Summary of "a Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison"

Summary of "A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison"

by Dr. Philip Zimbardo

Introduction

Have you ever wondered why some institutions succeed while others fail? Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a Professor of Psychology, insists that America's prison system is a failure because of the assumed responsibilities that come with certain positions and not because of the previously assumed dispositional hypothesis which claims the very nature of the prisoners and/or guards constitutes failure in our correctional facilities. And in order to prove his claim, Zimbardo designed a unique experiment.

Methods and Materials

To test whether or not the dispositional hypothesis truly held any significance, Zimbardo set out to conduct an experiment where he would take in twenty-one, randomly-selected subjects to live a standard prison life for two weeks (315-316). And if his prediction was right, the results of this experiment would convey role-play as a leading contributor to our failing prison system (313).

The first step of the experiment called for volunteers. Zimbardo started out by publishing an ad in a newspaper requesting the participation of locals in a study regarding life in prison with a $15 per day incentive (315). There were seventy-five respondents in all but only twenty-two were selected to take part because of a far-reaching questionnaire and interview process each respondent completed (315). The reason behind the questionnaire and interview was to attain a group that was "normal," and to ensure all the subjects were strangers to one another in order to eliminate already established conduct in interaction (315). Next, the participants acquired their positions.

As mentioned before, Zimbardo started out with twenty-one male individuals chosen at random (315-316). He did this in order to observe the reactions of role-play versus human nature (314). The professor then went on to another random allotment where each participant was randomly assigned to be either a "prisoner" or a "guard" (314). And the prison itself, with functional cells renovated from laboratories, a small solitary confinement chamber, and "guard's quarters," was located in a basement corridor in Stanford University (316). All prisoners were provided with a cot, the only furniture to be found in the cell (316). All prisoners were also assigned a uniform which consisted of an ample smock imprinted with an identification number, and in addition to such, underwear was not allowed for, and each prisoner was obliged to wear a lightweight chain around an ankle (317-318). The prisoner uniform was intended to be humiliating (318). Guards were also assigned a uniform and were to wear plain khaki clothing and, in order to illuminate power and control, each guard was given a whistle and nightstick (318). All the uniforms, guard and prisoner alike, "served to enhance group identity and reduce individual uniqueness" (318). The prisoners assumed their given rights of three meals a day, two hours of reading, visiting periods, etc., and the guards assumed their vague instruction for supervising (317, 319).

All data was gathered through a series of questionnaires, surveillance, and interviews.

Results

The results of the experiment turned out to be very severe. Some of the prisoners underwent "extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety" (320). The prisoners, with the exception of two who were not willing to forfeit the money they had received so far, were relieved the project was terminated early after only six days rather than the intended two weeks (320). The guards on the other hand appeared upset at the early termination because "they had become sufficiently involved in their roles that they now enjoyed the extreme control and power" (320). The reason behind