The Stanford Prison Experiment how Power Changes our Behavior

Introduction

Between the dates August 14th. through August 20th, 1971, a psychology professor named Philip Zimbardo conducted a study to investigate the psychological effects of power, mainly focusing on prisoners and prison guards. The study was held at Stanford University using college students who volunteered. 'The prisoners were one half of a group of volunteers, the other half being assigned the role of guards." (Perry, 2018, p. 39) The experiment was to see if good people would do bad things given the right 'or wrong" circumstances.

The Experiment

The Stanford Prison experiment is one of the best psychological studies of the 20th century and is taught in most psychology books today. Mechanic (2015) stated, 'Zimbardo, then 38, was interested in the "situational" dynamics -- first demonstrated eight years earlier by psychologist Stanley Milgram -- -that can lead good people to do bad things." (p. 1) He made up a story that appeared as an article in the New York Times. Perry (2018) stated, 'The article kicked off by detailing how, one sunny morning in Palo Alto, California, in 1971, police swooped on the homes of nine young men. They were bundled into squad cars, taken to the police station, charged, then blindfolded and transported to the Stanford County Jail, where they met their guards". (p. 39) 'The "jail" was actually a set-up in the basement of a building at Stanford University." (Perry, 2018 p. 39). The college students that volunteered were split up in half randomly into prisoners and prison guards. Mechanic (2015) says that "These kids were all anti-war activists, hippies, long hair," Zimbardo recalls. "They were against authority. Nobody wanted to be a guard." (p. 1)

According to Bornus (2016)

From the beginning, the guards quickly began to mistreat the prisoners, harassing them with forced exercise, arbitrary punishment, sleep deprivation and more. After several days, conditions became so inhumane that two prisoners had emotional breakdowns and were released from the experiment, while others went on hunger strikes or plotted escapes. (p. 48) The experiment ended on the sixth day due to Philip Zimbardo ending it when his girlfriend told him that he was, according to Bornus (2016), 'Doing a terrible thing to the young men." (p. 48)

It seems the experiment ended early due to how harshly the guards were treating the prisoners. Mechanic (2015) says that Zimbardo ended it in six days, after the guards, in a glimmer of Abu Ghraib, began forcing prisoners to simulate sodomy on one another. It was his future wife, Christina Maslach, who convinced him: "We had this big argument," he recalls, "in which she basically called me down to say, 'These are not prisoners! These are not guards! These are boys, and they are suffering and you are responsible and you have become affected by your own experiment. You have become the superintendent!'" (p. 1)

Replications

To replicate the experiment all you would need is a group of volunteers to use as the prisoners and the prison guards and a fake prison to use. The outcome of the experiment may vary though because there is no way to ensure the guards act the way they did in the Stanford prison experiment and there is no way to ensure they will 'play nice". Multiple studies have been performed to try and replicate this study but most fail.

According to Cullen, Kulig, & Pratt (2017)

Growing evidence exists that the findings of individual studies”including classic experiments”often fail to replicate. Such published results, however, are considered by scholars, and taught to students, as established scientific truth. In this context, citations to Zimbardo and colleagues' classic Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in criminology/criminal justice journals (1975“2014) were content analyzed to assess whether the study's conclusions have been embraced or treated with skepticism. (p. 74)

Results

The main results determined from the Stanford Prison Experiment was how a leadership role
effects how we behave and conformity. Haslam & Reicher (2012) states that 'People descend into tyranny, he suggested, because they conform unthinkingly to the toxic roles that authorities prescribe without the need for specific orders: brutality was ??a ?natural' consequence of being in the uniform of a ?guard' and asserting the power inherent in that role.'' (p. 15). 'A re-analysis of classic psychology studies suggests that tyranny does not result from blind conformity to rules and roles, but may involve identification with authorities who represent vicious acts as virtuous." (Haslam & Reicher, 2012, p. 1).

Conclusion

My understanding of the results from The Stanford Prison Experiment is that when the volunteers were put in the role of a guard, since almost all of them were against authority they thought they should act the way they think guards act; cruel and vicious. After one of them acted harsh then the rest of the guards started to conform and act the same way. Never the less, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a prime example of how a powerful role or position can change the way you behave.

References

1. Bornus, D. (2016). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Corrections Today, 78(3), 48“51.
2. Cullen, Francis T.; Kulig, Teresa C.; Pratt, Travis C. (2017). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A
3. Case Study in Organized Skepticism. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(1), 74“111.
4. Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. . (2012). Contesting the 'Nature" Of Conformity: What Milgram and
5. Zimbardo's Studies Really Show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), 1“4.
6. Mechanic, M. (2015). The Slippery Slope of Evil. Mother Jones, 40(4), 56.
7. Perry, Gina. (2018). The evil inside us all. New Scientist, 240(3199), 39“41.

Cite this page