal identity – The prisoners were de-individuated by being stripped of their individuality, their name, dress, appearance, behaviour style, and history.  Living among strangers who do not know your name or history, dressed like all the other prisoners, all led to the weakening of self-identity among the prisoners.  The prisoners became de-individuated not only to the guards, but to themselves
• The arbitrary control exercised by the guards - On post-experimental questionnaires, the prisoners said they disliked the way that the way they were subjected to the arbitrary and changeable decisions and rules of the guards as this made life unpredictable and unfair.  For example, smiling at a joke could be punished in the same way that failing to smile might be.  As the environment became more unpredictable, the prisoners’ behaviour showed signs of learned helplessness, that is, as the prisoners’ previously learned assumptions about a just and orderly world were no longer functional, they ceased to initiate any action
• Dependency and emasculation - The prisoners were made to be totally dependent on the guards for commonplace functions such as going to the toilet, reading, lighting a cigarette and this emasculated them. The smocks, worn without underwear, lessened their sense of masculinity. This was taken to the extent that when the prisoners were debriefed they suggested that they had been assigned to be prisoners because they were smaller than the guards.  In fact there was no difference in average height between the prisoners and guards, and the perceived difference was a response to the prisoners’ perception of themselves and their lack of power.