Critical Analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a landmark psychological study conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo. The experiment involved 24 participants who were randomly assigned to play either the role of prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment. The study aimed to investigate how social situations can influence individual behavior, but it had to be terminated prematurely due to the extreme and disturbing behaviors exhibited by the participants. This document provides a critical analysis of the study's methodology, findings, and criticisms, as well as its impact on modern psychology and ethics.

A C R I T I C A L A N A LY S I S
The Stanford Prison
Experiment

Introduction
A team of psychologists led by Phillip
Zimbardo in 1971 conducted an unusual
experiment
College students were asked to role play as
prisoners and guard and recreate the
situations of a mock prison.
The reason of conducting such an experiment
was to test how social situations can
determine the behaviour of individuals.
The experiment had to be prematurely
stopped

Overview of the Experiment
24 participants were selected
They had no mental or physical health issues.
They were well adjusted and had no history
of drug or alcohol abuse.
The participants were randomly assigned into
the roles of prisoners and guards.
Real life prison experience was simulated for
both the prisoners and the guards.
The idea was to study the psychology of
imprisonment

Behaviour of the Participants
Participants started taking their roles very seriously.
Guards started becoming increasingly cruel
Prisoners started becoming more passive
Prisoners started getting over-stressed and some of
them suffered from behavioural outbursts.
The guards became more aggressive and stopped
treating the prisoners humanely
The controlled human experiment took certain
bizarre turns and had to be terminated by the sixth
day.
The experiment had to be terminated.

Incidents in the experiment
One prisoner had a major emotional outburst on the second
day and had to be let out.
A prisoners riot took place.
The participants started behaving in typical prison
behaviours.
They told “tales” about other prison mates to gain the
favour of the guards.
The guards started abusing the prisoners and gave
meaningless punishments.
The prisoners started to relate with their prisoner ids more
than their names.
The discussed more about the prison situation that about
the outside real world.

Criticisms
When some of the guard group participants were
questioned about their behaviour, they responded
saying that they were acting as they were asked to
play the role.
Shuttleworth (2008) stated that the factors
influencing their behaviour might be different from
the factors affecting individuals in real life
situations.
He suggested that the findings of the study cannot
be generalized to real life.
Therefore the study has very low ecological
validity.

Criticisms
Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) stated that
the subjects responded in the dramatic way
that they did in the experimental condition
because they were acting out certain
stereotypic images of prison.
These confounding variables were so
operative in the experiment that the response
of the participants cannot be explained as the
coping responses to the simulation of
asymmetry in power.

Haslam (2006) states that the participants were
provided with guidance prior to starting the experiment
and yet, many participants behaved differently from
their assigned roles many times.
Video materials were available, from which he observed
that both the prisoners and guards not only challenged
their roles in the start but throughout the study.
Zimbardo (1989) stated that some participants as guards
exploited the power but there were some who sided with
the prisoners and others were tough to the prisoners but
in a fair way.

Criticisms
The study was conducted on US citizens.
They participants were college going and were
male.
The study therefore cannot be generalized to
male population of other cultures.
US has an individualist culture and the same
findings cannot be generalized for people
belonging to collectivist cultures.
Therefore low population validity.
Also this experiment will not be subjected to
replication on ethical grounds.

Ethical issues
Participants did were not completely informed about
the consequences before they gave their consent.
Because it was an unpredictable study and even the
researchers did not know what the results would be
like.
The participants were unprotected from
psychological harm.
Although they were given an idea that things could
get overwhelming.
The participants did not consent to being arrested. It
was an element of surprise.

Positive outcomes
Drawing from the evidences of the
experiment, a lot of essential changes took
place.
The US prison no longer houses juveniles
with adult prisoners for the risk of abuse.
The harm caused to the well being of the
participants gave rise to the recognizing the
‘ethical guidelines’ formally by the American
Psychological Association.

Thank You