Lessons from the Stanford Prison Experiment

Results, Applications and Criticisms of Zimbardo's Study

6 Comments
Join the Conversation
Stanford Prison Experiment Was Conducted in 1971  - kevinrosseel
Stanford Prison Experiment Was Conducted in 1971 - kevinrosseel
Psychologists from Stanford University performed the experiment in order to study effects of dehumanization and deindividuation of humans in an unequal power situation.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in the summer of 1971. Twenty four normal, healthy volunteers were assigned the roles of prisoner or guard in a mock prison for what was supposed to be a 2 week study. Due to an unexpected number of traumatic incidences and violent, destructive behavior the experiment was called off after just 6 days in order to prevent further psychological and physical trauma to the volunteers.

Stanford Prison Experiment Illustrates Human Behavior’s Dualistic Nature

An article titled “Demonstrating the Power of Social Situations via a Simulated Prison Experiment” that was released through the American Psychological Association summed up the Stanford Prison experiment’s results by concluding that the “Stanford Prison Experiment has become one of psychology's most dramatic illustrations of how good people can be transformed into perpetrators of evil, and healthy people can begin to experience pathological reactions - traceable to situational forces.”

Experiment Founder Psychologist P.G. Zombardo Analyzes Results

The drama of the Stanford Prison Experiment only served to underscore the importance of the lessons learned from it. One of the experiment’s founding psychologist, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, discussed how the results relate to general human psychology in his paper “Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences.” Here, Dr. Zimbardo outlines what he deemed were the 10 most important psychological lessons from the Prison Experiment. Below in shortened version are the first 5 lessons:

  1. Some situations can exert powerful influences over individuals, causing them to behave in ways they would not, could not, predict in advance.
  2. Situational power is most salient in novel settings in which the participants cannot call on previous guidelines for their new behavior and have no historical references to rely on.
  3. Situational power involves ambiguity of role boundaries, authoritative or institutionalized permission to behave in prescribed ways or to disinhibit traditionally disapproved ways of responding.
  4. Role playing -- even when acknowledged to be artificial and temporary -- can still come to exert a profoundly realistic impact on the actors.
  5. Good people can be induced, seduced, initiated into behaving in evil (irrational, stupid, self destructive, antisocial) ways by immersion in "total situations" that can transform human nature in ways that challenge our sense of the stability and consistency of individual personality, character, and morality.

Dr. Zimbardo goes on to explain in his paper that based in this experiment’s results, it’s clear that prisons are inhumane and “a failed socio-political experiment.”

Practical Applications of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment determined the importance of maintaining individuality, dignity and stable social guidelines in order to maintain a situation’s safety and predictability. The results armed psychologists with data supporting an ideology that some human behavior is based on a response situations rather than innate traits or previous personality. The experiment offered some conclusions to reasoning behind such horrors and torture brought on by Nazis during the Holocaust, and how such brutal behavior may have been, in some part, due to a natural response to a similar situation. (Though the behavior was still inexcusable).

Criticism of Zimbardo’s Experiment

Some psychologists, such as Erich Fromm, rejected Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment conclusion that some destructive human behavior is due to a situational response rather than innate traits or personality. In The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (Fawcett Books, 1973), Fromm points out the Prison experiment volunteers were only evaluated by themselves. In other words, each volunteer took a battery of personality and psychological tests to determine their normalcy, however, as Fromm points out, sadism and other destructive traits are often subconscious in the individual.

Stephanie Cox, Stephanie Cox Images

Stephanie Cox - Stephanie earned a B.S. in General Science with minors in physics and professional writing from Portland State University. As a teenager, ...

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 1+10?

Comments

Feb 1, 2010 5:39 AM
Guest :
Very slanted towards supporting the experiment.
Sep 14, 2010 2:29 PM
Guest :
The prison experiment was a waste of time run by a sadist who put HIMSELF in the head role. There was never any chance that this stupid experiment would garner anything but a way for him to release his penned up aggression.
He even admits to imprisoning someone after they requested to quit the program....THAT'S FALSE IMPRISONMENT!!!! He should be in jail not writing crackpot books!

I sincerely wish for the chance to meet with this psuedo-scientist....preferably in a similar situation to the pointless one he put these young men through.
Oct 11, 2010 6:53 AM
Guest :
Good!
Nov 14, 2010 7:36 AM
Guest :
i guess the correctional system can draw some useful conclusions from this study.
Mar 31, 2011 1:44 AM
Guest :
The Correctional system isn't all that. Been there and done it. The ones one needs to deal with is the Inmates. 4 of the Seven years that I spent in prison and even a level 4 (which is the highest atthe State level), I found to be the most violent and stressful of all. That's because I was a Gang member. How you dealt with things, even in refraining from violence, does and did tell a lot about someone. After those 4 years, I gave myself over to Christ. All respect JESUS CHRIST inside...because they know that either you're real with HIm. Or, you will be found out to be faken it. That goes with anything. The most solid of all inmates were a small, quite, yet sincere, group of Christians. The loud ones with all of their hoopla and compromise in small sins here and there, they had shown their stripes and were dealt with. Those that were real, had to go through much trial, but stood fast unto either the end of their time; or if they were Lifer's- through the end of each trial bearing a Christ-like attitude- with power, yet with care for even their enemies and showing it while they were hatin'. The biggest and baddest dudes, no matter who they were, killers and all, were scared of even having someone read the Bible outloud to them.....what does this tell you about the Word of God and the demonic cowardly spirits that tend to control men??? Are you controlled??? Yeah, but you think you're free, huh??? Better be on the right side...!
May 24, 2011 6:19 PM
Guest :
Biased a little bit towards the experiment. No mention of the many ethical boundaries crossed by Dr. Zimbardo. The public arrests of the volunteer young men was unnecessary and cruel not to mention scary. This was an experiment that should have been carried out by real inmates (not hard core criminals) in a real prison.
6 Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement