The Stanford Prison Experiment – Critique on grounds of Methodology and Ethical Issues

Introduction

Originally titled ‘Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison’, the famous – or, as one might argue, infamous

– ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ was conducted by Philip Zimbardo, Craig Haney and Curtis Banks of the

Californian Stanford University’s Department of Psychology. The experiment, conducted in 1971, has been a

phenomenal success insofar as it made people aware of some of the most serious ethical dilemnas of research. Dealt

with in most textbooks of basic psychology, the experiment has been discussed in a thorough manner by one of the

researchers himself, Professor Zimbardo, in a public television psychology course. Professor Zimbardo wrote and

narrated the course, ‘Discovering Psychology’, filmed for television in the United States. There is no dearth of

information about the experiment, and has even found its place in popular culture, with a movie being planned, and

a Los Angeles punk rock band choosing to go by the name of ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’.

Zimbardo, who is seen as representative of the planning and execution of the experiment, contended that the

purpose was, focusing on power in terms of rules, symbols, roles, group identity, and a sort of validation of

behavior under certain circumstances; behavior that is for the most part unacceptable as ‘normal’ in society. This

kind of validation, Zimbardo claimed, is highly situational. Speaking at the 1996 Toronto symposium, Zimbardo

stated, “I had been conducting research for some years on deindividuation, vandalism and dehumanization that

illustrated the ease with which ordinary people could be led to engage in anti-social acts by putting them in

situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as

enemies or objects, …”

This essay’s purpose is to briefly look at what constituted the ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ and then to critically

examine its methodology and highlight important ethical issues that might be extrapolated to research in general.
Overview of The Stanford Prison Experiment

It was a Sunday morning, when on August 17, 1971, nine college students were shocked to find themselves being

handcuffed in their own houses. They were being arrested by the Palo Alto police who, in light of the recent student-

police altercations, were more than willing to cooperate with Zimbardo and the other researchers. In some cases, local

television crews were on the scene, recording the arrests to be played on the news that night. It was shocking,

embarrassing, and worst of all, completely unexpected. This was the first amongst many ethical issues later raised

concerning the Stanford Prison Experiment. Those arrested were around 70 college students who had signed up to

participate in the experiment, as it was advertised that selected participants would earn $15/ day for fourteen days. The

experiment on the effects of life in prison had been advertised in the Palo Alto Times newspaper. The volunteers were

subjected to numerous psychological tests in addition to being interviewed by the researchers. Finally, 24 students were

selected as participants, based on their normalcy and physical and mental health. Those selected were, by random

selection, assigned to be either prisoners or prison guards. The ones selected as prisoners were, after their

aforementioned arrest, taken to an actual jail where they were booked by real members of the police force. This was

extremely disorienting for them. It was meant to be so, in fact. They were then driven to the Stanford University campus

where a temporary prison had been constructed by the researchers in the basement of ‘Jordan Hall’. Bars were placed in

the doors, and a small closet was converted into an isolation cell. The ‘cells’ were stripped bare of any furniture except

for three cots. The students selected as prison guards were given uniforms to wear – and reflecting mirror sunglasses, as

this had the effect of hiding their eyes which was meant to serve to prevent against the guards giving away their

emotional condition to the ‘prisoners’.

The Principal Investigator Zimbardo said, “I played the role of prison superintendent, in addition to being the

principal investigator, which would later prove to be a serious error in judgment.” The study was terminated in six

days owing to, amongst other things, half the ‘prisoners’ leaving the study for a variety of reasons including alleged

deterioration of mental calm, illness, et cetera.

In Zimbardo’s words, “…the immediate impetus for terminating the study came from an unexpected source, a

young woman, recently graduated with a PhD from our department, who had agreed to assist us with some

interviews on Friday. She came in from the cold and saw the raw, fullblown madness of this place that we all had

gradually accommodated to day by day. She got emotionally upset, angry, and confused. But in the end, she

challenged us to examine the madness she observed -- that we had created. If we allowed it to continue further, she

reminded us of our ethical responsibility for the consequences and well-being of the young men entrusted to our

care as research participants.”

Ethics

The SPE has been criticized as unethical on many grounds and by many scholars, researchers and laypersons too.

Admittedly, it did follow the Human Subjects Research Review Board’s guidelines. The same board reviewed it,

and the SPE found approval. On the question of whether or not there was any deception, Zimbardo argues that

“There was no deception; all participants were told in advance that, if they became prisoners, many of their usual

rights would be suspended and they would have only minimally adequate diet and health care during the study.

Their rights should have been protected by any of the many citizens who came to that mock prison, saw the

deteriorated condition of those young men, and yet did nothing to intervene – among them, their own parents and

friends on visiting nights, a Catholic priest; a public defender; many professional psychologists; and graduate

students, secretaries, and staff of the psychology department, all of whom watched live action videos of part of the

study unfold or took part in parole board hearings or spoke to participants and looked at them directly. We might

also add another no, because we ended the study earlier than planned, ended it against the wishes of the guards,

who felt they finally had the situation under their control and that would be no more disturbance or challenge by

the prisoners.” (Zimbardo, 1973).

Those who critique the SPE on ethical grounds contend that the students selected as prisoners were humiliated

beyond the call of the experiment, and that the after-effects of the study would stay with the students for a long time

to come.
They also argue that Zimbardo and his fellow-researchers continued the US Navy-funded study till six days, despite

the fact that it was apparent from the very outset that the ‘prisoner’ students did not wish to continue with the

experiment. Zimbardo’s counter argument was that this was the only way the effects of prison life could be

accurately studied, although he did agree that the SPE was a failure, but only on grounds of non-completion.

As regards methodology, many critique the SPE by stating that it was conducted in too controlled a setting, and that

the independent variables would most likely be different in a real prison setting.

However, Zimbardo continued to defend his experiment, despite making minor allowances. For instance, he said,

“Yes, it was unethical because people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their

fellows over an extended period of time. This was not the distress of Milgram's participants imagining the pain

their shocks were having on the remote victim-learner. This was the pain of seeing and hearing the suffering you as

a guard were causing in peers, who, like you, had done nothing to deserve such punishment and abuse. And yes, we

did not end the study soon enough. We should have terminated it as soon as the first prisoner suffered a severe

stress disorder on Day 2. One reason we did not was because of the conflicts created by my dual roles as principal

investigator, thus guardian of the research ethics of the experiment, and as prison superintendent, thus eager to

maintain the integrity of my prison.”

The SPE in the New Millennium

Following the Iraqi Abu Gharib prison scandal of 2004, the SPE received fifteen more minutes of fame. Referred to

as the ‘Naked Human Pyramidgate’ scandal, American prison guards were allegedly being very cruel to Iraqi

prisoners, combatants as well as non-combatants. As damage control, the US Military demoted and court marshaled

many officers and regular soldiers directly or indirectly connected with the scandal. According to the prosecutors,

“a few bad apples" were the ones who were responsible. Disagreeing, the defense called Dr. Zimbardo as their

expert witness. Testifying that the environment and not the individuals were responsible, Zimbardo stated, "You

can't be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel". The court, after deliberating, disagreed with the defence, declaring

that ‘individuals must be held accountable for their own actions, and the few bad apples go to jail.’

Appendix: Consent form given to all SPE participants

 CONSENT

Prison Life Study

Dr. Zimbardo

August 1971

______________________________ _________________________________

(date) (name of volunteer)

I, _______________________________, the undersigned, hereby consent to participate as a

volunteer in a prison life study research project to be conducted by the Stanford University
Psychology Department.

The nature of the research project has been fully explained to me, including, without limitation, the
fact that paid volunteers will be randomly assigned to the roles of either "prisoners" or "guards" for
the duration of the study. I understand that participation in the research project will involve a loss
of privacy, that I will be expected to participate for the full duration of the study, that I will only be
released from participation for reasons of health deemed adequate by the medical advisers to the
research project or for other reasons deemed appropriate by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Principal
Investigator of the project, and that I will be expected to follow directions from staff members of
the project or from other participants in the research project.

I am submitting myself for participation in this research project with full knowledge and
understanding of the nature of the research project and of what will be expected of me. I
specifically release the Principal Investigator and the staff members of the research project,
Stanford University, its agents and employees, and the Federal Government, its agents and
employees, from any liability to me arising in any way out of my participation in the project.

____________________________________

(signature of volunteer)

Witness: ___________________________

If volunteer is a minor:

____________________________________

(signature of person authorized to consent for volunteer)

Witness: ___________________________

____________________________________(relationship to volunteer)
 References

 Zimbardo, Philip; Haney, Craig; Banks, Curtis. Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison, Department
of Psychology, Stanford University; International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1973, 1, 69-97

 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4102

 http://news.stanford.edu/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html

 http://www.prisonexp.org

 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/389710/the_stanford_prison_experiment_exploring_pg2.html?
cat=37