The Stanford Prison Experiment

One of the most infamous psychological studies ever conducted was the Stanford Prison Experiment. It is mentioned in almost every introductory psychology textbook. They tend to focus on how unethical it was and are less critical of its supposed conclusion. August 14, 1971. Palo Alto, California. Twelve young people are detained in their homes by the police, arrested and taken to a makeshift

prison

in the basement of Stanford University. It all begins as a study on the psychology of

prison

life, led by Stanford psychology professor Dr. Philip Zimbardo. 24 volunteers: 12 guards and 12 prisoners. --have agreed to spend the next two weeks recreating life in a correctional facility.

The prisoners are booked and stripped. They are no longer individuals forced to wear gowns, caps and shackles. Identified only by their prisoner numbers. The guards adapt quickly to their new profession. Given the anonymity thanks to their mirrored sunglasses, some of them begin to control the scarce food rations and restrict the use of the prisoners' bathrooms. And as tensions rise, so do their cruel methods. Just six days into the planned two-week study, conditions are so bad that the entire operation is shut down. Damn... The study makes international headlines. Zimbardo's fame skyrockets and his findings are taught to students around the world, used as a defense in criminal trials, and even presented to Congress to explain the abuses inflicted at Abu Ghraib.

The study raises a question as important then as it is today: is evil caused by the environment or by the personalities that inhabit it? Zimbardo's shocking conclusion is that when people feel anonymous and have power over depersonalized others, they can easily turn evil. And it happens more often than we would like to admit. But while it's true that people were mean to each other during the Stanford Prison Experiment, what if what really caused that behavior wasn't what we've always been told? The Stanford prison

experiment

has always had its controversies. But a wave of recent revelations has put him back in the spotlight 47 years later.

Today I'm speaking with journalist Ben Blum, whose recent writings have brought criticism of the

experiment

to a broader audience than ever before. How did you get involved in the Stanford Prison Experiment? Well, my participation was quite personal. Like everyone else, he had absorbed the basic lesson of the experiment through the cultural ether. And then my cousin Alex was arrested for bank robbery. This was a team made up mostly of military men with AK-47s. Alex was the driver. He was a 19-year-old US Army Ranger. And it was his superior at the Rangers who organized and directed the bank robbery.

Alex thought it was all a training exercise. He was so brainwashed in this intense Ranger training that when a superior proposed this bank robbery, he took it as just another type of tactical thought experiment. Dr. Philip Zimbardo then participated in his legal defense. Zimbardo presents a letter to the court, arguing for leniency in sentencing on the grounds that Alex, my cousin, had been so transformed by the social environment of the Ranger Battalion that he participated in the bank robbery without exercising his own will. . Well, how did that affect Alex's sentence? He received an extraordinarily lenient 16-month sentence.

So Zimbardo was a family hero. But over time, Alex finally admitted to me, you know what? In the end I knew this was a bank robbery, and I just didn't have the moral courage to back out. Oh, wow. Alex, my entire family, and I came to see Zimbardo's argument as a way to deflect personal blame and place all the blame on the situation. So start looking at the Stanford Prison Experiment in particular. He contacted Dr. Zimbardo himself, as well as some of those who participated. You learned? To my profound surprise, I discovered that many of the participants had stories of their experience that completely contradicted the official narrative.

I mean, look, these regular people, good people, got together and because of the situation, they turned bad. Good. Zimbardo has claimed that the guards were put in the situation, and then the kind of hidden wellspring of sadism that apparently resides in all of us developed organically. There was an orientation meeting for the guards. They had been told very explicitly to oppress the prisoners. This falls under the heading of what psychologists call demand characteristics. Experimental subjects tend to be motivated to give the experimenters what they want. Demand characteristics occur when studied participants act differently than they normally would because they have guessed what hypothesis is being tested and feel that a certain type of behavior is demanded.

There was a recording of a guard being explicitly corrected for not being tough enough. So one conclusion that can be drawn from the Stanford prison experiment is that when you tell people to be cruel, they will do it if you tell them it's for the greater good, like science. -Good. -Who would have thought? I think the study remains a fascinating stimulus for more careful research as a demonstration that should make anyone curious about how such extreme behavior could arise in such a short time. The experiment could still be useful, but it may need to be reinterpreted.

Their data could lead to different conclusions than what we have been saying for so many decades. Good. The flaws of the experiment raised by Ben and other critics call into question much of the narrative surrounding the study. That's why I want to hear from someone who was actually there. Dave Eshelman, the studio's most infamous guard, agreed to tell me his side of the story. It is truly an honor to meet you. You are a living, walking piece of psychological history. I never get recognized on the street or anything, although I still get some hate mail. -Are you serious? -Yes absolutely.

Well, what do you tell them when they react that way? I say, well, there's probably a lot of things in that that didn't happen the way they were portrayed. Well, Dave, before we go too far, I'd like to look at the images we have here so we can talk about what we see. That's me, by the way. - Look at that look. - Mm-hmm. So how did you get involved in the Stanford Prison Experiment? My father was a professor at Stanford and I was home for the summer looking for a summer job. So I'm looking at the search ads. $15 per day.

You know, in 1971 that wasn't bad. The way it was presented to the guards, the whole concept of this experiment, never made us believe that we were part of the experiment. We were led to believe that our job was to get results from the prisoners, that they were the ones the researchers were really studying. The investigators were behind the wall. And we all knew they were filming. And we can often hear investigators commenting on the action from the other side of the wall. You know, like, "Oh, God, did you see that? Here. Make sure you get a close-up of that." Well?

So if you want to show that prison is a bad experience, I'll make it bad. But how did you feel doing things like that? Didn't you feel bad? I don't know if this is a revelation to you, but 18 year olds are not the most sensitive creatures. -Sure. -My agenda was to be the worst guard I could be. -And it is quite serious. -Mm-hmm. This is my favorite part of all the material we have from the experiment. -Mm-hmm. It's you and a prisoner facing off after the experiment. I remember the guy said, "I hate you, man." -Yeah. -"I hate you." Every day I said, well, what can we do to improve what we did yesterday?

How can we take advantage of that? Why did you want to speed things up? I think there are two reasons. One was because he truly believed he was helping researchers better understand human behavior. On the other hand, I personally found it interesting. You know, I can't say I didn't enjoy what I was doing. Maybe, you know, having so much power over these poor, helpless prisoners, you know, maybe it turns you on a little bit. You weren't quite following a director's script. Good. But you also felt that Zimbardo wanted something from you. -Yeah. -And you gave that to him.

I think so. I think I decided that he was going to do a better job than anyone else here to achieve what he wanted. But does that excuse me from what he was doing? It certainly started with me playing a role. So the question is, was there a point where I stopped acting and started living, so to speak? The standard narrative is that Dave Eshelman did what he did because when people are given power, it is easier than we think for abuse to occur. That may be true, but how predisposed was Dave to aggression? I mean, after all, he signed up for something called a "prison study." Furthermore, his feeling that cruelty was encouraged and aided by the experiment may have affected his behavior.

What I would like to see is, in the absence of outside influences, can anonymity, power and depersonalization alone lead to evil? To answer that question, I'd like to design a demo of my own. That's why I'm meeting with Dr. Jared Bartels of William Jewell College, a psychologist who has written extensively about the Stanford Prison Experiment and how it is taught. I would love to do the Stanford prison experiment again. You could probably make it more ethical, but you'd still come to the same conclusions. That's my hypothesis. I absolutely think it's worth it. It is important. It's interesting.

Probably the best approach is to eliminate the demand characteristics as much as possible by eliminating that prisoner/guard dynamic. Why do we need to call one group "guards" and another "prisoners"? There are a lot of expectations around those roles. Oh, am I a guard? -I guess I should act as a guard. -Yes you're right. The cover story is really important and you want to hide the true purpose of the experiment. Another part of this is the role of personality and personality traits. That's why the original announcement of the Stanford study requested participants for a study on prison life.

You know, that will attract certain people who were more open to aggression. Because they saw the word "prison" and thought, "I want to be a part of that." -Exactly. So when a group of authoritarian-minded individuals gather together, it is not surprising that they create an authoritarian regime and environment. So whatever we are going to do, we must evaluate the personalities of the individuals. Good. So how do we give people every chance to be as evil as they can? I think it is necessary to have those elements that were assumed to be influential in the Stanford study.

What are those elements? You have to have depersonalization. You have to have anonymity. You have to have some power differences. Can we provoke some surprising behaviors in just a few hours? If we go back to the Stanford study, nothing dramatic happened on the first day of the study. -Yeah. It was the second day of study when the guards began to assert their authority. This was because the prisoners tested and challenged the authority of the guards. Yes, and that led me to fear. That, wait a second, these prisoners need to be brought more under control. -Yeah. Yes.

So I think you still need that provocation. Yes. Something that is frustrating. Something that will increase the excitement of the participants. Good. Okay, Jared, would you like to spend some time thinking about a new design that addresses the same questions? -Absolutely. -Awesome. Jared and I sat down with the Mind Field team to begin the planning process. Will a person, without expectations or impulses in a certain direction, still be abusive or not? For this demonstration, we want to eliminate all external variables and really isolate the three core elements of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The first element is anonymity.

Subjects need to believe that no matter how they behave, no one will know it was them. This is where people will come in the morning. This way, everyone will be amazed when they walk in. That's important, because we don't want them to meet their teammates face to face. The original experiment gave guards anonymity by providing them with sunglasses and mirrored uniforms. But we go much further. Our study will take place in a completely dark room. You will be taken to this room. Oh. I'd love to see how dark this room will be tomorrow. Yes absolutely. -Are you ready? -I'm ready. -Oh yeah. - Good?

This is uncomfortable. Despite the darkness, we will be able to see everything thanks to the infrared cameras. The second element is depersonalization. From the moment subjects arrive, they will only be identified by their number, not their name. So, go ahead. To eliminate demand characteristics, we do not want our subjects to know what we are studying. Follow the sound of my voice, if you can. The only thing they will tell you is thatWe are studying how they solve puzzles in the dark. There is another computer in a different location. -who is also solving a puzzle. -Well. Because the words "guard" and "prisoner" suggest certain expected behaviors, we have removed them and will simply give our participants an invisible, remotely located opposing team.

We will measure the cruelty predicted by the standard narrative of the Stanford Prison Experiment by giving our participants a way to exercise the third element: power. What I am going to show you below is the system by which you can send them a loud noise. -Well. -So, if you want... We have armed the teams with a "distractor button" that they can press to emit an extremely loud and discordant noise into the other team's room. Everyone will have a volume control that ranges between level 1 and 12, and will be told that anything below 7 should be safe for the other team's audience.

And each person has their own control of it. Well. So they can't see what you're doing. -You can't see what they're doing. -Well. The level of intensity they select, as well as the frequency with which they press the button, will be our indicator of how aggressive the participants become in this situation. Is it... is it nice, terrible to listen to? Well, I'll give you a demonstration. Hey Derek, could you play level 3 for me? So that's a 3. It's quite... -it's quite loud. -Yeah. Perfect. Participants will be told that when they or a member of their team presses a distraction button, the volume played in the opponent's room will be determined by the highest level selected on any of their teammates' dials.

This aims to increase the feeling of diffuse responsibility. The question is, will any of these participants take advantage of these factors and act in a sadistic manner? Of course, we would never want anyone to come to harm in our experiments, so the other team? They do not exist. Instead, Jared and I will be the ones to occasionally bombard the group with noise at a safe level, no higher than 3. To see how powerful the situation can be, we selected participants who would not be predisposed to sadism. We selected our participants using the “Big Five Personality Scale,” the “Personality Assessment Inventory,” and chose those who scored highest in “moral” categories, such as honesty and conscientiousness.

It seems like they should be able to see each other. But it's very dark. There are puzzle pieces on the table in front of you. Thank you, and once I leave the room you can begin. Well, here we go. I definitely don't think they are aware of the control panel at this point. -No. -They are trying to concentrate on the task here. We chose people who were most likely to have these types of personalities. -Oh. -She wants... It's okay. - - Has anyone already done it? -I did. -Yeah. -Well. -We should retaliate. -Yes, retaliate now. Now, they're not retaliating against that most recent rumor.

Shall we try again? Despite the factors that make it easier for them to do so, this team doesn't seem to be turning evil. Now they're just dealing with it. Just ignore him and continue working together. They are not interested in retaliating. Over the course of the two-hour study, we bombarded them with noise 23 times. But they only pressed the button six times, and never above level 5. They didn't seem to abuse their power. Puzzle pieces down. What if we introduced demand characteristics that encouraged them to act aggressively? Your team has been randomly assigned to an experimental condition. Although the other team will still be working on a puzzle, your team will not.

Your only task is to operate the distractors. Additionally, the other team's buttons have been disconnected without your knowledge. You won't hear any sound if you get a buzz in response. We introduce social roles, where there is a bit of a power difference. Here we are imitating Stanford-type variables. By now saying that the bell is their “homework,” participants may feel greater license to use it freely. Similar to how instructing prison guards in the original experiment to act harshly may have encouraged greater use of force. Even though they were given instructions to distract the other team, these participants simply began chatting among themselves.

They know they can get distracted now, but they're not pushing the button. No. Oh. Well. A pair of threes. Over the course of ten minutes, this group only pressed the button three times. Why do you think they are not interested in attacking the other team? Because we have individuals who have been selected, really, with that predisposition, right? These are people who should not be interested in retaliating. It was time to inform the participants about what we were really studying. I'm going to turn on the lights. Here I am. I'm Michael and this is Jared. Let's tell you about what really happened today.

There are no other people. You are the only four here at the moment. There was never another team doing anything. This is a study related to the Stanford Prison Experiment. The standard narrative we hear about that experiment is that people just become cruel. So yeah, we're trying to see if we get the nicest people we can, and we give them complete anonymity and the ability to be cruel, but we never encourage them to do it, so will they still do it? And you didn't do it. Did you have any suspicions about what we were studying or what was happening?

Okay, but I think that's good. We just want to make sure you don't think that what we're really seeing is how high you turn your own dial. That's really what we're seeing. It was time to bring in our second group of participants, who, like the first group, were evaluated to be individuals with high moral characteristics. Any value up to 7 should be safe. Yes. So once I leave, you can go ahead and get started. Oh... Right off the bat he went to 7 and pressed the button. Yes. Number two is taking it to 3. Well, here comes number two.

Number two is still in volume 3. This team seemed more willing to retaliate. Let's see what will happen if we keep buzzing them. Will their behaviors intensify? Derek, let's wipe them out again. Number 3. Okay, come on... Okay, two just pushed a 3. But she's not touching the dial. She is not. It's just annoying. It was clear that participant number two was actually the only one who pressed the distraction button, but it seemed like she only did it in retaliation for our buzzing. So we decided to see what would happen if we fired. It's been probably four or five minutes and we haven't attacked them with the noise, and they haven't played any either.

I have a feeling that if we never touched a noise in their room, they would never touch the distraction button. Probably not at this time. In the end, we called this group a total of 44 times, and they called us 38 times, 37 of which came from number two but always in retaliation, and never above a 5. Alright, guys. Puzzle pieces down. Situational factors did not seem to be enough to make this group sadistic. It was time for phase 2. Yes. -Oh, she... - It seems like it's 7. -Wow. -Yes, she is... she is going crazy. With a 7. So number three believes there is no other team.

That might explain why she was freaking out about the button, because she doesn't feel bad about it. Okay, everyone is pushing the button a lot harder. And this time they were told that it was her only task. What a difference this has made. Like in the Stanford prison experiment. If you tell people they have a certain task to do, they will do it, even if it means they have fallen apart. The thing is, they never got to what we really cared about, which is setting the dial to an unsafe level. Yes. Hello everyone. I'm going to turn on the lights in this room.

Well. -And little by little... -Ah, it hurts. ...you can watch. So hello. -I'm Michael, and this is Jared. -Hello. I'll give you time to adjust your eyes. Today you were part of a study where all we wanted to do was see what would happen when we put people in a room and gave them that sense of anonymity that comes from, well, if I set my dial too high, no. one will know it's me. So you have this opportunity to be cruel. I thought I had gone crazy. Like when the other person was pushing... Sure, but that's... that's just retribution in kind.

It turns out that so far everyone is staying in that "below 7 or less" range. -Yeah. -In this final phase we try to increase the characteristics of demand. And I think number one, right, you said at one point, "You broke me. I did it, it's okay." So I loved that line, because it says "I didn't want to do this, but I do it because I think it was what was expected of me." Thank you. Thank you. After dismissing our participants, Jared and I sat down to discuss our results. Really fascinating. We brought in people who had very different personalities than the ones Zimbardo chose.

We put them in a situation that did not demand anything of them. And they behaved according to that personality. I think we have intriguing support for the idea that it's more than just the situation. We really saw the personality shine through. For the most part, they seemed to be aware of where that line is... -Yes. ...that they shouldn't have crossed, and they didn't. None of them did. Now it was time to talk to Dr. Philip Zimbardo, who I worked with on last season's episode, "How to Make a Hero." Well. Lisa, Bear, are you ready? For years, Dr.

Zimbardo has responded to criticisms of his famous study, always maintaining that they are invalid. I asked him if it would be better to consider his study as one about the power of the demands of authority, but he was not receptive to that idea. Then I told him about the study we did to find out his reaction. He wanted to know what might be the sufficient conditions for someone to do something bad. And we fought to make that happen. We couldn't get anyone to be cruel. By simply giving them anonymity, a dehumanized other, and the power to hurt that other, they didn't take advantage of it.

Well, I mean, maybe the problem was that here is a case where, by choosing people who were extremely conscientious, extremely conscious, by choosing people with a lot of compassion, a lot of mindfulness, the power of the situation was broken. I guess in the Stanford prison experiment we had a relatively normal distribution. We gave them six personality scales. And we chose people who, on the scale, were mostly in the middle range. In that situation, some people behave cruelly and evilly. Not all, but most of the guards. So, again, I think his study is a demonstration of a way in which personality dominates the situation. -Ah. -Where are the personalities... then I would say it is a positive result.

Personalities are special. Where does this balance reside between the personal, the disposition, the personality and the situation, the environment? No, that's the big... that's the fundamental question. Where is, you know, how much of one and how much of the other...? Good. Zimbardo insists that the characteristics of the lawsuit played little role in the behavior of his subject. Critics like Ben Blum say that they played an important role, that what happened was what was asked for. If that's true, then the Stanford Prison Experiment, like Milgram's classic study, still contains an important lesson. People are quick to be cruel if an authority figure suggests that doing so will serve a greater cause.

In our test we made sure that such influences did not exist. And no participant acted maliciously. Personality rose above the situation. Learning how that happens is vital if we want to improve the conditions in which power is involved. That's why it's great that this debate is still ongoing. And look, questioning methods and interpretations is not a personal attack. This is how we improve our confidence in what we know. And that's how science works. So stay curious, never stop asking questions, and as always, thanks for watching. Hello, mental field. This is Michael Stevens. There is much more to satisfy your hunger for psychological knowledge in this program.

Click below to watch more episodes.