Everything You Know About the Stanford Prison Experiment Is Wrong

I have always been fascinated by the Stanford Prison Experiment, not just because of its impact on social psychology, but also due to my personal experience as a former prison guard. Having worked in correctional facilities for several years, I can attest to the fact that the experiment resonates deeply with me.

In August 1971, during the final stretch of summer vacation, Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo enlisted twenty-four male college students for a study labeled as “exploring the psychological aspects of prison life.” A university basement was remodeled into a temporary prison setup. The participants were divided; some became inmates, while others took on guard roles. However, things quickly turned sinister as the guards, intoxicated by power, ridiculed, degraded, and harshly disciplined their charges. The inmates experienced emotional breakdowns. Zimbardo was forced to halt the study, originally planned for two weeks, after only six days. Although the experiment was deeply unethical, it demonstrated that circumstances can influence ordinary people to behave like oppressors – a concept Zimbardo refers to as “the power of the situation.

For over half a century, the narrative of the Stanford Prison Experiment has been significantly influenced by popular culture. The experiment gained widespread attention shortly after its conclusion when the Attica prison uprising made headlines, thanks to Zimbardo’s media-savvy approach. Throughout his career, he emphasized that placing good people in bad situations can lead them to perform evil acts, a theory bolstered by events such as Abu Ghraib. The release of the critically acclaimed film “The Stanford Prison Experiment” in 2015, starring Billy Crudup as Zimbardo and Nicholas Braun before his role in “Succession”, further reinforced this interpretation. However, as demonstrated by Juliette Eisner in her compelling National Geographic documentary series “The Stanford Prison Experiment: Unlocking the Truth“, Zimbardo’s account of the study was not definitive, and the conclusions he drew about human moral flexibility may be more related to pop psychology than scientific fact.

Many of the short docuseries that proliferate on streaming play like features chopped into episodes for viewers who’d rather binge on TV than commit to a whole movie. But the three-part Unlocking the Truth, which premieres Nov. 13 (and will stream the following day on Hulu and Disney+), functions as a true triptych. Through new interviews with participants and clips of the so-called “Stanford County Prison,” the first episode provides a chronology of the experiment that is largely faithful to Zimbardo’s version. The second, titled “The Unraveling,” introduces Thibault Le Texier, a French researcher who has worked to debunk the experiment, and intersperses his insights with more participant interviews that complicate or outright contradict Zimbardo’s account. Twenty minutes into the episode—at what is roughly the midpoint of the series—onscreen text informs us that the prison clips we’ve been watching aren’t footage from the study but reenactments shot on a soundstage by Eisner’s team, as “only a fraction of the experiment was filmed in 1971.” The finale pairs one of Zimbardo’s last-ever interviews with scenes of the real participants visiting the soundstage, advising the actors who portray them on what really happened and talking amongst themselves about the experience and its legacy.

A long history of Stanford Prison Experiment dissent

Psychologists have been critiquing the Stanford Prison Experiment for as long as it’s been part of the discourse, though their points have mostly failed to penetrate the public consciousness. Erich Fromm picked apart Zimbardo’s methods in his 1973 book The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, concluding that “the difference between the mock prisoners and real prisoners is so great that it is virtually impossible to draw analogies from observation of the former.”

In 2002, the BBC broadcast a program titled “The Experiment” which showcased British psychologists Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher replicating the Stanford study. Unlike the original experiment where Zimbardo acted as the superintendent, this time an onsite ethical committee monitored the proceedings, and the experimenters merely observed. The result was that the prisoners united and leveraged their solidarity to improve their conditions. Haslam and Reicher have pointed out that Zimbardo may have influenced the guards’ behavior through suggestions like this one from a pre-experiment training session: “You can make the prisoners feel bored, instill some fear, create an impression of arbitrariness that their lives are controlled by us, by the system, you and me… They can do nothing, say nothing, that we don’t allow.” (It is worth considering whether the presence of TV cameras could have influenced the outcome of Haslam and Reicher’s experiment as well.)

As a movie enthusiast, I’ve come to realize that even an ad might subtly shape the actions it attracts, as I learned from Maria Konnikova’s essay in The New Yorker. In 2015, this piece was published alongside a film, shedding light on a fascinating discovery by psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland from 2007. They found that the words “prison life” in an ad could potentially limit the pool of applicants.

How Unlocking the Truth furthers the case against the Stanford Prison Experiment

Le Texier, through his research published in an “American Psychologist” article and a book titled “Investigating the Stanford Prison Experiment: History of a Lie,” found further issues with the study by examining Zimbardo’s archives. In this series, he reveals that not only did the professor conduct a “Day 0” orientation for guards, where he encouraged them to make prisoners feel powerless; but also handed out documents containing rules and a suggested daily schedule to the guards. This was done in such a way that choices made by the guards appeared self-driven, while Zimbardo’s detailed instructions blurred the line between whether they were subjects of the experiment or confederates running it.

Apart from Eisner, Le Texier isn’t the only individual who differed from Zimbardo. Doug Korpi, a former prisoner, stated that his outburst and subsequent dismissal weren’t due to an emotional breakdown, but rather frustration with the realization that getting out of what he considered a poor job would be challenging. A guard named John Mark recollects the warden, who was a student of Zimbardo’s, pulling him aside for a motivational talk encouraging tougher treatment of inmates. Dave Eshleman, known as “John Wayne” among students of that era, previously admitted he acted during the experiment and viewed it as a role. Now, Eshleman adds that he and other participants perceived Zimbardo’s intent to condemn the prison system, supported this objective, and therefore behaved in a manner that suggested they would do anything to demonstrate that the prison system was a corrupt institution. (It’s interesting to note that, as Eisner reveals, theatrical Eshleman is now a member of a British Invasion tribute band.)

What stands out most in my opinion is Eisner’s interview with a man, Kent Cotter, as uncovered by Le Texier’s research. He stated, “I’m the one you never heard about, but should have.” (A search for “Kent Cotter” along with “Stanford Prison Experiment” before the release of Unlocking the Truth produced no English-language results.) He explained, “I’m the one who left.” Assigned as a guard, Cotter attended the training session but felt estranged by Zimbardo’s intentions and his fellow guards’ plans to mistreat prisoners. “I felt increasingly detached from that group,” he remembered. So, he decided to leave before the experiment even began. “The setup was for the guards to abuse, so how could it have ended differently?

Why Zimbardo’s interpretation has persisted for so long

In a study published in the American Psychologist journal, Le Texier highlights four key factors behind the enduring impact of the Stanford Prison Experiment, even with its apparent shortcomings. Two of these reasons stem from ongoing discussions within psychology about situationism – a theory suggesting that circumstances play a more significant role than personality in shaping human behavior. Additionally, Le Texier suggests that:

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) endured for nearly half a century largely due to its archives remaining unexplored by researchers. This was quite perplexing, as I found during my study. Despite the experiment receiving significant criticism from prominent figures in psychology, it appears that no psychologist seemed interested in uncovering what the archives held. Could it be a lack of curiosity? Or perhaps an overabundance of respect for the tenured professor at a renowned university? Might there be access restrictions enforced by Zimbardo? Could it be due to the laborious nature of archival analysis? Or could it simply be the belief that no archives were preserved?

In simpler terms, Le Texier admits that Zimbardo worked diligently to gain public interest for his experiment; as he puts it, “Zimbardo frequently exaggerated the impact of the Stanford Prison Experiment beyond its actual reality in order to make it more appealing.” To put it mildly, Zimbardo has consistently presented and discussed his findings over many years through various media outlets such as MSNBC, The Daily Show, and TED Talks. He also strengthened his reputation as a prominent social psychology expert with books like “The Lucifer Effect” and a PBS series called “Discovering Psychology.” It seems that the appeal of Zimbardo’s message lies in its ability to provide straightforward explanations for complex issues such as police brutality, genocide, and other global events. As Le Texier notes in the series, “He provides an easy-to-understand explanation for these complex world events.

It shouldn’t escape our notice, either, that Zimbardo was intimately involved with several previous onscreen representations of the experiment. He co-wrote and served as an executive producer of the 1992 documentary Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment. And the 2015 movie everyone liked so much? It’s based on The Lucifer Effect, and Zimbardo consulted on it.

What, if anything, did the Stanford Prison Experiment really prove?

Different perspectives have been raised by critics regarding the true meaning of Zimbardo’s experiment. As you delve into the control exerted by Zimbardo and his assistants over the guards, the Stanford Prison Experiment might appear as an illustration of confirmation bias. The BBC study, where participants were aware they were being watched by a large TV audience, could imply a need for increased transparency within the prison system and similar institutions. In “Unlocking the Truth”, Stephen Scott-Bottoms, a Professor of Contemporary Theatre and Performance at Manchester University, highlights the impact SPE has had on public perception when he labels it as “the most significant work of performance art in the 20th century.

The argument made by one of the BBC researchers, particularly compelling, is that leadership plays a crucial role. As Reicher recalls, “We came to understand that leadership was absolutely essential.” This is because, upon closer examination of Zimbardo’s study, it becomes clear that the guards didn’t assume their roles haphazardly. Rather, they were guided by the leader (Zimbardo) to carry out their tasks. In essence, without leadership, the kind of harmful behavior observed in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) would not have occurred. In simpler terms, the power attributed to the situation by Zimbardo is, in reality, dependent on the influence yielded by its leaders.

In summary, the key insight from studies like “Unlocking the Truth” and others that question the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is that individuals do possess the ability to act independently, even in various situations. Not every guard transformed into a tyrant under Zimbardo’s influence, as Cotter didn’t stay long enough to put on his uniform, and those who did misuse their power often had specific reasons beyond an inherent evil within humans as Zimbardo suggested. This contradicts the claims he has made in the past (Zimbardo testified for the defense at the Abu Ghraib trial), implying that people should be held responsible for their actions within institutional or hierarchical structures, a lesson particularly relevant today given the rise of authoritarianism.

Read More

• MANA PREDICTION. MANA cryptocurrency
• LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
• TRUMP PREDICTION. TRUMP cryptocurrency
• The end of Superhero TV on broadcast may usher in an era that leaves a generation behind
• USD MXN PREDICTION
• GTC PREDICTION. GTC cryptocurrency
• CTC PREDICTION. CTC cryptocurrency
• Ryan Reynolds made a huge change to Deadpool & Wolverine’s corpse fight
• The Repair Shop announces exciting new show
• EUR ILS PREDICTION

2024-11-13 18:07