The REAL Reason the Stanford Prison Experiment is WRONG | Unveiled

<h4>

The REAL Reason The Stanford Prison Experiment Is WRONG</h4>

What makes people cruel? Is it their dispositions, or their roles? That question was at the heart of the controversial Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971. For psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, who led the research team, the experiment demonstrated the power of group identity and situational variables. However, over the years, its methods have been scrutinized, and the results questioned.

This is Unveiled and today we’re looking at the Extraordinary REAL Reason The Stanford Prison Experiment Is Wrong. 

Psychology is considered to be a ‘soft science’, as opposed to a ‘hard science’ like mathematics and physics. ‘Hard sciences’ are based on empirical, objective, and quantifiable research, and produce testable predictions. In contrast, ‘soft sciences’, like psychology and sociology, study human behavior, which can be difficult, or even impossible, to quantify and measure. As a result, these fields lean more on theoretical frameworks and involve subjective interpretation. Recording how kind or cruel someone is, for example, is more ambiguous than measuring, say, an object’s size or speed. 

In order to study human psychology, a number of steps have to be taken to ensure that experiments are valid and reliable. In science, ‘validity’ means that an experiment measures what it’s intended to measure. ‘Reliability’ means that the results are consistent across time - that is, that the same experiment can be replicated and will produce the same results. Biases are especially important in psychology, as results have to be natural and not influenced by the experiment itself. Participants are often not even told the full nature of the study they are participating in, to avoid altering their behavior.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most famous experiments in the history of psychology, both among psychologists and the general public. It’s been the subject of several books, documentaries, and movies, ensuring its place in popular culture. Before the experiment, Zimbardo had been conducting research into anti-social behavior, in particular by seemingly ordinary people. What makes normal people do bad things? He had read about the brutality of guards in American prisons, and wanted to know if these guards were already disposed towards violence, or if their roles and the situation influenced their behavior. To answer this question, Zimbardo and his research team set up a simulated prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology department and brought in male students to roleplay as guards and prisoners. He wanted to see if the student guards would mirror the behavior of real ones. The pretend ‘prisoners’ were arrested at their homes and booked at a police station. At the prison, they were stripped naked, deloused, and dressed in a smock without underclothes. To dehumanize them, they were referred to only by numbers, not names. The guards were given instructions to do whatever necessary to maintain order apart from actual physical violence. 

The experiment was supposed to run for two weeks. But after only six days, the guards had become so abusive that psychologist Christina Maslach confronted Zimbardo and he shut the experiment down. Zimbardo concluded that the situation, not individual personalities, had caused the guards to become abusive. But was he right? 

Despite the experiment’s renown, critics have denounced it as one of the most flawed and unethical experiments in the history of psychology. From inception, the experiment was littered with problems. For one, it was unethical, as students did not consent to psychological humiliation and torture, and researchers refused to let them leave when they asked to do so. It also arguably was not valid, because students knew they weren’t in a real prison and that they were playing parts. In terms of the sample studied, the participants weren’t representative of the general population - who aren’t all male college students! On top of all that, and perhaps worst of all, there was the potential of bias from the involvement of Zimbardo himself in his own experiment. 

Often, researchers hope for a certain result from an experiment, and there’s a danger that they can, consciously or unconsciously, manipulate variables to achieve the desired outcome. That’s why, for example, clinical trials to test whether new drugs work are generally double-blind studies. In a double-blind study, neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants are receiving the real drug, and which participants are receiving a placebo treatment. This ensures that reactions and measurements aren’t biased. But instead of watching his experiment from afar, Zimbardo took on the highest role in the study, that of Superintendent, thus tainting the results from the start. He committed himself heavily to playing the part, eventually conceding that “It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point - that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist”. Even if Zimbardo had been trying his hardest to be unbiased, unconscious reactions or behaviors can have an influence on other participants and the ultimate results. As Superintendent, he inevitably conveyed expectations to the participants on how to behave. For example, when he overlooked certain abuses, it communicated a message to the participants and biased their subsequent behaviors. 

In a carefully constructed psychological experiment, there are controls to counter unconscious biases. But in the Stanford Prison Experiment, the design was actually built around them instead. Unfortunately, this manipulation also went further, and was far from unconscious. Over time, research into the study has shown that much of it was purposefully led in the direction that Zimbardo desired. Audio recordings recovered from the Stanford archive show that Zimbardo coached the guards on how to act, telling them to be “tough”. One prisoner later claimed that he had faked a mental breakdown in order to leave the prison and return to his studies, although Zimbardo disputes his account. Critics of the experiment argue that test subjects knew what was expected of them and acted accordingly. Prisoners were supposed to be helpless and scared, and guards cruel and evil. Zimbardo has admitted that even before the experiment was completed, he was anti-prison, and expected certain results - namely, that the experiment would demonstrate the toxicity of prison systems. All in all, the experiment suffered from a variety of issues, rendering the results invalid. Perhaps the main problem with the study can be summarized by a quote from one of the ‘guards’ in the experiment, who recalled: “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do”. 

The experiment is difficult to replicate, due to the numerous ethical issues. But in 2002, psychologists Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher attempted to replicate elements of the experiment, with the assistance of the BBC. They found that the guards and prisoners did internalize their new identities, but that leadership played a major role in the emergence of both tyranny and resistance. This puts into question the original study’s reliability. 

While the experiment remains fascinating, the consensus among psychologists is that there were too many methodological flaws for it to be considered valid or reliable. Overall, it’s a better case study for how NOT to run a scientific experiment! Many of the issues stemmed from the overinvolvement of the researchers, particularly Zimbardo himself. As such, the experiment ceased to be an exploration of natural human behavior. The Stanford Prison Experiment isn’t alone in this regard - other famous psychological experiments like Robbers Cave or the Marshmallow Test haven’t held up over time. Psychological experiments are extremely tricky, as both unconscious and conscious biases can skew the results. And this is what happened with the Stanford Prison Experiment. 

What’s your verdict in this case? Is there any worthwhile data to be drawn from the experiment, or should the entire thing be written off completely? What do you find most shocking about the way in which it was conducted? And what would be different, if something similar were to be staged again? Either way, it certainly has its place in the history of psychological study, even if that’s only as a prime example of flawed and failed research. There are many lessons to learn (and that have been learned) from it, as the true circumstances behind it have been gradually unraveled. 

Is there another story in the history of psychology that you’d like to see us cover next? Another experiment that you think is a major problem? Let us know in the comments below. But, for now, that’s the REAL reason why the Stanford Prison Experiment is WRONG.