What do you know about the course of the Stanford prison experiment? Surely many of you have heard something about him. Indeed, in Stanford in 1971 one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century was carried out. The basement of the Faculty of Psychology for one week turned into a prison with all its horrors. Why were the guards so cruel? Who decided to participate in this study? What is the fate of its organizers and participants? You will learn about all this by reading the article.
The Stanford prison experiment is a well-known socio-psychological study conducted under the direction of Philip Zimbardo, an American psychologist. In the framework of imitation of the prison environment, the influence of the roles of “prisoner” and “overseer” was studied. In this case, the roles were distributed randomly. Study participants played them for about a week.
The “overseers”, when included in the situation, as well as when keeping “prisoners” behind bars, had a certain freedom of action. Volunteers who agreed to the conditions of the experiment handled the trials and stresses differently. The behavior of both groups was recorded and analyzed.
Selection of experiment participants
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a study in which 22 men participated. They were selected from 75 responding to an ad in the newspaper. A participation fee of $ 15 per day was offered. Those who responded had to fill out a questionnaire, including questions about family, mental and physical health, relationships with people, life experience, preferences and inclinations. This made it possible for researchers to exclude people with a criminal past or with psychopathology. One or two experimenters talked with each applicant. As a result, 24 people were selected, who seemed the most stable mentally and physically, the most mature, as well as the least capable of antisocial actions. Several people for one reason or another refused to participate in the experiment. The rest were divided by random selection, assigning half of them the role of “prisoners”, and the other half - “overseers”.
Subjects - Male students who were in the summer at Stanford or nearby. These were mostly well-off whites (with the exception of one Asian). They did not know each other before participating in the experiment.
The roles of the "prisoner" and the "overseer"
The Stanford prison experiment simulated prison conditions - the "prisoners" were in prison around the clock. They were randomly assigned to cells, each of which had 3 people. The "overseers" worked on an eight-hour shift, also three each. They were in prison only during the shift, and at other times were engaged in ordinary activities.
In order for the "guards" to behave in accordance with their true reactions to the conditions of the prison, they were given minimal instructions. However, physical punishment was strictly forbidden.
Jail
Subjects who were supposed to be prisoners were suddenly "arrested" in their homes. They were informed that they had been detained on suspicion of armed robbery or burglary, notified of their rights, searched, handcuffed and brought to the police station. Here they went through filing and fingerprinting. After arriving at the prison, each prisoner was stripped naked, after which they were treated with a special “lice control agent” (ordinary deodorant) and left alone for a while. After that, he was given special clothes, photographed and placed in a cell.
The “overseer” read the “prisoners” rules that should be followed. For the purpose of depersonalization, each of the "criminals" should be contacted only by the number indicated on the form.
Prison Conditions
"Prisoners" received three meals a day, three times a day under the supervision of a jailer could visit the toilet, two hours were allocated for writing letters or reading. 2 dates per week were allowed, and the right was granted to do physical exercises and watch films.
The roll call first aimed at making sure that all the "prisoners" were present, checking their knowledge of their numbers and rules. The first roll calls lasted about 10 minutes, but each day their duration increased, and in the end some of them lasted several hours. The “overseers” have changed or altogether canceled many of the items on the daily routine that are predefined. In addition, during the experiment, some privileges were simply forgotten by the staff.
The prison quickly became gloomy and dirty. The right to wash turned into a privilege, and it was often refused. In addition, some “prisoners” were even forced to clean toilets with their bare hands. The mattresses were removed from the "bad" cell, and the prisoners were forced to sleep on the concrete floor. Often food was denied as punishment.
The first day was relatively calm, but on the second day a riot broke out. To suppress it, the "guards" volunteered to work overtime. They attacked the "prisoners" with fire extinguishers. After this incident, the "jailers" tried to pit the "prisoners" with each other, to separate them, to make them think that there were "informants" among them. This had an effect, and in the future such major disturbances did not occur.
results
The Stanford prison experiment showed that the conditions of imprisonment have a great influence on the emotional state of both prison guards and criminals, as well as on interpersonal processes between groups and within them.
The "prisoners" and "overseers" as a whole have a pronounced tendency to intensify negative emotions. Their outlook on life became increasingly gloomy. "Prisoners" in the continuation of the experiment increasingly showed aggression. In both groups, self-esteem decreased with the assimilation of "prison" behavior.
External behavior in general coincided with the mood and personal self-reports of the subjects. "Prisoners" and "overseers" established various forms of interaction (negative or positive, offensive or supportive), however, their relationship to each other was actually offensive, hostile, devoid of humanity.
Almost immediately, the "criminals" took a largely passive manner of behavior. On the contrary, overseers showed great activity and initiative in all interactions. Their verbal behavior was limited mainly to teams and was extremely impersonal. The "prisoners" knew that they would not be allowed to be physically abused, but aggressive behavior was often observed, especially on the part of warders . Verbal abuse replaced physical violence and became one of the most common forms of communication between "overseers" and those in jail.
"Early released"
Vivid evidence of how conditions affect people is the reaction of the five “prisoners” involved in Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. Due to deep depression, severe anxiety and rage, they had to be "released". In four subjects, the symptoms were similar and began to appear on the 2nd day of imprisonment. The other was released after a nervous rash appeared on his body.
Overseers Behavior
Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment was completed ahead of schedule in just 6 days, although it was supposed to last two weeks. The remaining "prisoners" were very happy about this. On the contrary, the "overseers" were mostly upset. It seems that they managed to fully enter the role. The "overseers" were very pleased with the power that they possessed, and they parted with it very reluctantly. However, one of them said that he was upset by the suffering of the "prisoners", and that he intended to ask the organizers to make him one of them, but he did not intend to. Note that the "overseers" came to work on time, and several times even volunteered to work overtime without receiving additional pay.
Individual differences in participants' behavior
The pathological reactions that were noted in both groups speak of the power of social forces acting on us. However, the Zimbardo prison experiment showed the existence of individual differences in how people manage to cope with an unusual situation, how successfully they adapt to it. The oppressive atmosphere of life in the prison has withstood half the prisoners. Not all warders were hostile to "criminals." Some played by the rules, that is, they were harsh, but fair. However, other warders went beyond their role in ill-treatment and cruelty to prisoners.
In general, in 6 days, half of the participants were brought to the limit by an inhumane attitude. "Overseers" taunted "criminals", did not let them go to the toilet, did not let them sleep. Some prisoners fell into hysteria, others tried to rebel. When the Zimbardo prison experiment went out of control, the researchers continued to observe what was happening until one of the “prisoners” openly expressed his opinion.
Ambiguous assessment of the experiment
Zimbardo, thanks to his experiment, became world famous. His research aroused great public interest. However, many scientists reproached Zimbardo for the fact that the experiment was carried out without regard to ethical standards, which should not be placed in such extreme conditions for young people. However, the Stanford Humanities Committee approved the study, and Zimbardo himself said that no one could predict that the guards would be so inhuman.
The American Psychological Association in 1973 confirmed the compliance of the experiment with ethical standards. However, this decision was revised in subsequent years. Zimbardo himself agreed that no such study of human behavior should be conducted in the future.
Documentary films were made about this experiment, books were written, and one punk band even named itself in his honor. Until now, it remains a subject of controversy, even among its former participants.
Feedback on the Philippe Zimbardo experiment
Philip Zimbardo said that the purpose of the experiment was to study people's reactions to restriction of freedom. He was much more interested in the behavior of the "prisoners" than the "overseers." At the end of the first day, as Zimbardo notes, he thought that the “overseers” were people with anti-authoritarian thinking. However, after the "prisoners" began to rebel little by little, they began to behave more and more fiercely, forgetting that this was just the Stanford prison experiment of Philip Zimbardo. Photo of Philip is presented above.
The role played by Christina Maslach
Kristina Maslach, Zimbardo’s wife, was one of the researchers. It was she who asked Philip to stop the experiment. Christina noted that at first she was not going to participate in the study. She did not notice any changes in Zimbardo until she went down to the basement of the prison herself. Christina could not realize how Philip did not understand what a nightmare his research had turned into. The girl admitted many years later that it was not so much the appearance of the participants that made her demand that the experiment be stopped, but rather how the person behaved, whom she was about to marry. Kristina realized that the one who modeled her was captured by unlimited power and the current situation. It was Zimbardo who needed the most to be "bewitched." Lovers never quarreled like they did that day. Christina made it clear that if even this experiment continues for at least a day, she will no longer be able to love her chosen one. The next day, they stopped the Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment, the conclusions from which were so mixed.
By the way, in the same year, Christina still married Philip. 2 girls were born in the family. The young father was very interested in education. Phillip was captured by the topic, far from the prison experiment: how to raise children so that they were not shy. The scientist has developed an impeccable method of dealing with excessive shyness in a child, which has made him famous throughout the world.
The most cruel "overseer"
The most brutal "overseer" was Dave Eshelman, who then became the owner of a mortgage business in the city of Zaragoza. He recalled that he was just looking for a part-time job for the summer, and thus became involved in the Stanford prison experiment of 1971. Dave formed a plan that consisted of the need to arrange “some kind of action” so that the researchers could then write articles. Therefore, Eshelman deliberately became rude, trying to make the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971 interesting. It was not difficult for him to reincarnate, since he studied at the theater studio and had great acting experience. Dave notes that he can be said to have conducted his experiment in parallel. Aeshelman wanted to find out how much he would be allowed before a decision was made to stop the study. However, no one stopped him in cruelty.
Reviewed by John Mark
Another “overseer,” John Mark, who studied anthropology at Stanford, has a slightly different perspective on the Stanford prison experiment. The conclusions he came to are very curious. He wanted to be a "prisoner", but he was made a "overseer." John noted that nothing provocative happened during the day, but Zimbardo struggled to give tension to the situation. After the "overseers" began to wake the "prisoners" at night, it seemed to him that this was already crossing all borders. Mark himself did not like to wake them up and demand to call numbers. John noted that he did not consider the Stanford Zimbardo experiment something serious, related to reality. For him, participating in it was nothing more than a jail time. After the experiment, John worked as a cryptographer at a medical company.
Opinion of Richard Yakko
Richard Yakko had to be a prisoner. After participating in the experiment, he worked on television and radio, taught in high school. We will also describe his view of the Stanford prison experiment. An analysis of his participation in it is also very curious. Richard noted that the first thing that confused him was that the "prisoners" were prevented from sleeping. When they first woke them up, Richard did not suspect that only 4 hours had passed. The prisoners were forced to do the exercises and then again allowed to lie down. And only then Yakko realized that in this way it was supposed to disrupt the natural cycle of sleep.
Richard says he does not remember exactly when the “prisoners” began to rebel. He himself refused to obey the guard, realizing that because of this he could be transferred to solitary confinement. The solidarity of the “prisoners” is explained by the fact that only together can we at least somehow resist and complicate the work of the “overseers”.
When Richard asked what should be done to be released ahead of schedule, the researchers replied that he himself had agreed to participate, so he should stay until the end. It was then that Richard felt that he was in prison.
However, he was nevertheless released the day before the end of the study. The commission during the Stanford prison experiment found that Richard was about to break loose. It seemed to him that he was far from depression.
The purity of the experiment, the use of the results
Note that the people involved in the Stanford prison experiment, reviews about it have left mixed reviews. The attitude to Zimbardo is ambivalent, and Christina is considered a heroine and savior. However, she herself is sure that she did not do anything special - she simply helped her chosen one to see herself from the outside.
The results of the experiment were subsequently used to demonstrate humility and receptivity of people when there is a justifying ideology supported by the state and society. In addition, they serve as an illustration of two theories: the influence of authority and cognitive dissonance.
So, we told you about Professor F. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. Your business is to decide how to relate to him. In conclusion, we add that on its basis Mario Giordano, an Italian writer, in 1999 created a story called "The Black Box". This work was later filmed in two films. In 2001, The Experiment, a German film, was shot, and in 2010 an American film of the same name appeared.