Stanford prison experiment

[[File:Plaque Dedicated to the Location of the Stanford Prison Experiment.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Commemoration of a bad experiment]]
{{Psychology}}
The '''Stanford prison experiment''' (SPE) is the common name for a psychological study done in 1971 at Stanford University by [[psychology]] professor {{wpl|Philip Zimbardo}} {{lived|1933|2024}}. Essentially, it placed students into the roles of guards and prisoners and immersed them in the roles by putting them in a setup designed to look like a [[prison]]. It was originally meant to run for 14 days, but was cut short at the request of Zimbardo's then-girlfriend.<ref>[https://www.prisonexp.org/conclusion 8. Conclusion] ''Stanford Prison Experiment''.</ref><ref>[https://news.stanford.edu/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years] (1/8/97) ''Stanford News''.</ref><ref>{{wpa|Christina Maslach}}</ref>

The SPE has been called one of the most famous psychology experiments,<ref name=griggs>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278144932_Coverage_of_the_Stanford_Prison_Experiment_in_Introductory_Social_Psychology_Textbooks Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in Introductory Social Psychology Textbooks] by Richard Griggs & George I. Whitehead (2014) ''Teaching of Psychology'' 41(4):318-324. 10.1177/0098628314549703.</ref> and it has been argued that it is ''the'' most famous psychology experiment.<ref>[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/20-psychological-studies-_n_4098779 10 Psychological Studies That Will Change What You Think You Know About Yourself] by Carolyn Gregoire (10/18/2013 08:22am EDT | Updated December 6, 2017) ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Alas, [[Argumentum ad populum|fame does not translate into quality]].

The study was deeply flawed both [[ethical]]ly (though it met ethical standards at the time<ref name=faq>[https://www.prisonexp.org/faq Frequently Asked Questions] ''Stanford Prison Experiment''.</ref>) and methodologically. In response to criticism that it was not an [[experiment]], Zimbardo has said:
{{cquote|It depends what you mean by [[scientific]] value. From the beginning, I have always said it's a demonstration. The only thing that makes it an experiment is the [[random]] assignment to prisoners and guards, that's the independent variable. There is no [[control group]]. There's no comparison group. So it doesn't fit the standards of what it means to be "an experiment." It's a very powerful demonstration of a psychological phenomenon, and it has had relevance.<BR><BR>
So, yes, if you want to call it [[anecdote]], that's one way to demean it. If you want to say, "Is it a scientifically [[valid]] conclusion?" I say … it doesn’t have to be scientifically valid. It means it's a conclusion drawn from this powerful, unique demonstration.|||Zimbardo<ref>[https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17509470/stanford-prison-experiment-zimbardo-interview Philip Zimbardo defends the Stanford Prison Experiment, his most famous work: What's the scientific value of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Zimbardo responds to the new allegations against his work.] by Brian Resnick (Jun 28, 2018, 7:50am EDT) ''Vox''.</ref>}}

Despite Zimbardo's claim that he has always called it a demonstration, he has continuously and erroneously called it an experiment, from the initial publications in 1971<ref>[http://pdf.prisonexp.org/congress.pdf Statement of Philip G. Lombardo, Ph. D., Professor of Psychology, Stanford University] (October 25, 1971) ''Congressional Record'', Serial No 15, pp. 110-157, via ''Stanford Prison Experiment''. "A very brief description of the experiment…" (p. 111).</ref> and 1973<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235356446_A_Study_of_Prisoners_and_Guards_in_a_Simulated_Prison A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison] by Craig Haney, Curtis Banks & Philip Zimbardo (1973) ''International Journal of Criminology and Penology'' 1:69-97. "Interpersonal dynamics in a prison environment were studied experimentally…"</ref> up through his current website.<ref>[https://www.prisonexp.org/ Stanford prison experiment] by Philip G. Zimbardo.</ref>

==Methodological issues==
The study was plagued by methodological problems, including the following:
*No control group
*Small [[sample size]]
*The subjects were all college students from similar backgrounds (middle class and mostly white)
*No replication — the study was essentially an anecdote
*[[Hawthorne effect]] — study subjects may change their behavior if they are aware they are being observed (the study subjects knew that they were being watched<ref>[https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment] by Maria Konnikova (June 12, 2015) ''The New Yorker''.</ref>)
*According to Thibault Le Texier's review of the study's archives, "The guards knew what results the experiment was supposed to produce … far from reacting spontaneously to this pathogenic social environment, the guards were given clear instructions for how to create it … the experimenters intervened directly in the experiment, either to give precise instructions, to recall the purposes of the experiment, or to set a general direction … in order to get their full participation, Zimbardo intended to make the guards believe that they were his research assistants."<ref>[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-45337-001 Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment] by Thibault Le Texier (2019) ''American Psychologist'' 74(7):823–839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401.</ref>
*Films of the study showed evidence that the observers directly influenced the behavior of the subjects during the study.<ref>[https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/new-evidence-shows-stanford-prison-experiment-conclusions-untenable New evidence shows Stanford Prison Experiment conclusions "untenable": Archival recordings show one of the world's most famous psychology experiments was poorly designed – and its use to justify brutality baseless.] by Andrew Masterson (09 July 2018) ''Cosmos'' (archived from July 14, 2018).</ref><ref>[https://psyarxiv.com/b7crx/ Rethinking the 'nature' of brutality: Uncovering the role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment] by S. Haslam  et a. (June 27, 2018) ''PsyArXiv  Preprints''.</ref>
*One of the students chosen as a guard had been involved in drama productions and created a persona during the study:
*:{{cquote|What came over me was not an accident. It was planned. I set out with a definite plan in mind, to try to force the action, force something to happen, so that the researchers would have something to work with. After all, what could they possibly learn from guys sitting around like it was a country club? So I consciously created this persona. I was in all kinds of drama productions in high school and college. It was something I was very familiar with: to take on another personality before you step out on the stage. I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, "How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, 'knock it off?'" But the other guards didn't stop me. They seemed to join in. They were taking my lead. Not a single guard said, "I don't think we should do this."|||Dave Eshelman<ref>[https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-menace-within The Menace Within: What happened in the basement of the psych building 40 years ago shocked the world. How do the guards, prisoners and researchers in the Stanford Prison Experiment feel about it now?] (July/August 2011) ''Stanford Magazine''.</ref>}}

Crucially, the results claimed by the study have not been replicated,<ref>[http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/ The BBC Prison Study]</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/oct/31/highereducation.uk1 The ideas interview: Alex Haslam: Abu Ghraib need not have happened and the Stanford prison experiment got it wrong.] by John Sutherland (31 Oct 2005 03.55 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090221194634/http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/interviews/experiment.htm Learning from the Experiment: Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam recently conducted a major study with the BBC (The Experiment). Pam Briggs (Chair of the British Psychological Society Press Committee) sought their views on the ethical and practical issues.] First published in the July 2002 edition of ''The Psychologist'' (archived from February 21, 2009).</ref> and the study is part of the broader [[Psychology#Psychology in crisis|crisis in psychology]], where well-known psychology studies frequently fail to be reproduced.<ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/psychology-results-evaporate-upon-further-review Psychology results evaporate upon further review: Surprising reports, findings with marginal statistical significance least likely to be reproduced, study concludes] by Bruce Bower (2:00pm, August 27, 2015) ''Science News''.</ref><ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science] by B. A. Nosek et al. 28 August 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6251 ''Science'' DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716.</ref>

==Ethical issues==
The study had been approved by Stanford's Human Subjects Review Committee before it commenced,<ref name=faq/><ref>[http://pdf.prisonexp.org/humansubjects.pdf Human Subjects Research Review Committee (Non-Medical)] (July 31, 1971)]</ref> and was subsequently reviewed by the American Psychological Association in 1973, which concluded "that all existing ethical guidelines had been followed."<ref name=faq/> The controversy surrounding the study, however, led the American Psychological Association to adopt more stringent guidelines for human studies.<ref name=mcleod>[https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html The Stanford Prison Experiment] by Saul McLeod (updated 2020) ''Simply Psychology''.</ref> By modern ethical standards, the potential benefits of the experiment would have to outweigh any potential psychological harm to the subjects.

It is likely that during the SPE, {{wpl|false imprisonment}}{{efn|False imprisonment is a misdemeanor in California unless it occurs with violence, menace, fraud, or deceit, in which case it is a felony.<ref>[https://www.wklaw.com/practice-areas/false-imprisonment-california-penal-code-236-237/ Sentencing and Punishment for PC 236 Violation] ''Wallin & Klarich''.</ref>}} occurred, as a former Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney confirmed.<ref name=blum>[https://gen.medium.com/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62 The Lifespan of a Lie: The most famous psychology study of all time was a sham. Why can’t we escape the Stanford Prison Experiment?] by Ben Blum (Jun 7, 2018·29) ''Medium''.</ref> Douglas Korpi, one of the prisoners, later claimed that he faked a mental breakdown in order to get out of the SPE.<ref name=blum/> There was apparently no way for prisoners to leave the experiment short of having a physical or mental health crisis.<ref name=blum/> Zimbardo later lied that all a research subject had to do was state, "I quit the experiment." in order to get out, as stated in the informed consent forms that they signed. However, the on-line informed consent forms that Zimbardo himself posted have no such information.<ref name=blum/><ref>[http://pdf.prisonexp.org/consent.pdf Consent: Prison Life Study] by Dr. Zimbardo (August 1971) ''Stanford Prison Experiment''.</ref> Korpi also stated that his greatest regret in life was failing to sue Zimbardo.<ref name=blum/> Korpi also accused Zimbaro of stalking him after the experiment.<ref name=blum/>
{{cquote|We unlisted the number and [Zimbardo] figured out our unlisted number. It was just bizarre. I would always tell him, 'I don't want to have anything to do with the experiment anymore.' [Zimbardo:] 'But Doug, but Doug, you’re so important! And I'll give you lots of referrals!' [Korpi:] 'Yeah, I know Phil, but I testify in court now and it's embarrassing how I was. I don't want to have that be a big public thing anymore.' But Phil just couldn't hear that I didn't want to be involved. This went on for years.|||Douglas Korpi<ref name=blum/>}}

==Zimbardo's conclusion==
[[File:Philip Zimbardo (cropped).jpg|thumb|right|165px|Zimbardo in 2017]]
Zimbardo has responded to most of his critics, and has reiterated his belief that the SPE's conclusions are correct:<ref>[https://www.prisonexp.org/response Statement from Philip Zimbardo] ''Stanford Prison Experiment''.</ref>
{{cquote|In this response to my critics, ''I hereby assert''{{efn|emphasis added}} that none of these criticisms present any substantial evidence that alters the SPE's main conclusion concerning the importance of understanding how systemic and situational forces can operate to influence individual behavior in negative or positive directions, often without our personal awareness.|||Zimbardo}}
The crux of the problem with this, though, is that Zimbardo has rejected the need for scientific validity (or presumably of [[logical validity]] as well). Validity is when the conclusion follows from the premises (in [[logic]]), or when the conclusions follow from the methods and results (in scientific experiments). Zimbardo is essentially making a [[Logical fallacy|fallacious argument]] — [[argument by assertion]], i.e., it looks like what Zimbardo observed, or what he thought was [[common sense]], therefore it is so.

==Repercussions==
A 2014 survey of introductory social psychology textbooks found that 3 of 10 textbooks studied did not include the SPE at all. Of those that did include the SPE, "the majority of the texts providing coverage either provided no or minimal coverage of the criticisms."<ref name=griggs/><ref>[https://www.psypost.org/2014/09/intro-psychology-textbooks-gloss-criticisms-zimbardos-stanford-prison-experiment-27970 Intro to psychology textbooks gloss over criticisms of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment] by Eric W. Dolan (September 7, 2014) ''PsyPost''.</ref>

Analogies between the SPE and real-world events (e.g., [[Abu Ghraib]]<ref name=kinderman>[https://www.psychliverpool.co.uk/psychology-news/social/abu-ghraib-real-stanford-prison-experiment/ Abu Ghraib: The Real Stanford Prison Experiment] by Peter Kinderman (c. 2020) ''Psych Liverpool''.</ref> and the [[Rwandan Genocide]]<ref>[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-apr-22-bk-zarembo22-story.html Wicked within] by Alan Zarembo (April 22, 2007 12 AM PT) ''Los Angeles Times''.</ref>) have continued to be drawn despite the serious flaws of the SPE. Zimbardo has written about similarities between Abu Ghraib and the SPE in his book ''The Lucifer Effect'',<ref>''The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil'' by Philip Zimbardo (2007) Random House, Rider. ISBN 9781400064113.</ref> and he served as a defense team expert witness for one of the prison guards who was charged for crimes at Abu Ghraib.<ref name=kinderman/>

==See also==
*[[Milgram's obedience study]]
*[[Nuremberg trials]]
*[[Third Wave]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Asch conformity experiments}} — the earliest of the conformity studies
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420293/ ''The Stanford Prison Experiment''] — a 2015 docudrama based on the original study
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc_e9M8M-RU Philip Zimbardo: The Lucifer Effect Understanding How Good People Turn Evil] (Nov 14, 2014) ''YouTube''

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:California]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Categories: California, Morality, Psychology, Sociology