The Stanford Prison Experiment Was One of the Most Disturbing Studies Ever

Summary

In 1971, Professor Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment aimed to explore the dynamics between guards and inmates, questioning whether power corrupts or brutality is inherent in human nature. The study, funded by the US Office of Naval Research, quickly turned disturbing as 'guards' became abusive and 'prisoners' suffered severe psychological distress. The experiment, which was intended to last two weeks, was ended after only six days due to ethical concerns and the profound effects on participants, sparking ongoing debates about the nature of power and human behavior.

Takeaways

• 🕵️‍♂️ The Stanford prison experiment, conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo in 1971, aimed to explore the dynamics between guards and inmates to understand if power corrupts or if brutality is inherent in human nature.
• 💡 Funded by the US Office of Naval Research, the experiment was designed to study the power hierarchies in military prisons and how they are influenced by environment versus individual personalities.
• 📢 Zimbardo recruited 24 male college students through an ad, selecting them after interviews and personality tests to ensure they had no criminal or psychological issues.
• 👥 Participants were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards, with 12 in each group, to eliminate selection bias.
• 👕 Guards were given uniforms, nightsticks, and whistles, while prisoners were stripped and dressed in dehumanizing attire to create a power differential.
• 🛑 The experiment quickly spiraled into abuse, with guards using harassment, sleep deprivation, and other psychological tactics to assert control over prisoners.
• 🚨 On the second day, a rebellion by prisoners led to aggressive retaliation by guards, including the use of fire extinguishers and solitary confinement.
• 🔄 Guards employed 'divide and conquer' tactics, creating a 'privilege cell' to reward compliance and increase tension among prisoners.
• 😢 The experiment's first casualty occurred after 36 hours when a prisoner suffered an emotional breakdown, highlighting the psychological impact of the roles.
• 🏥 Zimbardo himself became deeply immersed in his role as prison superintendent, reflecting on the power of the experiment to alter perceptions and behaviors.
• 🚨 The experiment was terminated prematurely after only six days due to the severe psychological distress it caused to participants, raising questions about ethical research practices.

Q & A

What was the primary objective of the Stanford prison experiment?

The primary objective was to determine whether the acquisition of power made guards turn brutal or if brutality was intrinsic to human nature.

Who funded the Stanford prison experiment and why?

The US Office of Naval Research funded the experiment because both the US Navy and Marine Corps were interested in learning about the hierarchies of power in military prisons.

How were participants selected for the experiment?

Participants were selected through an ad in the classifieds, and after interviews and personality tests, 24 male college students were chosen, eliminating those with criminal records, substance abuse, personality disorders, physical disabilities, or psychological problems.

How were the roles of prisoners and guards assigned in the experiment?

Roles were assigned randomly based on the results of a coin toss to avoid selection bias.

What was the physical setup of the mock prison in the experiment?

The mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, with cells, a solitary confinement cell, and other features designed with input from prison officials and ex-convicts.

What kind of authority and methods were the guards allowed to use to maintain order?

Guards were told to maintain order and were allowed to use any means necessary short of physical violence, including harassment, withholding of food, and deprivation of privileges.

What was the reaction of the prisoners to the guards' methods on the first night?

Some prisoners did not take the headcount seriously, leading to punishment by the guards in the form of push-ups.

How did the guards respond to the prisoners' rebellion on the second day?

The guards used fire extinguishers to force prisoners away from barricades, stripped them naked, and placed one into solitary confinement.

What strategies did the guards use to prevent further rebellions?

The guards used a 'divide and conquer' strategy by creating a 'privilege cell' for well-behaved prisoners and depriving others of privileges to sow seeds of distrust.

What was the first significant psychological impact observed on a prisoner?

After only 36 hours, prisoner Doug Korpi began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage.

How did Zimbardo's role as superintendent affect his perspective during the experiment?

Zimbardo internalized his role as superintendent over his role as a psychologist, which led him to think and act more like a prison superintendent rather than a researcher.

What was the role of Christina Maslack in the experiment, and how did she influence its conclusion?

Christina Maslack, a recent Ph.D. recipient, was brought in to interview prisoners and confronted Zimbardo about the suffering of the students, leading him to prematurely end the study.

What are some of the criticisms and controversies surrounding the Stanford prison experiment?

The experiment's scientific rigor has been questioned, and some argue that the results were influenced by Zimbardo's guidance of the guards. It has been called more of a demonstration than a scientific experiment.

Outlines

00:00

🏛 Introduction to the Stanford Prison Experiment

In August 1971, Professor Philip Zimbardo initiated the Stanford prison experiment to investigate the dynamics between prison guards and inmates. The experiment aimed to understand if the abuse of power was inherent to human nature or a result of the power acquired. Zimbardo received a grant from the US Office of Naval Research to study power hierarchies in military prisons. The experiment involved creating a mock prison and selecting 24 male college students, who were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards. The guards were given uniforms and tools to maintain order, while prisoners were stripped of their identities and dressed in dehumanizing attire. The experiment began with the arrest of the 'prisoners' by real police officers and their transfer to the mock prison, which was designed with the help of prison officials and ex-convicts to closely resemble a real prison environment.

05:00

🔒 Escalation of Tensions and the First Casualty

The experiment quickly took a dark turn as the guards began to assert their authority, using tactics like waking prisoners in the middle of the night for headcounts and punishing them for minor infractions. This led to a rebellion on the second day, where prisoners barricaded themselves in their cells. The guards, now alarmed, used fire extinguishers to subdue the prisoners and placed one in solitary confinement. To prevent further rebellions, the guards implemented a system of rewards and punishments, creating a 'privilege cell' for well-behaved prisoners and depriving others of basic comforts. The guards' behavior escalated, leading to the first casualty, prisoner Doug Korpi, who suffered an emotional breakdown after just 36 hours. Zimbardo observed different types of guards, from those who were 'tough but fair' to those who enjoyed humiliating prisoners. The experiment began to reveal how quickly people could adopt their assigned roles, with Zimbardo himself admitting that he had internalized his role as prison superintendent over his role as a psychologist.

10:01

🚨 Ethical Concerns and the Experiment's Premature End

As the experiment continued, the guards' behavior became increasingly aggressive, and the prisoners became more submissive. Zimbardo convened a mock parole board to assess the prisoners' cases, further reinforcing their identities as inmates. A real priest was brought in to speak with the prisoners, leading to an emotional breakdown for one of them, Prisoner 819. The experiment's ethical concerns were highlighted when a recent Ph.D. recipient, Christina Maslack, confronted Zimbardo about the suffering of the students. This prompted Zimbardo to end the study prematurely, reflecting on how deeply he had internalized his role as a prison official. The Stanford prison experiment has been a subject of controversy due to its ethical implications and the difficulty in replicating its results. Critics argue that the experiment was more of a demonstration than a scientific study, with suggestions that the guards were guided towards producing specific outcomes.

Keywords

💡Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo in 1971. It aimed to investigate the power dynamics between prison guards and inmates. The experiment is central to the video's theme, illustrating how ordinary people can adopt abusive roles when placed in positions of authority. The video describes how participants were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners in a mock prison, leading to disturbing behaviors by the guards.

💡Philip Zimbardo

Philip Zimbardo is a psychologist known for his role in conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment. He is a key figure in the video, as it discusses his investigation into the nature of power and human behavior. Zimbardo's role as the experiment's creator and 'superintendent' of the mock prison is highlighted, showing how he too became deeply immersed in his assigned role.

💡Power Dynamics

Power dynamics refer to the relationships between individuals characterized by the possession of authority or control. In the video, the experiment is designed to explore how power affects behavior, particularly whether the act of guarding or the environment itself leads to brutality. The guards' behavior towards prisoners exemplifies the abuse of power, showcasing how power can corrupt and lead to dehumanization.

💡Dehumanization

Dehumanization is the act of depriving a person of their individuality or humanity, often by treating them as a number or object. The video describes how prisoners were stripped of their identities, dressed in degrading uniforms, and referred to by numbers, illustrating the process of dehumanization. This concept is central to understanding the guards' ability to treat prisoners harshly without empathy.

💡Mock Prison

A mock prison is a simulated environment designed to replicate the conditions of a real prison for experimental purposes. In the video, the mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, complete with cells, a solitary confinement area, and other prison-like features. This setting was crucial for the experiment, as it provided a realistic backdrop for the power dynamics being studied.

💡Ethics

Ethics in research refer to the moral principles that guide the design and conduct of experiments, particularly concerning the treatment of participants. The video raises questions about the ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment, as it led to psychological distress and harm to participants. The premature termination of the experiment due to ethical concerns is a significant point of discussion.

💡Internalization

Internalization is the process by which individuals adopt the attitudes, values, or behaviors of their roles or social settings. The video discusses how both guards and prisoners internalized their roles, leading to the guards' abusive behavior and the prisoners' submissiveness. Zimbardo himself admitted to internalizing his role as prison superintendent, which affected his ability to act as a neutral researcher.

💡Role-playing

Role-playing is the act of assuming a character or role, often for the purpose of simulation or study. In the context of the video, the Stanford Prison Experiment involved role-playing, where students were assigned to be either guards or prisoners. The experiment aimed to understand how role-playing can influence behavior, leading to the guards' brutal treatment of prisoners.

💡Psychological Distress

Psychological distress refers to a state of emotional suffering or mental strain. The video describes how the experiment caused significant psychological distress among the participants, particularly the prisoners. One example is the case of 'Prisoner 819,' who broke down in tears and was labeled a 'bad prisoner' by his peers, highlighting the severe impact of the experiment.

💡Scientific Rigor

Scientific rigor refers to the strict adherence to scientific methods and principles to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings. The video questions the scientific rigor of the Stanford Prison Experiment, as it has been difficult to replicate and has been criticized for potential researcher influence on the outcomes. The debate over the experiment's rigor is a key point in the video's discussion of its validity.

💡Controversy

Controversy in the context of the video refers to the ongoing debate and disagreement over the methods, ethics, and conclusions of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The video mentions how the experiment sparked decades of academic controversy, with critics arguing that the results were influenced by the researchers and not entirely scientific.

Highlights

The Stanford prison experiment aimed to explore the dynamics between guards and inmates to understand the roots of brutality.

The experiment was funded by the US Office of Naval Research to study power hierarchies in military prisons.

70 male college students were selected after interviews and personality tests to participate in the study.

Participants were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards to avoid selection bias.

The mock prison was designed with the help of prison officials and ex-convicts to simulate a real environment.

Guards were given uniforms, nightsticks, and whistles, while prisoners were stripped and dressed in dehumanizing attire.

Guards were instructed to maintain order using any means except physical violence.

The first night led to a rebellion by prisoners, which guards suppressed using harsh tactics.

Guards implemented a divide and conquer strategy to prevent further rebellions.

The guards' behavior escalated to dehumanizing and oppressive tactics, leading to a rapid deterioration of conditions.

After 36 hours, one prisoner suffered an emotional breakdown, signaling the experiment's psychological impact.

A mock parole board was convened, revealing that prisoners had internalized their roles as inmates.

Zimbardo identified three types of guards: tough but fair, good guys, and those who enjoyed wielding power.

The experiment was prematurely ended after only six days due to the severity of the psychological effects on participants.

Zimbardo reflected on his own role, realizing he had internalized his role as prison superintendent over his role as a researcher.

The Stanford prison experiment has been criticized for its ethical concerns and the scientific rigor of its methods.

Some argue that the experiment was more of a demonstration than a true scientific study, with questionable results.

Transcripts

In August of 1971, Professor Philip Zimbardo

began an investigation into the power dynamics

that exist between guards and inmates in a prison setting.

The object of the Stanford prison experiment

was to determine if it was the acquisition of power that

made guards turn brutal or whether brutality was actually

intrinsic to human nature itself.

The notorious experiment that ensued

would kick off decades of academic controversy

and suggests some very dark things

about the nature of humanity.

Today, we're going to take a look at why the Stanford prison

experiment might be the most disturbing study ever

conducted.

But before we get started, be sure to subscribe to the Weird

History Channel and let us know in the comments below what

other psychology-related topics you would like to hear about.

During the 1970s, both the US Navy and Marine Corps

were interested in learning about the hierarchies of power

in military prisons.

Accordingly, the US Office of Naval Research

issued Philip Zimbardo a grant to study

the relationships between prison guards and prisoners.

The objective would be to determine

if those relationships were shaped

more by the prison environment or the personalities

of the guards.

The grant would be used to create a mock prison

environment in which to conduct the experiment

and to pay the participants.

The Stanford prison experiment started with an ad

Zimbardo placed in the classifieds.

It read, "Male college students needed

for psychological study of prison life.

$15 per day for 1-2 weeks."

70 people applied.

The applicants were interviewed and asked

to take personality tests.

Anyone who had a criminal record or record of abusing narcotics

was eliminated, as was anyone who

displayed personality disorders, physical disabilities,

or psychological problems.

Ultimately, 24 college students, all white and all male

were selected to participate.

And they had no idea what they were getting themselves into.

Zimbardo and his team randomly divided the students

into two groups, prisoners and guards.

There were 12 of each category, 9 that were active participants

and 3 that were alternates.

On August 17, 1971, the experiment

began when the 9 prisoners were arrested by actual police

officers from the Palo Alto Police Department.

Each person was taken into custody,

then had their mug shots taken before being fingerprinted,

blindfolded, and moved into a holding cell.

Finally, they were taken into a mock prison

that had been set up in the basement of Stanford's Jordan

Hall.

The fake prison felt very real.

The researchers who created it had

consulted with prison officials and ex-convicts

before designing it.

The cells were built in a space that was normally

used as a laboratory.

Each cell had a bar door, a cell number,

and room for three prisoners.

Other touches included a solitary confinement cell

that had been created in a closet and a rule

that prisoners had to be blindfolded

before being taken to the bathroom.

To avoid selection bias, participants

were assigned to be either prisoners or guards based

on the results of a coin toss.

Very different fates awaited each respective group.

Guards were given real prison guard uniforms,

complete with nightsticks and whistles.

Many guards even donned mirrored sunglasses,

which were meant to prevent eye contact with the prisoners,

or maybe just to look like Boss Godfrey from Cool Hand Luke.

Prisoners, on the other hand, were stripped, deloused,

and dressed in sandals and an ill-fitting numbered smock.

They weren't issued any underwear.

But they were given nylon stocking caps,

which they were asked to wear in lieu

of having their heads shaved.

Once dressed, a chain was placed on each of the legs.

Prisoners were only addressed by their number

and had to refer to themselves and the other prisoners

in the same way.

It was a recipe for dehumanization and oppression.

Zimbardo himself served as superintendent of the prison.

And researcher David Jaffe played the warden.

The two were responsible for instructing the guards

and laying down the scope of their duties.

First and foremost, the guards were told to maintain order.

To this end, they were allowed to use

any means necessary, short of physical violence.

Things that were permitted included harassment,

the withholding of food, and the deprivation of privileges

at the guards' discretion.

The guards, unlike the prisoners,

were also allowed to work in shifts.

The shifts, which each required three guards

lasted eight hours.

Off duty guards didn't have to be at the prison

but were asked to remain on call in case of an emergency.

On the first night, the guards decided

to use a whistle to rouse the prisoners from their sleep

for a headcount at 2:30 AM.

Some of the prisoners didn't take the headcount seriously.

And the guards punish them by making them do push-ups.

After headcount, the prisoners had already had enough

and decided to rebel.

On what was only the second morning of the experiment,

they removed the numbers from their uniforms,

pulled off their stocking caps, and barricaded themselves

inside their cells using their beds.

When the next shift of guards arrived in the morning,

they were alarmed to find the prisoners yelling curses

at them from their cells.

They requested reinforcements and made plans

to quell the uprising.

They brought in the on-call guards,

and the night shift volunteered to do extra duty.

It was only day two and things were already getting ugly.

In order to get the cell doors open,

the guards used fire extinguishers

to force the prisoners away from the barricades.

Once that was accomplished, they rushed into the cell,

grabbed the prisoner, and stripped

them naked, naked as a jaybird.

The birthday suit prisoner was then

placed into solitary confinement.

While they were there, the guards

would remove the bed from their cell,

meaning the prisoner would have to sleep on the floor

when they returned.

Once the rebellion was controlled,

the guards had to figure out how to prevent another

from happening without having to have all nine

guards perpetually on duty.

The solution was to divide and conquer.

The guards deemed one of the cells, the privilege cell.

Well-behaved prisoners were placed in the privilege cell,

where they would get their uniforms and beds back and even

get special meals.

The other prisoners were not only

denied of all these things, but were deprived

of their normal food rations.

After a few hours, the guards would randomly

move the prisoners around.

The idea was to create confusion and sow the seeds of distrust

among the inmates.

And it worked.

In the wake of the uprising conditions deteriorated fast.

The guards started making a point

of dehumanizing the prisoners by making them call out

their identification numbers.

Prisoners were also forbidden from using the bathroom

at night and were forced to use bucket in their cell instead.

Soon, the guards stopped emptying the buckets, reasoning

that the bad smell was simply another punishment

for misbehavior.

Despite what Zimbardo described as frequent reminders

from the staff, the guards grew increasingly aggressive.

The most egregious behavior occurred

when the staff wasn't paying attention,

which became stressful and frustrating for the prisoners.

The prisoners, as a result, became increasingly submissive.

And the experiment was about to claim its first victim.

After only 36 hours prisoner Doug Korpi

began suffering from what was described

as acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking,

uncontrollable crying, and rage.

The guards used this opportunity to try and coax him

into becoming a snitch.

But when his erratic behavior continued,

the staff realized Doug was in genuine distress

and needed to be released from the experiment.

On the sixth day Zimbardo convened a mock parole board,

which was headed by one of the experiments prison consultants.

Inmates who believe they deserved parole

would be allowed to present their case to the board.

It was during these presentations

that Zimbardo along with the other researchers

began to theorize that the prisoners no longer saw

themselves as participants in an experiment but as

real prisoners.

According to Zimbardo, the prisoners

had internalized the crimes as well as their roles as inmates.

As for the guards, he came to identify

three different types--

tough but fair guards who followed

prison rules, good guys who did little favors for the prisoners

and never punished them, and finally,

guards who appeared to thoroughly enjoy

the power they wielded.

Zimbardo felt this last group was hostile, arbitrary,

and inventive in their forms of prisoner humiliation.

Zimbardo concluded that most people were ultimately

willing to fulfill whatever role they were given

in a respective social setting.

He even admitted that he had internalized

his role as superintendent over his role as a psychologist.

At one point, Zimbardo brought in a real priest

to talk with the prisoners.

It was during this conversation that Prisoner 819 down sobbing.

He was so hysterical that the staff

agreed to take him to a doctor.

The other inmates, for their part, turned on 819.

Researchers offered to send him home,

but 819 surprisingly refused, saying that he couldn't leave,

because the other inmates had labeled him a bad prisoner.

Zimbardo was forced to intervene.

Pulling the student aside, he forcefully

reminded him that he was not really an inmate

and that the experiment was not really a prison.

The prisoner is alleged to have stopped crying

and looked at Zimbardo like a small child awakened

from a nightmare.

After that, 819 agreed to leave.

On the sixth day, a recent Ph.D. recipient

named Christina Maslack was brought in

to interview the prisoners.

Horrified by what she saw, she confronted Zimbardo,

asking him how he could see what she had seen

and not care about the students who were suffering?

According to Zimbardo, he quickly realized she was right.

It was at that moment that he decided

to prematurely end the study.

Later, he would reflect on his own behavior and claim

that it wasn't until his discussion with Maslack

that he realized how deeply he had internalized

his role at the prison.

Ultimately, he concluded he was thinking

like a prison superintendent rather than a research

psychologist.

Both the ethics and conclusions of the Stanford prison

experiment remain highly controversial.

Its scientific rigor has been repeatedly questioned

by scientists who have been unable to duplicate

its results.

And even Zimbardo himself has admitted

the whole thing was more of a demonstration

than a scientific experiment.

A 2018 book by French academic Thibault Le Texier

dismissed the entire thing as nonsense.

He argued that the guards had been

told what results they were supposed to produce

and were advised and guided by Zimbardo and his staff

the whole way through.

So what do you think?

How would you have fared in the study?

Let us know in the comments below.

And while you're at it, check out some of these other videos

from our Weird History.