The Stanford Prison Experiment

In August of 1971, a group of researchers, headed by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, at Stanford University, set out to learn just how prison affects a person psychologically. "What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?" are two of the questions researchers thought to answer with the Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 2006). The results of this experiment were shocking, to say the least, and led that team of researchers, and many others, to question just how bad the prison systems of America really are.

            On a Sunday morning in Palo Alto, California, officers made their way through town arresting college students "as part of a mass arrest for violation of Penal Code 211, Armed Robbery, and Burglary" (Zimbardo, 2006). Those students had signed on to play a role in the Stanford Prison Experiment, and their role as prisoners had officially begun.

            Once at the station, "the suspect was brought inside, formally booked, again warned of his Miranda rights, finger printed and a complete identification was made" (Zimbardo, 2006). This identity would be their only identity for the next 6 days. After completing the initial booking process, the prisoner was blindfolded and put in a cell to "ponder his fate" (Zimbardo, 2006). From there, the volunteer prisoners were transferred to the basement prison researchers had created at Stanford University.

            Just like a real prison, this simulated prison had small cells with bars in lieu of doors, no windows and a small solitary confinement cell. So too, this prison had guards, who like the prisoners, had volunteered for the experiment and were assigned as guards with the flip of a coin (Zimbardo, 2006).

            These guards were given no training and were "free, within limits, to do whatever they though was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners" (Zimbardo, 2006). They were, however, "warned of the potential seriousness of their mission and of the possible dangers in the situation they were about to enter" (Zimbardo, 2006).

            It should be mentioned here that the 18 students selected for this experiment had undergone and passed rigorous mental, physical, psychological and background testing (Zimbardo, 2006). No student with any hint of mental or physical illness, drug or alcohol abuse was selected; neither were students that researchers felt posed a threat of suffering any harm from the experiment (Zimbardo, 2006). In truth, these 18 students were probably farther from the norm in seen in an actual prison that the researchers could possibly get. That, however, made little difference in what these students would begin to experience.

            Day one of the experiment passed with little in the way of problems or concerns (Zimbardo, 2006). Day two, though, was another matter, as were the next four subsequent days. On day two of the experiment, the prisoners staged a protest in which they "removed their stocking caps ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the doors" (Zimbardo, 2006). They then began to "taunt and curse" the guards (Zimbardo, 2006).

            In only a short while the angered guards decided how to respond to this protest and the degradation and humiliation of prisoners was stepped up to a level not previously seen in the experiment. Whereas before punishment for the prisoners consisted mainly of physical activity, the guards decided to use psychological tactics on the prisoners in combination with physical activity. These psychological tactics included, over the remainder of the experiment, playing the prisoners against one another by giving some better foods or better treatment, making prisoners taunt one another, forcing prisoners to clean toilets with their bare hands, refusing to empty the bathroom buckets, extended the counts for hours at a time, etc (Zimbardo, 2006).

            By day three of the experiment, one of the prisoners had begun to crack. He began to suffer from "acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking and uncontrollable crying and rage" (Zimbardo, 2006). Later that same day, researchers decided they must end his involvement in the experiment and sent him home.

            At this point, even the researchers playing a role had begun to experience changes in their behavior. Dr. Zimbardo himself expressed this very well when talking about the denial of his request to the Police Department to transfer prisoners over because of a rumored escape plot to be pulled off by the prisoner they had released. "I left angry and disgusted at this lack of cooperation between our correctional facilities" he says in reference to that denial (2006).

            Come day give, another prisoner had been "released because of emotional disturbances, the guards were turning sadistic and another prisoner was cracking and had to be released. The players had all become so enveloped in their roles that they were no longer sure where the experiment ended and reality began (Zimbardo, 2006).

            Day six saw the end of the experiment when researchers learned that the guards "were escalating their abuse of the prisoners" and an interviewer questioned the morality of the study (Zimbardo, 2006).

            The results of this experiment were far more devastating and shocking than anyone involved had imagined. Those involved had forgotten they were playing a role. The prisoners were "behaving in pathological ways" and no longer realized that they were free to quit at anytime (Zimbardo, 2006). The guards had either become sadistic or allowed the behavior, believing that they were unable to do anything about it; and as previously stated, even the researchers playing a role had begun to loose their grip on reality (Zimbardo, 2006).

            This experiment showed just how detrimental inhumane prison conditions were to the health of everyone in the prison system from Super-Intendents to guards and prisoners. Even "good" people can be beaten down by conditions, such as those simulated in the experiment, to a point where they are no longer sure of their own identity. Unfortunately, these conditions can be all too common in actual prisons where individuality is strongly discouraged and punishment can be severe (Zimbardo, 2006).

            If anything, this experiment should have taught players in the criminal justice system just how desperately prison reform is needed. Sadly, conditions such as these continue to persist and have even been the cause of recent controversy as seen in the instances of Abu Ghrab and Guantanamo Bay prisons.

            This study also pointed out, in regards to ethics, the importance of gaining fully informed consent. While volunteers did have to sign consent forms, they were not made fully aware of just how horrible conditions were going to be (Zimbardo, 2006). In addition, this study raises the question of just how far experiments should be taken. Many would agree that this particular experiment went too far in seeking answers and as such, caused irreparable harm to study participants.

              Should such extreme measures be taken simply to answer a scientific question; just how far is too far; and, should the participants be reminded throughout the experiment that they are free to leave at any time, are the questions that swam repeatedly through my mind while reading about this experiment. To me, the answer seems simple. One has went too far for the sake of knowledge when participants begin to loose touch with reality and no longer realize who they are and that they are involved in an experiment and are able to leave at any time. Even if the results of the experiment might lead to advancements in a particular system, subjecting participants to such adverse and harmful effects is, in my opinion, simply not worth it. No one should ever sacrifice the well being of one group or individual for the well being of another.

            The results of this study can impact policy and procedure in the legal system first and foremost, by showing the importance of implementing a system of change in the penitentiary system. If healthy volunteers went through such hell, how much more detrimental are similar environments on those with mental or physical impairments, such as are commonly found in prisons? What changes do we need to implement to ensure that prisoners, whether they already suffer from such problems or not, are not being subjected to treatment and condition that has the potential to cause even more harm? And lastly, these results can and probably have, impacted policy and procedure in the form of strict legal and ethical guidelines placed on psychologist and researchers when performing experiments or studies. It is quite likely that this study would never be repeated today simply because of policies put in place since this experiment and those like it.

            While this experiment opened the eyes of many, it has, unfortunately, not had as big an impact as researchers hoped upon completion of the study (Zimbardo, 2006). Participants went through a horrible situation with severe implications and decades later, real prisoners are often subjected to the same treatments that were present in areas of the experiment. We are now aware of the implications of such conditions, but when will those implications be taken into consideration and integrated into our system?

References

Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment
conducted at Stanford University. In The Stanford Prison Experiment.
Retrieved July 9, 2006, from slides one through forty-two: http://www.prisonexp.org/