Lecture 7: Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) - Psych 112 - 2024

Lecture 7 The power-point slides for lecture should be read in conjunction with the video recording, ‘Quiet Rage’ (shown via blackboard and available from AV services, Central Library). This recording covers Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Additional and critical mat...

Lecture 7 The power-point slides for lecture should be read in conjunction with the video recording, ‘Quiet Rage’ (shown via blackboard and available from AV services, Central Library). This recording covers Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Additional and critical material relating to the SPE is discussed on pages 695-696 and p. 713 of the course text (Passer & Smith, 2019). The power-point slides and the information from the course text is examinable. https://video.alexanderstreet.com/p/082L8Ap6K The Stanford prison experiment is one of the most famous studies conducted in social psychology It was carried by Philip Zimbardo in the early 70’s Conducted in the basement of Stanford University’s Psychology Department The idea was to examine how social roles affected individual behaviour Zimbardo was especially interested in those who became a Guard or a Prisoner Advertised for male college students to take part in a 2 week day prison simulation Tested 75 participants to ensure they were all ‘mature, emotionally, stable, normal and intelligent’ 24 chosen who ‘were cream of the crop of this generation’ (Zimbardo et al. 1971, p. 153) Randomly assigned participants into guards and prisoners Study began when prisoners were arrested by members of the Palo Alto Police they were fingerprinted, blind folded, stripped naked, deloused and taken to a detention cell Cells were small 6 x 9 feet and held 3 people Prisoners forced to wear chains on one ankle, smocks without underwear, rubber sandals and a cap made from nylon stockings and given prison numbers Guards wore khaki uniforms, reflective sunglasses, carried a whistle and night stick and had to be referred to as ‘Mr Correctional Officer’ Zimbardo took on role of prison superintendent and Jaffe (his student) took the role of assistant warden  The SPE went through 3 distinct phases In the first phase there was a ‘settling in’ period Guards and prisoners were not fully into their roles The guards appeared ‘awkward’ and ‘uncomfortable’ with their roles The prisoners did not take their subordinate position seriously – made fun of the guards In the second phase the guards took their position of authority more seriously One participant was thrown into the hole (a punishment cell - 2 x 7 closet) This led to an emergent sense of shared grievance amongst the prisoners – they swore at the guards, refused to follow orders and barricaded themselves into their cells One claimed that ‘the time for revolution had come’ (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 61) In the third phase of the study the guards became galvanized They called for reinforcements – Broke into the barricaded cell, stripped the prisoners naked and forced the ring leader into the hole they began to harass and intimidate the prisoners tried to split the prisoners via divide and rule those not in the rebellion were given special privileges Over the next 4 days the guards became increasingly brutal – roll calls lasted hours - - - the prisoners were taunted, humiliated, made to do push ups, clean toilets with their bare hands and play homoerotic games (Haslam & Reicher, 2017) One suffered an emotional breakdown  6 days after starting, the study had to be stopped “at the end we had to close down our mock prison because what we saw was frightening… In less than a week: the experience of imprisonment undid a lifetime of learning; human values were suspended, self-concepts were challenged, and the ugliest, most base pathological side of human nature surfaced. We were horrified we saw boys (guards) treat other boys as if they were despicable animals taking pleasure in cruelty, while other boys (prisoners) became servile, dehumanized robots” (Zimbardo et al. 1971). Guards and prisoners succumbed to roles as did Zimbardo “I began to talk, walk and act like a authority figure, more concerned with the security of my prison than the needs of the young men entrusted into my care… I consider the extent to which I was transformed to be the most profound measure of the power of the situation’ (Zimbardo, 2004). The Stanford Prison Experiment has been cited thousands of times, the SPE website is visited over 3,000 times a day and has inspired several feature films (Das Experiment, 2001, The Experiment, 2010, and the Stanford Prison Experiment 2015) The study suggests that ordinary people can be transformed by their immediate context to perform brutal acts. This idea is pervasive Browning’s (1992) book Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 – documents how ordinary men succumbed to a system that was ‘alone a sufficient condition to produce’ the murder of 38,000 Jews in 1942-1943. The torture of prisoners in Abu Gharib (Baghdad, 2003) – 2000 assaults in Naru detention centre (2013-2015), police violence in the US.  Critique Zimbardo claimed that ‘brutality’ was a natural consequence of becoming a guard. However, he created demand characteristics … ‘a script of terror’ ‘You can … create a sense of fear.. That their life is totally controlled by us’ (Zimbardo 1989) “We can create a sense of frustration. We can create fear in them. We can take away their individuality … at no time will anybody call them by their name … all this should create a sense of powerlessness” (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 55). Suggested push-ups as a good punishment and suggested putting grass burrs in the prisoners blankets (Bregman, 2020). The fact that Zimbardo didn’t intervene suggested to the guards that what they were doing was right - the guards may have responded to a range of cues and demands embedded in the SPE’s design? Where the participants normal college students? The assistant warden David Jaffe drafted 11 of the 17 guidelines used by the guards, spent 6 hours briefing guards and was thanked for his ‘sado-creative ideas’ (Bregman, 2020). Carnahan and Macfarland (2007) sought to investigate if there was anything unusual bout the type of person who volunteers to participate in a study like the SPE. Compared personality profile of people who agreed to ‘take part in a study on prison life’ Those who agreed to take part were more Authoritarian, Machiavellian, Narcissistic and Socially Dominant. they were also less Empathetic and Altruistic  Only a third of the guards who took part became sadistic towards the prisoners One third were kind, the other third were fair, one resigned because he couldn’t go through with it. Recent audio recordings suggest that some of the guards saw themselves as research assistants (Bregman, 2020) Jaffe “you have to get involved, be what we call a tough guard… Its really important for the workings of the experiment…” Guard “I’am not too tough… I’m sorry if it was up to me I wouldn’t do anything” Lovibond et al. (1979) conducted a prison study in Australia under Democratic, Participatory or Authoritarian conditions In the first two the guards were instructed to treat the prisoners with respect and include them in the decision making process --- in such circumstances the prison regime was benign and tolerant --- in the Authoritarian condition the guards behaviour became toxic  The BBC prison study – conducted by Reicher and Haslam (2006) Examined the behaviour of men assigned to prisoner and guard roles over 2 weeks Reicher and Haslam did not take any role in the running of the prison and did not tell the guards what to do The study was overseen by an ethics committee The guards disagreed amongst themselves about their roles – one suggested sharing food with the prisoners to boost morale - another that ‘he would rather be a prisoner’ - another that ‘they discuss problems like … human beings’ the prisoners developed a shared sense of identity and resisted the guards the guards became disillusioned, the prisoners developed a sense of efficacy.  Guards don’t necessarily become nasty --- Prisoners don’t necessarily become disillusioned People don’t automatically take on roles – they need to identify with them. People will only accept roles when they are incorporated into their sense of self. For the low status group (i.e., prisoners) this shared sense of identity can allow them to resist oppression rather than succumb to it. For the high status group (i.e., guards) a shared sense of identity can lead to brutality when it is promoted by a tyrannical leader (e.g., Zimbardo). Zimbardo’s use of the terms ‘we’ ‘us’ ‘they’ and ‘their’ - created a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’ Positions himself as part of the Guard’s ingroup, standing with them against the Prisoners (Haslam et al. 2019). As he said in an interview in 1972 “I trained the guards and said look, this is a serious situation, we’re in this together and it’s you and I and us and the people of California versus the prisoners’” (cited in Le Texier, 2018). This sense of ‘us’ and ‘them combined with exhortations to control and create fear in the prisoners encourages toxic behaviour in the guards.  Conclusion We need to move beyond the question of whether cruelty is a disposition or context Certain kinds of people may be attracted to certain kinds of contexts Once there they may be drawn to certain kinds of activities There is an interaction between person and context that leads to tyranny and resistance This interaction is dynamic in that - context’s transform individuals and individuals transform context through their capacity to represent, lead and mobilize people. People have the capacity to support tyranny or resist it.