Zimbardo's Study of Conformity to Social Roles
The Stanford Prison Experiment
On August 14, 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which individuals conform to social roles and the reasons behind such conformity. He designed an experiment wherein he built a mock prison and invited “normal,” law-abiding citizens to participate. Participants were randomly assigned, by a flip of a coin, to either the role of a guard or a prisoner. Zimbardo offered to pay them $15 a day to take part in the study.
Seventy-five male students volunteered to participate. After a series of psychological tests and background checks, Zimbardo selected 24 participants. Nine would act as guards, nine as prisoners, and the remaining individuals would be on-call if needed. The guards would work in groups of three for 8-hour shifts, while the prisoners would remain in the prison throughout the experiment, with three individuals in each cell.
Although guards were not given formal training, they were provided with basic instructions and were allowed, within limits, to maintain law and order in the prison. Additionally, they were briefed on the potential risks they might encounter in the simulated prison environment, similar to real prison guards.
Day 1 - The Arrest
The Palo Alto Police unexpectedly arrested the nine prisoners at their homes for burglary and armed robbery. They were handcuffed, searched, and transported to the police station with sirens blaring. Upon arrival, they were booked in, had their fingerprints taken, and were read their rights before being placed in a holding cell, still blindfolded.
While still blindfolded, they were transferred from the police station to Stanford University, where a mock prison had been constructed in the basement for processing and booking. One by one, they were subjected to searches, stripped naked, and deloused in an attempt to humiliate and dehumanize them. They were then issued their uniform, consisting only of a dress with no underclothes. Each uniform bore a number, which the prisoners were to be referred to by. Additionally, a chain was fastened to their right ankle, serving as a constant reminder of their captivity even while sleeping or moving about. Rather than having their heads shaved, they were given caps made from stockings. Loose-fitting sandals completed their attire. These measures aimed to dehumanize, demasculinize, and embarrass them quickly, simulating the process that might occur over an extended period in a real prison. The change in appearance immediately affected their behavior and demeanor.
The guards also wore uniforms, consisting of khaki attire, and carried large billy clubs. A whistle hung around their necks, and they wore reflective sunglasses to conceal their eyes from the prisoners, adding to their sense of authority and anonymity.
Each cell housed three prisoners, with the corridor serving as their yard. Additionally, there was a closet designated as “The Hole” for solitary confinement.
Day 2 - The Rebellion
Prisoners were roused at 2:30 am for frequent roll calls, intended to reinforce their identification with their assigned numbers. Push-ups were utilized as punishment for any infractions. Although initially calm as both prisoners and guards adapted to their new social roles, the prisoners later initiated rebellion. They discarded their caps and identification numbers, refused to eat in the yard, and barricaded themselves in their cells.
In response, the guards escalated their tactics, with reinforcements brought in to quell the uprising. They deployed fire extinguishers to disperse the prisoners, forcibly stripped them naked, removed their cots, and confined the ringleaders to “The Hole.” Feeling the need to maintain order, the guards believed that stricter measures earlier might have prevented the rebellion. They also recognized the impracticality of sustaining a high level of guard presence indefinitely.
To exert psychological pressure, the guards implemented tactics such as a creating privileged cell, where selected prisoners were provided with clothing, beds, and meals. This was designed to sow discord among the prisoners, erode trust, and foster suspicion of informants. After approximately 12 hours, those in the privileged cells were swapped with other prisoners, further fragmenting group cohesion. Inhumane treatment, such as denying toilet privileges or requiring prisoners to use buckets in their cells, was imposed on those deemed “bad prisoners.”
Just 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner 8612 exhibited signs of distress and, following a discussion with Zimbardo, was granted release from the prison. Zimbardo’s role began to resemble that of a prison superintendent more than that of a detached experimenter, with a growing concern for the well-being of the participants.
Day 3 - Visiting Hours and The Break In
Day 3 proved to be eventful, as it was designated visiting hours. The entire event was orchestrated to portray the prison in the most favourable light possible. Prisoners were thoroughly cleaned, groomed, and instructed to tidy their cells. They were also provided with food. Strict rules were enforced during interactions with visitors, with discussions held in the presence of guards. Although some visitors voiced concerns, they ultimately complied. One parent questioned her son’s appearance of fatigue but refrained from causing any disruption.
Rumours circulated that Prisoner 8612 was feigning his breakdown and planned to return with his friends to expose the study and facilitate a breakout. Zimbardo and his colleagues devised two plans in response. Initially, they sought assistance from the local police station to house the prisoners, but this option was deemed unfeasible due to insurance constraints.
Instead, Zimbardo blindfolded the prisoners and relocated them to an alternate location within the university building while his team dismantled the mock prison. Zimbardo personally awaited Prisoner 8612 in the room to confront him and inform him of the experiment’s termination. However, the rumoured escape attempt proved to be unfounded, and no breakout occurred. A colleague of Zimbardo entered the room and asked Zimbardo “What is your independent variable” which angered Zimbardo. This showed how committed he was to his experiment as he showed more concern about the break-in and his prisoners over the experiment itself.
Day 4 - Prisoner 819 Did a Bad Thing
The guards reacted strongly to the rumored escape attempt, intensifying their punishments with increased roll calls, longer periods of push-ups, and menial tasks such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands.
On the same day, a priest was invited to assess the realism of the prison environment. He engaged with all but one prisoner, who responded with their assigned numbers rather than their names. The priest queried each prisoner, “Son, what are you doing to get out of here?” leading to discussions about legal assistance. Participants responded in a way which showed how strongly they conformed to the role of a prisoner.
Prisoner 819, who had clashed with the guards and initiated a hunger strike, refused to engage with the priest. Expressing a desire to speak with a doctor, he eventually broke down during a conversation with Zimbardo. Zimbardo directed him to the relaxation room, where he would receive food and medical attention. Later, chants from the prisoners echoed through the facility, repeating “Prisoner 819 did a bad thing” in unison. Upon returning to find 819 in tears and expressing a desire to return to the experiment to prove himself, Zimbardo reminded both 819 and himself of the experimental nature of the study. He reassured 819 that he was free to leave and would be released.
Day 5 - The Parole Board
On this day, any prisoner who believed they had a valid reason for parole could file an appeal. Chained together and blindfolded, they were escorted to the parole board. Each prisoner was asked if they would forgo any payment for their participation in the experiment in exchange for release, with all but two agreeing. They were informed that their requests would be considered, and they returned to their cells in a subdued manner. Despite voluntarily signing up for the experiment, the new sense of realism raised questions about their motivations to stay, especially considering their agreement to forgo payment. What was in it for the participants to stay?
Prisoners coped with the frustrations of prison life in various ways. By the end of the experiment, four had been released due to breakdowns, while others complied meticulously with the guards’ orders. The once-cohesive group of prisoners had now become deindividualized. Meanwhile, the guards had settled into routines, exhibiting different attitudes ranging from fairness to hostility towards the prisoners. It became evident that the guards held control over the prison environment.
Later that evening, visitors arrived once more, with some parents requesting Zimbardo to contact a lawyer to secure their son’s release from the experiment. A lawyer was summoned to speak with the prisoners. This further heightened the realism of the experiment, prompting Zimbardo to recognize the need to terminate it. The creation of the prison environment had led to the perpetuation of suffering. Despite some guards displaying compassion they failed to intervene in the cruelties inflicted upon the prisoners. Others were emboldened by their newfound power.
Day 6 - Liberation
A series of encounter groups were organized involving both guards and prisoners, including those who had been released. Subsequently, all participants, including staff members, convened for a final meeting. During this gathering, reflections were shared regarding their behaviours and aspirations for the future.
The following day, on August 20th, the mock prison was officially closed down and dismantled.
Conclusion
The guards and prisoners swiftly conformed to their assigned roles within the experiment. Notably, Zimbardo and his team also became entrenched in their roles, foregoing their roles as objective experimenters. Zimbardo argued that this phenomenon illustrated how social roles can profoundly influence human behaviour, demonstrating that even individuals regarded as well-mannered members of society can exhibit behaviours and attitudes incongruent with their typical demeanour when placed in certain roles
Validity
Zimbardo’s experiment demonstrated strong internal validity due to its controlled nature. He maintained a degree of control over the prison environment and the behaviors of both inmates and guards. Additionally, the random allocation of participants to the roles of prisoners and guards enhances confidence in the experiment’s internal validity.
However, the experiment’s ecological validity and external validity are subject to criticism. Despite attempts to create a realistic prison environment, limitations such as the small size of the prison and the simultaneous arrival of all participants detract from its real-world applicability. The use of non-authentic uniforms, aimed at expediting the dehumanization process, further compromises its ecological validity.
Critics like Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argue that participants may have merely acted as ‘well-played actors,’ aware of the experiment’s objectives and potentially influenced by demand characteristics. Some participants even cited cultural references like John Wayne as influencing their behaviors, suggesting a degree of role-playing. Zimbardo contends that the majority of conversations focused on prison life, refuting claims of mere role-playing. However, the potential for observer bias, particularly given Zimbardo’s deep involvement in the experiment, cannot be overlooked.
Overall, while the Stanford prison experiment offers valuable insights into the power of social roles, its limitations underscore the need for cautious interpretation and consideration of potential biases.
Dispositional Factors
Fromm (1973) contends that Zimbardo’s emphasis on the power of situational factors may overlook the influence of dispositional traits, particularly individual personalities. Fromm suggests that Zimbardo may have exaggerated his results, failing to adequately consider the diverse range of personalities among the guards. According to Fromm’s analysis, approximately one-third of the guards exhibited fairness and kindness, even providing cigarettes to the prisoners. Another third displayed more hostile behaviours. This raises the question: is it the assigned role itself that predominantly determines behaviour, or are there specific personality traits that predispose individuals to behave in certain ways within different social roles?
Social Identity Theory
Tajfel’s social identity theory offers a compelling framework for understanding the behaviours observed in the Stanford prison experiment. Initially, both guards and prisoners formed cohesive social identities within their respective roles. This sense of identity fostered unity among group members.
However, when prisoners rebelled, this served to unite the guards further while simultaneously driving a wedge between the prisoners. The guards employed various techniques, such as creating privileged cells, to undermine the prisoners’ sense of shared identity and solidarity. Consequently, the cohesion among prisoners eroded, weakening their support for one another.
Interestingly, the opposite dynamics were observed in the BBC’s replication of the Stanford prison experiment study, suggesting the nuanced interplay of situational factors and group dynamics in shaping behaviour within social roles.
Supporting Evidence
Orlando’s experiment in 1973, where staff of a psychiatric ward were admitted as patients, provides further support for the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. Over the course of three days, the staff-turned-patients reported feelings of anxiety, depression, and a sense of isolation, echoing the experiences of the participants in Zimbardo’s study. This lends credence to the idea that social roles and environments can significantly impact individuals’ mental states and behaviors.
The parallels between prison and hospital environments prompt reflection on how we interact with inmates and patients and the potential psychological effects of these interactions. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of those in such settings can inform strategies for improving outcomes and ensuring the well-being of both staff and individuals under their care.
By considering the insights gained from both experiments, we can work towards creating environments that promote positive interactions, support mental health, and foster mutual understanding and respect between staff and those they serve.
This comparison underscores the broader implications of social psychological research in informing practices and interventions in various institutional settings.
Contradicting Evidence
The BBC’s replication of the Stanford prison experiment presents intriguing contrasts to Zimbardo’s original study. With a smaller group of 10 prisoners and 5 guards, the introduction of the possibility of promotion to guard for a prisoner on day 3 added a new dynamic to the social roles within the experiment.
Contrary to Zimbardo’s findings, where the guards quickly established dominance and the prisoners became submissive, in this replication, the prisoners strategically played up to the guards to improve their chances of promotion. However, once the promise of promotion was no longer a factor, the prisoners’ unity strengthened, leading to a rebellion on day 6, where they seized control and sought to lead the prison regime alongside the guards.
This shift in dynamics challenges Zimbardo’s assertion of fixed social roles and highlights the flexibility of roles within the context of the experiment. The experiment ended after 6 days due to signs of stress among participants.
However, criticisms have been raised regarding the authenticity of the participants’ behaviours, with some suggesting that they may have been influenced by the presence of cameras and the expectations of being filmed for television. The potential impact of demand characteristics on participant behaviour also warrants consideration in interpreting the results of the replication.
Overall, while the BBC’s replication offers valuable insights and challenges the findings of Zimbardo’s original study, it is essential to approach the interpretation of the results with caution, considering potential biases and methodological limitations.
Ethics
The ethical concerns surrounding Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment are indeed significant and have been subject to criticism. Participants in the study were subjected to various forms of humiliation, punishment, and psychological harm, including being stripped naked and woken up at random times. These conditions did not adequately protect participants from potential harm, and they were not provided with the right to withdraw from the study when they expressed a desire to leave. Zimbardo’s initial response to participants’ concerns about leaving the study further exacerbated these ethical issues, as he questioned their motives and attempted to persuade them to remain.
A key aspect of the ethical dilemma in the study revolves around Zimbardo’s role as both experimenter and superintendent of the simulated prison. While researchers have a duty of care to both their research and participants, Zimbardo’s immersion in the role of superintendent led to a neglect of his responsibilities as an experimenter. This imbalance was evident in his prioritization of the day-to-day operations of the prison over the ethical treatment of participants and the collection of meaningful research data. The episode involving the rumours of a break-in further highlights this imbalance, as Zimbardo’s response was driven more by concerns about the security of the experiment rather than the well-being of the participants.
In contrast, the BBC’s replication of the experiment demonstrated greater consideration for ethical standards. The experiment was halted early on the recommendation of the ethics committee, and participants were provided with a full debrief and access to counselling to address any psychological distress resulting from their participation. This approach reflects a more conscientious commitment to protecting the welfare of participants and upholding ethical standards in psychological research.
Overall, the ethical issues raised by Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment underscore the importance of careful consideration of participant welfare and ethical guidelines in conducting research involving human subjects. The contrasting approaches between Zimbardo’s study and the BBC’s replication highlight the evolving standards and increasing emphasis on ethical considerations in psychological research.