A psychology experiment called the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was scheduled to last for 2 weeks, had to be stopped only on the 6th day due to things getting out of control. Led by Professor Philip G. Zimbardo, it was carried out in the basement of Jordan Hall on August 15–21, 1971.
It was known that the experiment involved twenty-four Stanford students who were carefully screened and assigned randomly into groups of prison guards and prisoners. What were the goals of the Stanford Prison Experiment after obtaining a few astounding findings? Let’s find out more about it down below!
What Was the Purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment?
The Stanford Prison Experiment aimed to examine whether the brutality that was reported among prison guards in American prisons was due to “situational factor” (the responsibility that guards had to do with the prison environment) or “dispositional factor” (the sadistic personalities of the prison guards).
In addition, Zimbardo conducted this experiment to focus on the powers of rules, roles, group identity, symbols, and situational validation of behavior, which generally might reject ordinary individuals. In fact, he had conducted some research for several years on vandalism, deindividuation, and dehumanization that described the ease with which ordinary people become involved in antisocial acts by putting them in circumstances where they felt anonymous, i.e., in prison environments.
Basically, that’s to find out how the psychological effects of authority and powerlessness play out in the prison environment. For example, the prison guards and prisoners probably have personalities that lead to inevitable conflict between the prisoners, who have a lack of respect for the law, and the prison guards, who behave aggressively and even brutally.
Finally, both of them may behave in a hostile manner because of the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons. After the experiment was carried out, Zimbardo predicted that the circumstances made people behave the way they did rather than their personalities.
What Did the Stanford Prison Experiment Reveal?
The Stanford Prison Experiment produced a number of findings that shocked many people. However, the most important things that this experiment revealed include:
- How could good people behave badly when given authority and responsibility (as in the case of the prison guards)?
- How the powerless would rebel and cow to authority at the same time (the prisoners mentioned)
- How can people be expected to conform to the social roles that they are expected to play?Especially if they played a role as the prison guards, they might begin to act in ways that they might not usually behave in their normal lives.
Within a very short time, Zimbardo found that both prison guards and prisoners had settled into their new roles, in particular the prison guards, who had adopted theirs easily and quickly. The experiment also revealed that the prison life simulation became so real and the prison guards became so abusive and brutal.
The experiment further explained that the prison environment is an important factor leading to the prison guards’ brutality. Finally, it revealed that a situational factor forced the prison guards to behave badly towards the prisoners. In addition, the prison guards’ authority and responsibility became another factor explaining why they acted brutally.
The end of this experiment required Zimbardo to submit two processes that could explain the final submission of the prisoners. Here they are:
- Deindividuation refers to the prison guards’ behavior where they might begin to forget the norms of their lives, so they lose their sense of identity and personal responsibility.
- Learned Helplessness refers to the prisoners’ actions that made them know that whatever they did would have little effect on what happened to them.
Why Was the Stanford Prison Experiment Criticized?
After the experiment ended, the criticism continued. The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo had been criticized by many researchers, due to its methodology and Zimbardo’s lack of fully informed consent. Well, it was an ethical violation of Zimbardo’s own contracts, which all of the participants have signed.
It was discovered that the participants did not consent to being arrested at their residence.They were also not informed, partly because final police approval was not given until minutes before they decided to participate. Otherwise, the researchers wanted the participants to be arrested at home, making the situation more real.
Worst of all, the emotional pressure that the prisoners felt couldn’t be predicted from the beginning—Zimbardo couldn’t predict it either. The participants who played roles as prisoners were also not protected from psychological harm, and they experienced incidents of humiliation and distress.
A bookworm and researcher especially related to law and citizenship education. I spend time every day in front of the internet and the campus library.
