Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

The Zimbardo prison experiment was a study of human responses to captivity, dehumanization and its effects on the behavior on authority figures and inmates in prison situations. Conducted in 1971 the experiment was led by Phlilip Zimbardo. Volunteer College students played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a simulated prison setting in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.

Philip Zimbardo and his team aimed to demonstrate the situational rather than the dispositional causes of negative behaviour and thought patters found in prison settings by conducting the simulation with average everyday participants playing the roles of guard and prisoner. From a total of seventy-five volunteers, twenty-two male participants were selected based on maturity, stability and lack of involvement in anti-social behaviour. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class. The participants were randomly to either prison or guard roles and were all strangers to each other. Those allocated to prisoner roles were required to sign a consent document which specified that some of there human rights would suspended and that all participants would receive a sum of fifteen dollars a day for up to two weeks.

The prison itself was in the basement corridor of the Stanford Psychology Department, which had been converted a set of 2 x 3 metre prison cells with a solitary confinement room converted from a tiny unlit closet. An undergraduate research assistant was the "warden" and Zimbardo the "superintendent". He set up a number of specific conditions for the participants which were intended to promote disorientation, depersonalization and deindividuation.

To facilitate role identification, guards were given wooden batons and akhaki, military-style uniforms. They were also given reflecting sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Unlike the prisoners, the guards were to work in shifts and return home afterwards which added to the reality of the role. Although given this option, many would later volunteer for added duty without additional pay. The day before the experiment, guards attended a short orientation meeting but were given no formal guidelines other than to �maintain a reasonable degree of order within the prison necessary for its effective functioning’ and that no physical violence was permitted. They were told it was their responsibility to run the prison, and they could do so in any way they wished.

Prisoners were intentionally given loose-fitting smocks without underwear and rubber thong sandals, which were intended to cause discomfort in order to further their sense of disorientation. They were referred to by assigned numbers instead of by name. These numbers were sewn onto their uniforms, and the prisoners were required to wear tight-fitting nylon pantyhose caps to simulate shaven heads. In addition, they wore small chains around their ankles as a "constant reminder" of their imprisonment and oppression. All this was a successful attempt to dehumanize the participants.

The participants who had been chosen to play the part of prisoners were told simply to wait in their homes to be called on the day the experiment began. Without any other warning, they were "charged" with armed robbery and arrested by the actual Palo Alto police department, who cooperated in this part of the experiment. The prisoners were put through a full booking procedure by the police, including fingerprinting, having their mug shots taken, and information regarding their Miranda rights. They were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched, deloused, and given their new identities.

The effects of imprisonment were assessed by video and audio, questionnaires and individuals interviews, but the situation proved too intense for the participants and was called off after six days because of abnormal reactions shown by both prisoner and guard. The prisoners showed what was termed the �Pathological Prisoner Syndrome’ which entailed disbelief, followed by rebellion which if failed was then followed by number of negative emotions and behaviours. The experimentors proposed that these reactions were caused by a loss of personal identity, dependency, emasculation and acceptance sadistic treatment from the guards and the unpredictable and arbitrary control of the prison system.

The Guard s however showed what was termed the �Pathology of Power’ where the participants playing the roles of guards found huge pleasure and enjoyment in their execution of power and sometimes sadistic actions which would explain their willingness to work extra time for no pay and their genuine disappointment when the study ended. Punishments with little or no justification were applied with verbal assaults and in the case of some guards, aggressive physical action. The prison became dirty and inhospitable; bathroom rights became privileges, which could be, and frequently were, denied. Some prisoners were forced to clean toilets with bare hands. Moreover, prisoners endured forced nudity and even sexual humiliation. Experimenters said that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies.

Interestingly enough, participants became so taken into the ordeal that they seem to forget who they were and that they were involved in an experiment as prisoner participants had internalized their roles. This is based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even under the condition of giving up all of their participation pay. However, when their parole applications were denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all compensation, yet they did. This is because they had internalized the prisoner identity, they considered themselves prisoners, hence, they stayed.

Zimbardo later concluded the experiment after only six days, of a planned two weeks' duration and the Stanford Prison experiment was shut down.. The experiment's results demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a role dominance and social and institutional influence. It is also used to show cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

The