Experimental Psychology Zimbardo Prison Study

¶ … Experimental psychology [...] Zimbardo prison study and its implications in experimental and global psychology. The Zimbardo prison study was legendary in its time, and is still extremely valid today. The study, performed over one week during the summer of 1971, indicates that a psychology of good and evil exists in the prison environment, and it can lead to stress, psychopathic behavior, and violence even from those not prone to violence. The study began with newspaper ads recruiting college students to be prisoners for two weeks.

Twenty-four applicants were finally were approved for the study. They were divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, totally randomly. The actual "prison" was constructed in the basement of the Stanford psychology building, and it contained cells and a "yard" (actually a corridor) where the prisoners could exercise once each day. The researchers consulted law enforcement officers, ex-convicts, and other experts to make the entire prison experience as realistic as possible. The prison cells looked remarkably realistic; it even contained a "hole" or solitary confinement cell for prisoners who misbehaved.

The prison was equipped with video cameras so the researchers could record all the activities inside the prison, and it had an intercom system that allowed researchers to make prison-wide announcements, but also allowed them to listen in to what guards and prisoners were saying when they thought they were not being watched. There were no windows or clocks, which helped create an illusion of altered time, which seemed to add to the overall results of the experiment.

It is interesting to note that the prisoners were arrested by surprise, and were blindfolded during their trip to the mock prison, which seems more like a terrorist tactic today. In another humiliation technique, the prisoners were stripped naked, searched, and sprayed with an insecticide to "delouse" them as part of their booking process. In fact, photos in the Website slide show indicate this is a common booking procedure, but the humiliation and degradation of the practice is easy to see as well.

Prisoners wore identical prison uniforms of smocks with no underwear, wore a chain on one ankle, and stocking caps made of a woman's nylon stocking on their heads. They had no identity except their prison numbers stenciled on the front and back of their smocks. Zimbardo makes it clear that the intent of the treatment and uniforms was to humiliate and degrade the prisoners, so the guards could maintain control over them.

This is the main reason these practices go on in real prisons, and the study wanted to emulate these humiliation techniques as closely as possible. He notes in the study, "Real male prisoners don't wear dresses, but real male prisoners do feel humiliated and do feel emasculated. Our goal was to produce similar effects quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes" (Zimbardo).

The prisoners expected some harassment and humiliation when they volunteered, but as the study progressed, it became clear that a large gap was widening between the prisoners with no power and the guards who wielded all the power. The guard volunteers never received any guard training, so they were free to make up their own rules of conduct during the study. A warden, a grad student participating in the project, supervised them. The guards were not armed with firearms, but carried a whistle and a billy club.

They also wore identical uniforms and mirrored sunglasses, so the prisoners could not see their eyes or read their emotions. The initial study began with nine guards and nine prisoners. The prisoners remained in the cells 24 hours a day, while three guards worked three eight-hour shifts throughout the day. The remaining 24 volunteers were on call in case they were needed for some reason. Three prisoners shared three cells, and the cells were so small there was only enough room for three sleeping cots and little else.

Throughout the experiment, guards often counted the prisoners, forcing them awake at odd hours of the night and during the day, just to help show their authority over the prisoners. The guards also implemented punishments for prisoners who misbehaved or showed inappropriate reactions to the guards' power. After only one day and night of this treatment, the prisoners rebelled. They removed some of their required uniform (the numbers and the stocking caps), barricaded their cell doors with their cots, and refused to come out of their cells.

They also taunted and swore at the guards. The morning sift of guards did not know what to do to control the prisoners, and blamed the night shift for the rebellion. They called in back-up from the on-call guards and the night shift also remained to help quell the riot. To assert their control, they doused the prisoners with fire extinguishers, gained access to their cells, removed the cots, stripped the prisoners naked, and forced the leaders into solitary confinement.

Then they began to harass the prisoners and indicate they were back in charge. Then, because they realized nine guards could not remain on duty at all times, they developed psychological tactics to help control the prisoners. They created a "privilege" cell for the prisoners least involved in the riot and who cooperated with the guards. These prisoners were allowed to have their uniforms and beds back; they could wash and brush their teeth, and got special meals. The other prisoners were not allowed any of these "luxuries," including meals.

They literally drove a wedge between the "good" prisoners and the "bad" prisoners while they asserted their own authority. After a few days, they switched the good and bad prisoners, which helped confuse the situation and maintain the guards' control. One of the law enforcement consultants noted this was a tactic used in many real prison situations. Zimbardo notes, "In fact, in a real prison the greatest threat to any prisoner's life comes from fellow prisoners.

By dividing and conquering in this way, guards promote aggression among inmates, thereby deflecting it from themselves" (Zimbardo). The rebellion threw the prisoners into chaos, but brought the guards closer together, which ultimately gave them more power and authority over the prisoners. Only 36 hours into the experiment, one prisoner "broke" and exhibited signs of "acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage" (Zimbardo).

The researchers actually believed the prisoner was trying to "con" them into letting him go, because the prison mentality had taken hold of everyone in the project. Indeed, it took a breakdown for the researchers to recognize he was not faking it, and they released him. There was a rumored escape plot, and instead of allowing the escape to occur, the researchers were so entrenched in the "prison" mentality they looked for ways to quell the escape and secure the prison.

Zimbardo notes, "What we did was to hold a strategy session with the Warden, the Superintendent, and one of the chief lieutenants, Craig Haney, to plan how to foil the escape" (Zimbardo). They even installed an informant in the prison to find out what the prisoners were planning. An independent colleague happened in on the study, and asked about the "independent variable," which helped the researchers see how far off base their study had become. They had become part of the "prison system" rather than remaining impartial observers.

In fact, when the escape failed to occur, the guards retaliated against the prisoners. More prisoners "broke," and they could no longer recognize they were not really in prison, and the situation was not real. Essentially, the prison study was a detailed look into the inner workings of a prison, but more importantly, it created an abnormal environment and studied how real people reacted to it. This abnormal psychology study helped researchers understand how humiliation and confinement affect the mind.

It also showed how even researchers can be sucked into the realities of their own studies, and ignore the implications that role-playing can sometimes offer. They became the prison authorities, rather than the researchers, and that helped show how the prison mentality offers control to those in power and humiliation and defeat to those without it. Many unintentional consequences of the study have remained controversial until today.

One psychologist notes, "One of the harshest criticisms of effects research is that most of the data, however convincing, are collected using students in artificial laboratory environments that bear no resemblance to real-life media experience" (Giles 30). Indeed, the prison was an artificial environment, but it so mirrored a real prison that reality became blurred. The researchers took criticism because they took the reality to such great lengths.

Another writer notes, "In both studies [Milgram and Zimbardo], participants were subjected to extreme coercion and were induced to behave destructively toward other human beings" (Bronstein, and Paludi 27). Perhaps the most unintentional result was the way the researchers and participants fell into and embraced their roles so completely, showing how humiliation and power really do have an effect on the human mind.

Many of the humiliation and control techniques used may be common in many prison systems, but reading them today, over 30 years after they occurred, makes them sound a bit like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that took place in Iraq. In fact, during the study, the guards became more sadistic when they thought no one was watching them. Zimbardo notes, "Their boredom had driven them to ever more pornographic and degrading abuse of the prisoners" (Zimbardo).

This may be the same reason guards at Abu Ghraib tortured and humiliated their charges, and the study seems to indicate this could happen in just about any prison anywhere, if the guards have enough power. The world should pay more attention to this study and its implications. As another writer notes, "The young men who played prisoners and guards revealed how much circumstances can distort individual personalities -- and how anyone, when given complete control over others, can act like a monster" (Alexander).

This is what happened at Abu Ghraib, and chances are it is happening all around the world as well. In an interview about Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo notes the prison environment there was perfect for abuse. A reporter writes, "Zimbardo said the report.