9.3
The Stanford Prison Experiment
The famous and controversial Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, d…
There’s a dark side to the summer of 1971. Police “arrested” a number of college students who responded to an ad seeking volunteers for a psychological study of prison life.
Little did they know, in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department, they were about to embark upon one of the most famous and controversial psychological studies: The Stanford Prison Experiment, led by Philip Zimbardo and colleagues.
After filling out an informational questionnaire, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Prisoners—who were realistically picked up and booked by police—or Guards, who were in direct control of the inmates.
Depending on the assignment, they were dressed to fit their role—a set of expectations defining how those in the social position should behave.
For example, each guard was given a nightstick and whistle, along with mirrored aviator glasses, to emphasize their status and authority.
In addition, two researchers were present and oversaw the day-to-day operations: the lead experimenter, Zimbardo, acted as the prison superintendent, while another researcher, David Jaffe, was the Warden.
During one orientation session for the guards, Zimbardo vaguely outlined behaviors that they should conform with, like limiting the prisoners’ freedom and using their power to evoke fear and dominate non-violently.
In a follow-up session, the Warden provided more explicit directions to encourage the creation of a prison environment, for the collective good of the experiment.
With the correctional authorities in place, the prisoners entered the mock jail, which contained three cells and a closet for solitary confinement. They were stripped down, immediately degraded, and blindfolded to confuse them. Also, as part of their assigned role, they were outfitted in numbered gowns and nylon-stocking caps to depersonalize them.
On the second day, the prisoners started to rebel by blockading the cell door with the bed. As punishment, the ring leader was placed in confinement. This event precipitated the guards now turning on the other inmates, and the level of cruelty escalated.
Several guards…but not all…upped their performance to act tough—to fit the preconceived expectations of their label—all under the watchful eyes of the Warden and Superintendent. These leaders promoted toughness as a shared attribute of conforming to the in-group to achieve the goal of exposing the toxicity of the penal system.
Due to the increased and creative oppression placed on the prisoners, the experiment was terminated early, after six days instead of two weeks.
Ultimately, the guards behaved in a stereotypical tough-guy manner, striving to fit the normative guidance they were given. Sometimes, toxic situations can bring out the worst in someone, especially in cases where the individual identifies with a leader and the group’s collective cause.
Q1: What role did social roles play in how participants behaved during the Stanford Prison Experiment?
Social roles—patterns of behavior expected in given settings—powerfully shaped participant conduct. Guards and prisoners enacted behaviors appropriate to their assigned roles: guards gave orders while prisoners followed them. By dressing participants to fit their roles, including guards' nightsticks and mirrored glasses, researchers activated role-based expectations that guided behavior throughout the study.
Q2: How did social norms influence the guards' increasingly harsh behavior?
Social norms—group expectations for appropriate behavior—required guards to be authoritarian and prisoners to be submissive. Zimbardo and the Warden explicitly encouraged toughness as a shared attribute of conforming to the in-group. When prisoners violated these norms by rebelling on day two, guards escalated their cruelty to reinforce the expected power dynamic and maintain group conformity.
Q3: What is a script, and how did scripts guide behavior in the mock prison?
A script is knowledge about the sequence of events expected in specific settings. In the mock prison, guards and prisoners followed scripts derived from cultural knowledge of prison environments. Guards degraded prisoners through push-ups and privacy removal, while prisoners rebelled by throwing pillows and trashing cells—all scripted behaviors reflecting familiar prison dynamics.
Q4: Why were participants randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles?
Random assignment ensured that differences in behavior resulted from role assignment and situational factors, not pre-existing personality differences. Since participants were randomly divided into guards and prisoners, any behavioral changes could be attributed to the social roles and environment rather than individual traits, strengthening the study's validity.
Q5: How did identifying with leadership and group goals affect participant behavior?
Participants who identified with leaders like Zimbardo and the Warden and embraced the collective goal of exposing prison toxicity became immersed in their roles. This identification intensified conformity to role expectations. Some prisoners became so absorbed they exhibited mental breakdown symptoms, while guards performed toughness to align with promoted group values and leadership direction.
Q6: What happened when prisoners violated the established social norms?
When prisoners blockaded their cell door on day two, they violated social norms requiring submissiveness. This rebellion prompted guards to escalate harassment dramatically, using threats and increasingly sadistic tactics to restore the expected power hierarchy. The violation of norms triggered upheaval and demonstrated how strongly situational expectations govern behavior.
Q7: Why did the Stanford Prison Experiment end after only six days?
The experiment was terminated early due to participants' deteriorating behavior and psychological distress. Prisoners exhibited severe anxiety and hopelessness while tolerating guards' abuse, and guards engaged in increasingly sadistic cruelty. The intensity of role immersion and situational pressure became so extreme that continuing posed ethical risks to participant wellbeing.