Twenty-Four Students Sealed Themselves In A Fake Prison, Then Something Went Very Wrong

You have probably heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment. The story goes that college students became so brutal when given the reins of power that what was meant to be a simple two-week-long experiment was halted after only six days. "Guards" in reflective aviators subjected their peers assigned the role of "prisoners" to dehumanizing conditions, including sleep deprivation and strip searches. According to researcher Philip Zimbardo, situational inhumanity overpowered the humanity of the subjects. The famous story has been told for decades in psychology courses and used to explain everything from corporate fraud to genocide. But the story isn't that simple. Over the years, many have realized that this was not a well-designed scientific experiment and its interpretations were misleading. So, how did such a poorly conducted project grow to dominate the cultural zeitgeist?

The ad stated, "Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1–2 weeks," according to Stanford Magazine. In 1971, when the Federal minimum wage was just $1.60 an hour, $15 per day probably sounded like a pretty good deal. With a pool of 75 applicants, Zimbardo subjected each to questionnaires and personality tests (which are not always backed by science), selecting for those considered to be the most mature as well as physically and mentally stable and those least likely to present anti-social behaviors. Such criteria were important in Zimbardo's goal of showing that "normal people" could behave cruelly when in particular situations, especially those that conferred power.

After some pruning, 24 men were chosen to participate in the study, randomly sorted into guards and prisoners as determined by a coin flip. Zimbardo wanted to emphasize that there were no initial differences in the characteristics of the individuals placed in either group. What he failed to mention was how the guards would be instructed to behave, instead attempting to convey that the subsequent behaviors were performed without experimenter input.

In fact, the guards were coached to be brutal towards the prisoners. Not only were they instructed to act cruelly, but those who did not behave aggressively enough were criticized by the experimenters. Examination of the archival footage from the project showed that Zimbardo directed the guards to generate a feeling of powerlessness in the prisoners. The guards were told that prisoners were to be stripped upon reception. They were encouraged to make the prisoners do push-ups, humiliate them, and dole out arbitrary punishments.

While the guards were informed of the experimental purpose and desired techniques, the prisoners were made ignorant. Even though Zimbardo maintained that the prisoners were free to go as they pleased, his protocol stated otherwise. The submitted protocol said that prisoners would be given the impression that they could only leave in the case of an emergency. In fact, two prisoners asked to leave on the second day and were denied. Convinced that their only way out was a medical emergency, one prisoner reportedly pretended to have a breakdown to be released.

Zimbardo suggested that the experiment came to an end due to the guards adopting behaviors that were troublingly sadistic and the prisoners began to exhibit pathological mannerisms. However, the explanation might be a bit simpler. On the sixth day, the fake prison received a visit from a real lawyer.

As part of the experiment, a Catholic priest was brought in to act as a chaplain. During this visit, one of the prisoners gave the priest his mother's phone number with the instruction to call her and mentioned that his cousin served as a public defender. The priest did contact the prisoner's mother, who then called upon their lawyer relative. After speaking with Zimbardo, the public defender was permitted to visit the mock prison but was told to act as if the setting was real. He told the prisoners that he would file a formal complaint. Once he left, Zimbardo elected to end the study.

Although Zimbardo's scientific hypothesis was that circumstances would inevitably draw out cruel behavior and sadism, the actual experiment might have demonstrated the opposite. Critics have pointed to the fact that two-thirds of the participants assigned as guards did not exhibit sadistic behavior. This would suggest that people do not resort to cruelty so easily. While it makes sense that we try to understand inhumane behaviors through psychological experiments, the truth appears plain that not everyone will follow orders to the detriment of others around them.