Zimbardo (1973) The Stanford Prison Experiment

AIM: To examine whether ordinary people would conform to the role of a prisoner or prison guard when placed in a mock prison setting. Zimbardo also examined whether the behaviour shown in the mock prison setting was the result of dispositional factors (internal factors within the participants) or situational factors (external factors within the environment).

METHOD: Zimbardo recruited 21 male university students through a newspaper advertisement to participate in his study. The participants were selected based on their physical and mental stability from a pool of 75 volunteers and received a daily payment of $15. They were randomly assigned to one of two social roles, either a prisoner or a guard.

Zimbardo turned the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison. He arranged for the prisoners to be arrested by local police officers who took their fingerprints, stripped them of their clothing, gave them a smock to wear and placed chains around their ankles. The prison guards were given a uniform to wear, including dark sunglasses, a truncheon and handcuffs. Zimbardo instructed the prison guards to manage the prison without using any form of physical violence.

RESULTS: Zimbardo observed a rapid identification of both the prisoners and guards with their respective social roles. The prisoners staged a rebellion within days, which the guards promptly quashed, leading to a surge in abusive behaviour towards the prisoners. The guards dehumanized the prisoners, forcing them to carry out menial tasks such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands. As a result, the prisoners became increasingly submissive, further identifying with their subordinate role.

Due to the adverse reactions of five prisoners, including crying and extreme anxiety, the experiment was cut short after just six days, despite initially being intended to run for two weeks. Christina Maslach, a postgraduate student, intervened and convinced Zimbardo that the conditions in the experiment were inhumane.

CONCLUSION:Zimbardo's findings indicated that individuals conform to social roles at a rapid pace, even if the role contradicts their ethical principles. Additionally, Zimbardo concluded that situational factors were primarily accountable for the observed behaviour, as none of the participants had exhibited such conduct previously.

EVALUATING ZIMBARDO (1973)

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Reicher and Haslam (2006) replicated Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment but found contradictory findings. Reicher and Haslam randomly assigned 15 male participants to the role of prison guard or prisoner. They found that the participants did not conform to the social roles, as Zimbardo originally found. In their experiment, the guards did not enforce their authority over the prisoners and the prisoners challenged the authority which led to a shift in power and an end of the mock prison system. These results challenge Zimbardo’s original conclusions and suggest that conformity to social roles may not be as automatic as originally thought.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: The extent to which an individual conforms to social roles is not solely determined by situational factors, as individual differences and personality also play a significant role. In Zimbardo's original experiment, the guards displayed a wide range of behaviour, with some exhibiting extreme sadistic behaviour, while others offered support, sympathy, and even reinstated privileges for the prisoners. This variability suggests that dispositional factors, such as personality, contribute to conformity to social roles, and implies that Zimbardo's conclusion may have been exaggerated.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES: Zimbardo's experiment has faced significant criticism for violating ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm. Five prisoners withdrew from the experiment early due to the physical and psychological torture they endured, while some guards experienced anxiety and guilt over their behaviour. Despite Zimbardo's compliance with Stanford University's ethical guidelines and debriefing the participants after the experiment, he acknowledged that the study should have been terminated earlier. It has been suggested that Zimbardo was more focused on his role as the prison superintendent than his responsibilities as a researcher accountable for his participants' well-being.

REAL WORLD APPLICATION: Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment with the aim of offering practical solutions to enhance the US prison system. Although the study led to some positive changes, such as reforms in the treatment of juvenile detainees, Zimbardo considers it a failure in achieving the primary objective. He argues that prison conditions in America have deteriorated over the years, contradicting the intended benefit of his research.