462. The truth about the Stanford Prison Experiment

0:04 Hello everybody, I'm Gemma Spake and welcome back to the Psychology of Your 20s, the podcast where we talk through the biggest changes, moments and transitions of our 20s and what they mean for our psychology. Hello everybody, welcome back to the show. Welcome back to the podcast. It's so great to have you here back for another mini bonus episode of the show. which is part of our Debunking Psychology series. If you are new to this series, twice a month, we take a common psychological theory, an idea, a term, a concept that has been, I would say, a little bit misconstrued by the internet or by online chatter.

0:51 And we basically go about setting the record straight. These are concepts and ideas that might not be able to, you know, be part of a one hour long episode, but is still really, really crucial and really, really important. I at least think to know and to know the details of correctly. So far we have done myths about the brain. We've done the theories in life of Sigmund Freud.

1:17 What else? Stockholm syndrome, personality tests, narcissism. And today we are going to do the Stanford prison experiment. This is our first time during the series. zeroing in on one specific study, and I think we chose a really, really good one. There have been countless movies, countless TV shows, countless documentaries about this experiment. It is in practically every single psychology textbook under the sun. But what actually happened?

1:47 How many of us truly know the details of this study, how it came to be, how it came to end, and the legacy? You may have also heard in the news that that Netflix is planning on doing a new version of the experiment as a reality TV show. And I thought, you know what? If they're thinking of doing that, it might be time to go back and examine why that's probably not a good idea. No hate to Netflix.

2:15 Of course, you can't bite the hand that feeds you and all that. But I just felt like a psychological history lesson seemed rather So without further ado, let's get into the Stanford Prison Experiment in all of its glory. So to start at the very, very beginning, after World War II, there was this weird period of time where psychologists just seemed to have a lot of permission to just do the most outrageous experiments if it meant that we could understand better how Nazism happened, how this level of authoritarianism and violence and genocide occurred. People really wanted to know. We wanted answers about evil. We wanted to know how evil happened and how ordinary people ended up doing things that we always thought they wouldn't do. Essentially,

3:17 people wanted to know, is this capacity to do awful things in all of us or were these just really awful people. So the Stanford Prison Experiment was one kind of such study that was trying to figure that out. And it was led by a man named Philip Zimbardo. He was a social psychologist at Stanford. And he was really focused in a broader sense on ideas of persuasion, de-individuation, the psychology of the mob mentality, the psychology of evil. Basically, he just wanted to understand, as everybody did at that time, How do good people do bad things or were they even good people to begin with? So this particular study took place in August 1971 and it was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research. So the military. And

4:09 what they were really interested in was antisocial behavior, particularly in military prisons and in authority structures. According to the Stanford Prison Experiment Archive, The original purpose of the study was to understand how norms, roles, labels, uniforms, social expectations create a prison environment, even when everything should be going well. Basically, what makes a prison? Is it just four walls or is it what is expected of people within it? Like I said, this experiment was very, very of its time.

4:47 Around the same time, there was another very famous set of studies by Stanley Milgram called where they were like called, I can't remember what they were exactly called, but they were basically studies on obedience. And in these studies, the very ordinary people had very shockingly administered what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to random people because an authority figure had told them to. And the psychology community was like, that can't possibly be right. How could this happen? Let's, we want to test this in some different environments. So Zimbardo, the creator or the founder of the Stanford Prison Experiment, wanted to go above and beyond. And he wanted to really look at what happens when one group is given

5:32 power and another group is stripped of it. And then both groups are placed into an institution designed around control. So this is how they got participants to take place in this study. Because I think if I saw newspaper ad that said, we want to put you in a simulated prison environment for, I don't know how long, two weeks and see what happens to you. And also you might be a prisoner, you might be a guard. We can't really tell you at this stage. I would probably be like, I'm not that desperate for money. I'm okay.

6:10 But a lot of people, a lot of men in the kind of Palo Alto community were interested. They advertised in this paper, the two papers, the Stanford Daily and the Palo Alto Times, and they said, all right, we're going to give you $ 15 a day, which is about $ 120 a day now, if you come and participate in this study. And they targeted specifically male college students. More than 70 people applied. They then interviewed those 70 people and they excluded people on the basis of medical problems, psychological difficulties, criminal records, all of that stuff. And what was left were 24 young men, mostly healthy, mostly middle class, all Ivy League college students. And then they randomly assigned them to either be a prisoner or a prison guard.

6:58 The random assignment in this situation was very, very critical. Zimbardo's argument was that the two groups were not fundamentally different to begin with. These people were all quite similar. These people weren't particularly sadistic. One group wasn't particularly dominant. The other group wasn't particularly submissive. They were randomly assigned, but he believed that when they were put into a specific role, that they would inhabit that role. And when specifically they were put into a position of authority, they would gladly take that authority regardless of their initial kind of temperament. So this mock prison, where was it built?

7:39 It wasn't at a prison. It was in the Stanford psychology department. And what they did was they, closed off the lab rooms. They basically closed off a whole corridor of the building and they made the rooms on that corridor cells. And then the corridor was the prison yard. They even had a small closet. They called it the hole.

7:59 It was solitary confinement. There were no windows, there were no clocks. And the researchers used cameras and they used intercoms to kind of monitor what was happening inside. The other thing they did, which I was like, that seems... like Zimbardo really, he really wanted to make this seem very real for the participants was that they literally arrested them.

8:23 So these people were not, again, they weren't criminals. They were random college students who had agreed and were getting paid to do the study. And they were kind of told like, you just show up at this time and then we'll get started. And for the people who he designed prisoners, he kind of tricked them. What he actually did was he sent out a number of, um, police cars.

8:44 And he kind of got the local police force in on the study. And he was like, I want you to arrest these people. And then I want you to read them their rights. I want you to search them. I want you to take them to the police station. I want you to blindfold them. And then we'll take it from here. And the prisoners slash the participants had no idea that was happening. Then they got to the experiment.

9:07 They got to the fake prison. They were searched again. They They were given smocks to wear without underwear. They were assigned identification numbers. They were made to wear a stocking cap over their hair. So it kind of made it look like they had a shaved head. He really was, he was really getting into this simulation of the prison.

9:30 He really wanted it to feel like you were stripped of your identity. You were being humiliated. You were being controlled and you were ultimately powerless. I want to really remind you of this quickly. This study was approved by an ethics board. He went to an ethics board and said, hey guys, here's my plan. What do you think? And they were like, yeah, all right, sounds fine. And that was only like 50 odd years ago. There are people who are involved in this study who are very much still alive one of them is ironically a very well-known prison reform advocate now and he was in his 20s when this took place so whilst all of that was happening with the prisoners the guards they wore uniforms they carry batons they wore mirrored sunglasses They worked in shifts.

10:21 So the prisoners had to be there day and night. The guards got to leave. They rotated in and out. And they were essentially instructed to keep peace, keep order. They are in charge of this fake institution. The simulation, let's just say, it became very intense very quickly. The participants were very distressed. They displayed symptoms. a lot of symptoms of distress. That's important to say displayed because we're going to get into that a little bit later. They were obviously very anxious. Some of them even appeared to have emotional breakdowns and the guards became really, really punitive.

11:04 They really did start to humiliate the participants. They just started to disrupt and deprive them of sleep. They became very insistent on very arbitrary rules and it quickly became apparent that it was a bit of a mess. Like this was really going the way that they expected, but a lot faster than they expected it to. The craziest part of this, this study was supposed to last two weeks.

11:33 These people were paid for 14 days. It ended after just six. When the experiment is reported, often it's that the guards became so abusive and the prisoners became so distressed that Zimbardo He just put a stop to the experiment. That is only partly true. Zimbardo himself had actually taken on the role of a prison superintendent. He was not just observing from the outside at a detached kind of distance.

12:02 He wasn't just watching through the cameras. He had actually positioned himself within the institution that he had created. How the experiment ended in actual fact was that this woman, her name was Christina Maslach. She was a PhD at the time. Later, she became Zimbardo's wife, which is another thing.

12:21 But she was visiting him at work, I guess. And she was visiting the experiment and she walked in and she was so disturbed by what she saw that in the moment she challenged Zimbardo directly and was essentially like, you don't know what you have created. This is a terrible idea. This is completely unethical. You need to stop.

12:47 And she kind of cut through a lot of the male ego as like this voice of reason. This is where the Stanford Prison Experiment really gets its notoriety as being more than just a study and actually about the ethics of research itself, right? It is so shocking that this was allowed to happen. I think that's why people are so fascinated by it. One of the biggest ethical criticisms of this study is that participants were exposed to significant psychological harm. A lot of the participants became very distressed, despondent, scared.

13:20 And yeah, they technically agreed to be part of the study. They were paid. But would they have agreed if they knew the full extent of it? What they realized afterwards when people were analyzing and reading into the study protocol was that Zimbardo didn't really properly inform them. He didn't really tell them the extent to what they were going to endure. And so he actually didn't obtain informed consent.

13:43 And that is one of the most critical things you need to obtain, you need to have before you conduct any kind of psychological experimentation. There was also that huge conflict in roles. As I mentioned, Zimbardo was both the lead researcher and he himself was playing a role in the fake prison. He was the prison superintendent, meaning that the person responsible for protecting the participants was also invested in maintaining the prison simulation and and also was very, very susceptible to getting carried away and experiencing the same kind of behavioral changes that he was trying to observe in other people as a neutral party, as a neutral researcher.

14:30 So it really, really blurred the lines between observation and participation. I don't know whether he included this in his ethics application or To be honest, again, I don't know how the heck this got approved, but I would assume that that would be a major, major red flag if a researcher is also essentially experimenting on themselves as they experiment on other people. Even afterwards, Zimbardo kind of never fully took responsibility for what happened. He did become quite a strong research ethics advocate, but kind of in the way of like, look at this, I became such, I was a victim. Like, Can you see that if this happened to me, this could happen to anyone. We need people to tell us not to do this stuff. And people

15:13 are kind of like, I think most people know, most people don't want to play prison with a bunch of people who they have authority over and they don't, you know what I mean? Like, I think a lot of people know not to do that and to not give people weapons and to not arrest them in the middle of the night. We don't really need a big higher power body to tell us that, but I guess he said we do. The study was also subject to a few controversies around its method as well. For decades, the Stanford Prison Experiment was treated as this prime example of how people internalize oppressive roles. Anybody could do this. You and me, if we were put in the same position, this would happen to us. Give someone the role of guard,

16:05 they will quickly become a god. They will quickly become cruel. Later though, scholars kind of argued that the interpretation of this was way too simple. Firstly, the study was done on exclusively Ivy League men who were, let's be real, probably more likely than the average person to be a bit of a rule follower, right? They got into Stanford.

16:26 There was obviously some kind of rule and some kind of plan and some kind of system that they understood and that they played by. further 2019 paper um that also examined a lot of the deeper archives and interviews claimed that there was also evidence that the researchers not just Zimbardo but some of the other researchers who were present were encouraging a certain kind of behavior they were trying to create a certain kind of result and so as a result of that they got a lot of like people did behave with cruelty. They did behave sometimes with punitive violence. But were they doing that because that was their natural instinct? Or were they doing that because there were these people saying, this is what we expect

17:12 to see, deliver that. This is what we want you to do. This is what we thought you would happen. And that's not happening, so you're disappointing us. Basically, were the expectations of the researchers actually shifting the results? If you put somebody in a lab coat in a room who has authority to If it was a researcher or a lecturer and you are just a student, are you just going to follow along with what they are saying?

17:36 Because you yourself are worried about some kind of form of punishment. Something else really interesting is also seen in how the participants responded after the study, a few years down the line. And I want to talk about that after this short break. So Zimbardo says, After this study came out and after people were a little bit shocked to say the least, he argued that there was no evidence of long-term harm. He was like, nothing, these guys were fine. They went home, they had some food, they were good. Like they knew it was an experiment. Everything was happy and all was well. What a lot of people point out is that how would he know? Because something that Zimbardo didn't do was that he didn't properly

18:28 debrief his participants. The prisoner's accounts post-study actually highlight a really complex mix of genuine distress and also performed distress that confused them and made them really question what kind of people they were. On one hand, some of the men were truly messed up by the environment. Imagine being stripped of your name, forced into a uniform, And then when you finally look a researcher in the eye and you ask to go home, they tell you no. There was a part of this that was a little bit of a hostage imprisonment situation. And that creates a very terrifying feeling of helplessness. And for a few of these guys, that anxiety and that resentment lasted for years. They felt like they were genuinely trapped in a lawless society. They

19:18 felt like, I cannot believe that at an institution like Stanford, this was allowed to take place. But on the other hand, some of these men basically said, I was just performing. I was just performing. Really, I didn't feel anything. I was just doing what I was told to do. And people are really torn between whether they are telling the truth or whether they are just saying that because some part of their humanity, their personality, their sense of self was revealed to them and they didn't like it. It's a lot easier to say, I was just playing the role that was assigned to me. I knew it was fake the whole time rather than, oh no, like I really fell under the trance and what this revealed about me was something that I didn't really like. So there's

20:09 an example of this that I think is important. That is the example of this man called Douglas Corpy. So in the original recordings of the study, his reaction was probably one of the most famous. He was captured screaming. He was having a hysterical breakdown on the audio tapes. Those audio tapes went like the equivalent of viral back in 1970. A lot of people heard them. Years later, though, he said, no, I was fine. I wasn't having a psychotic break. I was just playing pretend. He essentially said, you know, I was a college kid. My exams are coming up. I kind of realized that, oh, I probably can't be here for two weeks. I need to study.

20:46 But because the researchers wouldn't let him leave, he realized his only ticket out was to put on a massive performance. He literally said, like, I just needed to make sure that the clinicians believed that I was going crazy so I could get out of there. That's a tricky thing because that does show what people will do when they are in a situation they don't want to be in.

21:12 They will perform and act the way that we want them to, but it also kind of undercuts, I don't know, it's complicated because then the fact that he knew he was acting means that we probably know that the guards maybe did also feel and know that they were acting a little bit. So how much of the behavior was real versus performed? How much of it as well was, again, the social desirability effect. Before and after, I'm acting this way to make somebody happy, i.e. the researchers, and then afterwards, I'm telling a certain narrative of how I felt in the experiment so that I can keep up the facade of the reality I want to believe. That being, no, I didn't go crazy, I'm actually totally fine, or no,

21:56 I'm not actually evil, I was just performing because it was an experiment. So would we get the same results today? maybe not. I think that's what everybody is interested in watching when this Netflix series comes out. Like these people know they're being filmed. Are we going to see the same reactions? I also think this study, the original had 24 male college students as a participants. They were the same age. They were, I'm pretty sure all of them or the majority of them were white. They were relatively affluent and there was no control group. There was no control group. So People say, and I think this is a fair point, we look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, we think it says something deeper about humanity. In some respect,

22:35 it does. But it really just says something deeper about that part of humanity. One of the big challenges that people bring up is why and how would this study change if women were involved? The whole reason the study ended was because a woman walked in and was like, this is... ridiculous this is crazy like what are you doing so if we were to do a similar study with all women would we see the same results if we were to do a similar study with people who weren't in college or people who were older or people who were from different backgrounds would we see the same things people have tried and it's been very difficult to replicate the original findings of Zimbardo's study Primarily as well because nobody wants us to do that again. So the

23:29 ethics hurdles that need to be crossed over are just too high for somebody to do this study exactly as it was done in the past once more. For Zimbardo, the legacy of this study was basically his entire legacy. He continued to write about it. He continued to speak about it. He continued to give the study as an example of the widespread... availability or presence of evil and institutional behavior, he didn't ever really acknowledge that he had maybe done the wrong thing. He would write these long articles and these long rebuttals that in the end, yes, his experiment may or may not have harmed people, but it was worth it. It was worth it because we learned so much. It was worth it because that is

24:18 a study that could never be done again. Nobody would allow it. So thank God we did it at least once. And we tried it and we saw what we could find. Some people have argued that maybe he's right. Maybe a study like that had to be done in order for psychology and in order for these scientific communities to be like, we can't just do any experiment we want to do.

24:45 We need to have rules. We need to have guidelines. We needed experiments like this one and like the obedience studies to veer us back onto a safe, nice path. I don't know, I feel like maybe we didn't, but whatever you think of the study, it does have a huge cultural legacy. Firstly, it led to a great deal of prison reform discussions. As I said, one of the men involved is now a huge prison reform advocate, probably because he saw with his own two eyes how toxic this could become. And it massively popularized the concept of situational power and the idea that ordinary people placed in a powerful institution or situation, can behave in ways that we never would have predicted. When we think about dictators, billionaires,

25:29 tech AI geniuses who these days seem like hell-bent on destroying the world and being powerful and being important, and everybody says they were once these nice innocent kids, they never would have heard a fly. Is this what's happening? Is there a level of power that no human should ever have access to, no matter what, because it will turn them into... a bit of a beast? Or are some people just born bad? Were these people always going to be like that regardless of the money or the power that they had access to? It's a big debate.

26:00 And that's why I think people continue to be fascinated by this study because of what it says about us and the lingering question we all have, which is, what would I have done? What would I have done really if I was in that study? We all think that we'd be able to stand up and say, this is really wrong. Let's stop this right now. We all think that we wouldn't succumb to the power trip. But I'm sure many of those men thought that as well. And a lot of those guys would have thought, that never would be me. How could Nazism happen? How could people do such evil things? And then it seems as if they were doing evil things. Even if they pretend or they say they were acting, the situation still created that

26:44 reaction of needing to act. Personally, this might sound controversial, but if we could do away with all of the ethical concerns, I would like to see this study done on women. Really, I would. I think it would have happened very, very differently. It's never going to happen. But if there was another, like, but if they did, I think it would be really interesting to see whether this is, everyone could be, everyone who was in this situation could act this way, or whether it is Men, specifically of a certain age and a certain demographic, who will act this way. And of a certain ambition level, should I say.

27:28 If we had a bunch of women or a bunch of people who perhaps weren't that hell-bent on being successful or being a good student, would we see the same thing? I don't know. I guess we'll never know. I would love to see it. I'll be watching that Netflix show if it ever happens. very closely because I think, yeah, I think it will, I don't know, I think it will bring about a lot of conclusions that were left open-ended by this study, like the performance element, the social desirability element, and the gendered element as well. That is all I have time for. Thank you for listening. If you liked this debunking psychology episode and you like episodes that have a bit more history to them, we have a whole Spotify playlist that of these kinds of episodes

28:14 for you to binge. There's episodes on personality tests, Freud, Stockholm syndrome, dopamine, narcissism. I have, there's just so much there. Honestly, I always, I get to that, I get to like five and I forget all the other ones we've done, but I will leave a link in the description. I would very much recommend you check it out. Thank you to our researcher Libby for her assistance with this episode.

28:36 Make sure that you are following us on Instagram at that psychology podcast. If you want more content like this, Or you can follow us on Substack. And if you haven't yet, press subscribe, press follow wherever you are listening. And please leave us a five-star review if you learned even one thing from today's episode or if you feel called to do so. And until next time, be safe, be kind, be gentle to yourself. We will talk very, very soon.