By: Tharuneeka J.
Testing a hypothesis through an experiment requires several trials and/or days. But, what happens if it’s cut short due to the outcome? The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbaro and his team from Stanford University was put into place on August 14th, 1971. Although the experiment was supposed to run for 2 weeks, it abruptly ended on Day 6. Their purpose was to conclude whether guards in prisons were violent based on their own personalities or if it was because of the experimental prison environment. Every participant, either assigned the role of a guard or inmate, was paid $15 daily.
To recruit willing participants, an advertisement was placed where 75 people offered to participate in the experiment. For an unbiased result between healthy and non-violent participants, all the participants underwent interviews and tests to eliminate those with any medical/psychological disorders or had a history of addiction and/or crime. Of the 75, only 24 men had clean records and were determined mentally and medically stable. However, after 3 men dropped out and/or held back, 21 men were split into 11 guards and 10 inmates.
With the participants set, the experiment began its trial. To give the experiment a sense of reality, the “inmates” were arrested by real police officers without a warning in advance. In accordance, their belongings were taken away from them, their clothes were replaced with prison uniforms, the “guards” didn’t address the “inmates” by their real names but by their numbers and the guards wore uniforms, complete with shades, whistles, and batons. It was observed that the guards resorted to harassment upon the prisoners within a few hours by waking them up with the shrill noises of their whistles to assert discipline. Additional forms of abuse were performed by the guards, such as prisoners being forced to do unnecessary physical labor and continuous insults. Taking a more drastic measure, guards confined many in solitary as disciplinary action.
The guards abused their authority, and hurt others, but it was thought that the prisoners developed Stockholm Syndrome, as they remained obedient. Prisoner #8612, Douglas Korpi, was one of many that were confined in solitary. He began to suffer from acute emotional disturbance within 36 hours of the experiment and became inconsolable, cried and begged to be released. While he was told to pretend he was okay, the inmate told the other prisoners, “You can’t leave. You can’t quit.” Referring to the experiment, it gave others the sense of entrapment, assuming that they were stuck in this experiment forever, violating many ethical issues involved in psychological experiments. His continued rage forced Zimbaro’s team to pull him from the experiment. After Korpi left, the prisoners were allowed to meet their parents/family the following day. To avoid concerns from family members visiting, the prison finally allowed the inmates to clean up after themselves, played music to lighten up the mood, and fed them special meals. Similar to Korpi, Prisoner #819 was allowed to rest in a separate area with his chain and uniform removed. When the prisoner was given the opportunity to leave, he refused. He couldn’t recognize his experimental situation and forgot his identity before the experiment. Zimbaro was moved to remind the prisoner that this was merely an experiment and his own identity.
The results of this experiment resulted with those in power abusing their authority and the oppressed/inferior people with less power in vulnerable conditions. Whereas, the inferior group would eventually develop mental distress or psychological disorders. The inmates became more submissive, while the guards became more aggressive. Deindividuation was a possible cause for the outcome of the short fell experiment. Every guard and inmates’ identity was lost as they continued to spend more time with each other. The guards lost their sense of civilization and humanity as they committed cruel deeds because deindividuation is known to limit self reflection, hence, guards felt no guilt.
References:
McLeod, Saul. “Zimbardo - Stanford prison experiment”. Simply Psychology, 2020, www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
"6. Grievances — Stanford Prison Experiment". Stanford Prison Experiment, https://www.prisonexp.org/grievances.
Martin, Ryan. "The Power Of A Situation: Prisoner 819 Did A Bad Thing". Virtual Museum Of Psychology, 2016, https://psychmuseum.uwgb.org/social/stanfordprison/.
Nickerson, Charlotte. “What is deindividuation in psychology? definition and examples”. Simply Psychology, 2021, www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-deindividuation.html
Yoo, Dongjun. "Stockholm Syndrome Explained By The Stanford Prison Experiment » The Nerve Blog | Blog Archive | Boston University". Sites.Bu.Edu, 2014, https://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2014/10/29/stockholm-syndrome-explained-by-the-stanford-prison-experiment/.
Comentarios