Criticism of the Stanford prison experiment

In 2005, an author claiming to be Carlo Prescott wrote in the Stanford Daily, explaining that the antagonistic tactics used by the guards were ones that he experienced during his time spent in San Quentin. He shared each one in detail with the researchers prior to the experiment. In Prescott’s opinion, the participants in the experiment, having no experience as a prison guard, could not have acted in the ways they did unless they had been told of the explicit details of the actions they took.[1]

In a rebuttal to this argument, Zimbardo first argued that the article was not written by Prescott, but rather by Hollywood writer and producer, Michael Lazarou, who had unsuccessfully attempted to get the film rights to the story of the SPE: Prescott would not have written in such a legalistic way, and, in phone records obtained by Brett Emory, the SPE movie’s producer, asserted Prescott was not the author, based on phone records and emails.[2]

Based on recordings from the experiment, guards were instructed to make the prisoners feel submissive, helpless, unheard. Guards were not to inflict any physical harm on the prisoners. Zimbardo explains that guard orientations in the prison system instruct the guards to exert power over the prisoners. Further, Zimbardo asserts that his fellow researcher explicitly instructed the guards to not physically inflict harm on the prisoners, but at the same time make the prisoners feel that they were in an actual prison.[3]

“Asking a person role-playing a guard in a prison simulation to be “firm” and “in the action” is mild compared to the pressure exerted by actual wardens and superior officers in real-life prison and military settings, where guards failing to participate fully can face disciplinary hearings, demotion, or dismissal”.[2]

David Eshelman, aka John Wayne, acknowledges that his theater background lent itself well to his role as guard, that he purposely thought of new ways to demean the prisoners – on one shift, Eshelman instructed the prisoners to simulate sodomy.[4]

In response to this argument, Zimbardo explains other guards acted similarly or engaged with Eshelman in the treatment of prisoners. While it is possible that one guard adopted his behavior from a movie (Eshelman identified with the warden in Cool Hand Luke), others did not. And, more importantly, guards on a different shift than Eshelman, exacted similar acts of emotional and mental brutality. Zimbardo further argues that the behaviors of the participant guards were not unlike those of real-world prison atrocities or the actions taken by American soldiers in the Abu Ghraib prison.[2]

The first prisoner to leave the experiment was Douglas Korpi, prisoner 8612. After 36 hours, he had an apparent mental breakdown in which he yelled, “Jesus Christ, I’m burning up inside” and “I can’t stand another night! I just can’t take it anymore!” However, Korpi, in a 2017 interview, Korpi stated that his breakdown had been fake, and that he did it only so that he could leave and return to studying for his Graduate Record Exam; he had originally thought that he could study while “imprisoned”, but the “prison staff” would not allow him. Further, Korpi expressed regret that he had not filed a false imprisonment charge at the time.

Zimbardo responded to this criticism in 2018. First, while this experiment has been criticized overall for its ethics, Zimbardo stated that he needed to treat the breakdown as real and release the prisoner. Further, Zimbardo believes Korpi’s 2017 interview was a lie: In 1992, in a documentary film about the study, Quiet Rage, Korpi asserted that the prison experiment had deeply affected him, and that experience led Korpi to later become a prison psychologist.[2]

In 2002, the British broadcasting corporation in collaboration with researchers, Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher, decided to examine Zimbardo’s themes: tyranny and resistance. Like Zimbardo’s study, there would be a makeshift prison, and all participants would be male. Unlike Zimbardo’s invitation to participate, Haslam and Reicher advertised their study as a university-backed social science experiment to be shown on TV. Guards were not instructed on how to behave, only to figure out how to manage a prison.[2]

Those selected as prisoners were instructed to daily complete a questionnaire. Both prisoners and guards in this study wore microphones on their shirts, and cameras followed all participants’ actions.[2]

Zimbardo initially regarded Haslam and Reicher’s study as a reality show as both prisoner and guard knew they were being televised and probably over-acted in their role for the purpose of entertaining watchers of the documentary. There were definite similarities to reality shows: prisoners had a confessional to describe their feelings, and there were contests for the prisoners. Despite its dissimilarities, Zimbardo believes the results of the BBC study mirrored his own in that the participants were affected by the situation.[2]

In 2018, Zimbardo, Reicher, and Haslam issued a joint statement[5] asserting that both experiments were valid. They also agreed that behaviors observed in all participants could have been caused by more than the situation. And, finally, they urge people to continue research into toxic behaviors, arguing that their studies were unique and need replications to demonstrate reliability and significance.

Prior to publishing in American Psychologist and other peer-reviewed journals, Zimbardo reported his findings in Naval Research Reviews,[6] International Journal of Criminology and Penalogy (IJCP),[7] and the New York Times magazine (NYT).[8] Psychology instructor at both at New York University and the University of Amsterdam, David Amodio, dismissed Zimbardo’s study, stating that releasing the article to an “obscure journal” demonstrated that Zimbardo was unable to convince fellow psychologists of the validity and reliability of his study. This action taken by Zimbardo broke the tradition of scientific dissemination by publishing in other journals before publishing in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.[9]

Zimbardo explains that the grant agreement with the Office of Naval Research (ONR) included a requirement to publish data in their journal. The IJCP invited Zimbardo to write about his study in their journal. And finally, he wrote an article with the NYT magazine to share his findings with a broad audience. Despite these pre-peer-reviewed publications, Zimbardo’s article still needed to pass through the very strict requirements of the American Psychologist, the official journal of the American Psychological Association, in order to be published. After publishing his article in the American Psychologist, he reported his findings in other peer-reviewed journals and in books.[2]

In 1973, Erich Fromm argued, as only 1/3 of the guards displayed sadistic behaviors, Zimbardo’s experiment is really an example of how a situation cannot influence a person’s behavior.[6]

In 1975, Ali Banuazizi[10] and Siamak Movahedi[11] argued that the behavior of the participants in the SPE was a result of demand characteristics and not the prison environment, that there is no single definition of prisoner behavior, and that participants were simply acting in the role in which they had been cast.[12]

In 2007, Thomas Carnahan[13] and Sam McFarland[14] argued that those who applied to participate in the SPE already had traits associated with abusiveness: aggression, Right-wing authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, social dominance orientation, dispositional empathy, and altruism. The first five characteristics would be high in those who volunteered for a prison experiment. Those with low dispositional empathy and altruism would also be indicators of someone who would volunteer.[15]

In 2013, Peter Gray PhD, researcher, textbook writer and editor, stipulated demand characteristics (participants guessing which behavior researchers want) influenced the SPE quite significantly. Guards’ behaviors were implicitly condoned as neither Zimbardo nor his research assistants intervened. Zimbardo did not conduct this experiment to explore how situations influence behaviors, but rather, he wanted to demonstrate that prison guards are already abusive, and prisoners are already submissive.[16]

In 2018, Thibault Le Texier,[17] a French researcher, in his book, Histoire d’un Mensonge [The History of a Lie], questions the scientific validity and merit of the SPE.[18] This is the first of his critiques; the second, an article published by the APA in 2019. Le Texier further asserts his arguments with testimonies of those participants who were assigned as guards. In Le Texier’s opinion, the sadism and submission displayed in the SPE was directly caused by Zimbardo’s instructions to the guards and the guards’ desire to please Zimbardo.[18]

In 2020 Dutch historian Rutger Bregman claimed the experiment to be dubious. He states that the guards where urged to act aggressive towards the prisoners. In his book Human Kind he is of the opinion that in similar experiments researchers set up the experiments to create hostility between groups and the interpret the finding to suit their needs.

• Blum, Ben (2018). "The lifespan of a lie". Medium.
• Banuazizi, Ali; Movahedi, Siamak (February 1975). "Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis" (PDF). The American Psychologist. 30 (2): 152–160. doi:10.1037/h0076835. ISSN 0003-066X.
• Carnahan, Thomas; McFarland, Sam (17 Apr 2007). "Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty?" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (5): 603–614. doi:10.1177/0146167206292689. ISSN 0146-1672. PMID 17440210. S2CID 15946975.
• Fernandez, Ismael; Triola, V. V. (2021). "Analysis of 'A Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison'". Medium.
• Gray, P. (2013). "Why Zimbardo's prison experiment isn't in my textbook: Results of the famous Stanford prison experiment have a trivial explanation". Psychologytoday.com. Psychology Today.
• Haney, C.; Banks, C.; Zimbardo, P. (September 1973). "A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison". Naval Research Reviews. 9 (1–17) – via HathiTrust.
• Haney, C.; Banks, C.; Zimbardo, P. (1973). "Interpersonal Dynamics in a simulated prison" (PDF). International Journal of Criminology and Penology. 69 (1): 69–77.
• Haney, C.; Haslam, A; Reicher; Zimbardo, P. (2018). "Consensus statement on the Stanford Prison Experiment and BBC Prison Study" (PDF).
• Haslam, A.; Reicher, S. (2008). "Science and society: How has Zimbardo responded to our work?". Bbcprisonstudy.org. The BBC Prison Study.
• "'John Wayne' (name withheld) Interview: 'The Science of Evil'". Primetime: Basic Instincts. KATU. January 3, 2007
• Le Texier, T. (2018). Histoire d’un Mensonge. Zones.
• Prescott, C. (2005). "The lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment". archives.stanforddaily.com. The Stanford Daily.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). "Audio transcript--orientation of guards, 1971". Philip G Zimbardo Papers. Palo Alto, Calif: Department of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries (SC0750).
• Zimbardo, P. (8 April 1973). "The mind is a formidable jailer". The New York Times. p. 38. ISSN 0362-4331.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). "Quiet Rage". purl.stanford.edu. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Digital Repository.
• Zimbardo, P., Hardwick, D. (2021). Zimbardo My Life Revealed. Giunti Psychometrics