In August of 1971,
Professor Philip Zimbardo began an investigation
into the power dynamics that exist between guards and
inmates in a prison setting. The object of the
Stanford prison experiment was to determine if it was
the acquisition of power that made guards turn brutal or
whether brutality was actually intrinsic to human
nature itself. The notorious
experiment that ensued would kick off decades
of academic controversy and suggests some
very dark things about the nature of humanity. Today, we're going to take a
look at why the Stanford prison experiment might be the
most disturbing study ever conducted. But before we get started, be
sure to subscribe to the Weird History Channel and let us
know in the comments below what other psychology-related topics
you would like to hear about. During the 1970s, both the
US Navy and Marine Corps were interested in learning
about the hierarchies of power in military prisons. Accordingly, the US
Office of Naval Research issued Philip Zimbardo
a grant to study the relationships between
prison guards and prisoners. The objective would
be to determine if those relationships
were shaped more by the prison environment
or the personalities of the guards. The grant would be used
to create a mock prison environment in which to
conduct the experiment and to pay the participants. The Stanford prison
experiment started with an ad Zimbardo placed in
the classifieds. It read, "Male college
students needed for psychological
study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks." 70 people applied. The applicants were
interviewed and asked to take personality tests. Anyone who had a criminal record
or record of abusing narcotics was eliminated,
as was anyone who displayed personality disorders,
physical disabilities, or psychological problems. Ultimately, 24 college
students, all white and all male were selected to participate. And they had no idea what they
were getting themselves into. Zimbardo and his team
randomly divided the students into two groups,
prisoners and guards. There were 12 of each category,
9 that were active participants and 3 that were alternates. On August 17, 1971,
the experiment began when the 9 prisoners
were arrested by actual police officers from the Palo
Alto Police Department. Each person was
taken into custody, then had their mug shots taken
before being fingerprinted, blindfolded, and moved
into a holding cell. Finally, they were
taken into a mock prison that had been set up in the
basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall. The fake prison felt very real. The researchers
who created it had consulted with prison
officials and ex-convicts before designing it. The cells were built in
a space that was normally used as a laboratory. Each cell had a bar
door, a cell number, and room for three prisoners. Other touches included a
solitary confinement cell that had been created
in a closet and a rule that prisoners had
to be blindfolded before being taken
to the bathroom. To avoid selection
bias, participants were assigned to be either
prisoners or guards based on the results of a coin toss. Very different fates awaited
each respective group. Guards were given real
prison guard uniforms, complete with
nightsticks and whistles. Many guards even donned
mirrored sunglasses, which were meant to prevent
eye contact with the prisoners, or maybe just to look like Boss
Godfrey from Cool Hand Luke. Prisoners, on the other hand,
were stripped, deloused, and dressed in sandals and an
ill-fitting numbered smock. They weren't issued
any underwear. But they were given
nylon stocking caps, which they were
asked to wear in lieu of having their heads shaved. Once dressed, a chain was
placed on each of the legs. Prisoners were only
addressed by their number and had to refer to themselves
and the other prisoners in the same way. It was a recipe for
dehumanization and oppression. Zimbardo himself served as
superintendent of the prison. And researcher David
Jaffe played the warden. The two were responsible
for instructing the guards and laying down the
scope of their duties. First and foremost, the guards
were told to maintain order. To this end, they
were allowed to use any means necessary, short
of physical violence. Things that were permitted
included harassment, the withholding of food, and
the deprivation of privileges at the guards' discretion. The guards, unlike
the prisoners, were also allowed
to work in shifts. The shifts, which each
required three guards lasted eight hours. Off duty guards didn't
have to be at the prison but were asked to remain on
call in case of an emergency. On the first night,
the guards decided to use a whistle to rouse the
prisoners from their sleep for a headcount at 2:30 AM. Some of the prisoners didn't
take the headcount seriously. And the guards punish them
by making them do push-ups. After headcount, the prisoners
had already had enough and decided to rebel. On what was only the second
morning of the experiment, they removed the numbers
from their uniforms, pulled off their stocking
caps, and barricaded themselves inside their cells
using their beds. When the next shift of guards
arrived in the morning, they were alarmed to find
the prisoners yelling curses at them from their cells. They requested
reinforcements and made plans to quell the uprising. They brought in
the on-call guards, and the night shift
volunteered to do extra duty. It was only day two and things
were already getting ugly. In order to get the
cell doors open, the guards used
fire extinguishers to force the prisoners
away from the barricades. Once that was accomplished,
they rushed into the cell, grabbed the prisoner,
and stripped them naked, naked as a jaybird. The birthday suit
prisoner was then placed into solitary
confinement. While they were
there, the guards would remove the
bed from their cell, meaning the prisoner would
have to sleep on the floor when they returned. Once the rebellion
was controlled, the guards had to figure
out how to prevent another from happening without
having to have all nine guards perpetually on duty. The solution was to
divide and conquer. The guards deemed one of the
cells, the privilege cell. Well-behaved prisoners were
placed in the privilege cell, where they would get their
uniforms and beds back and even get special meals. The other prisoners
were not only denied of all these
things, but were deprived of their normal food rations. After a few hours, the
guards would randomly move the prisoners around. The idea was to create confusion
and sow the seeds of distrust among the inmates. And it worked. In the wake of the uprising
conditions deteriorated fast. The guards started
making a point of dehumanizing the prisoners
by making them call out their identification numbers. Prisoners were also forbidden
from using the bathroom at night and were forced to use
bucket in their cell instead. Soon, the guards stopped
emptying the buckets, reasoning that the bad smell was
simply another punishment for misbehavior. Despite what Zimbardo
described as frequent reminders from the staff, the guards
grew increasingly aggressive. The most egregious
behavior occurred when the staff wasn't
paying attention, which became stressful and
frustrating for the prisoners. The prisoners, as a result,
became increasingly submissive. And the experiment was about
to claim its first victim. After only 36 hours
prisoner Doug Korpi began suffering from
what was described as acute emotional disturbance,
disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. The guards used this
opportunity to try and coax him into becoming a snitch. But when his erratic
behavior continued, the staff realized Doug
was in genuine distress and needed to be released
from the experiment. On the sixth day Zimbardo
convened a mock parole board, which was headed by one of the
experiments prison consultants. Inmates who believe
they deserved parole would be allowed to present
their case to the board. It was during
these presentations that Zimbardo along with
the other researchers began to theorize that the
prisoners no longer saw themselves as participants
in an experiment but as real prisoners. According to Zimbardo,
the prisoners had internalized the crimes as
well as their roles as inmates. As for the guards,
he came to identify three different types-- tough but fair
guards who followed prison rules, good guys who did
little favors for the prisoners and never punished
them, and finally, guards who appeared
to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded. Zimbardo felt this last
group was hostile, arbitrary, and inventive in their forms
of prisoner humiliation. Zimbardo concluded that
most people were ultimately willing to fulfill whatever
role they were given in a respective social setting. He even admitted that
he had internalized his role as superintendent over
his role as a psychologist. At one point, Zimbardo
brought in a real priest to talk with the prisoners. It was during this conversation
that Prisoner 819 down sobbing. He was so hysterical
that the staff agreed to take him to a doctor. The other inmates, for
their part, turned on 819. Researchers offered
to send him home, but 819 surprisingly refused,
saying that he couldn't leave, because the other inmates had
labeled him a bad prisoner. Zimbardo was forced
to intervene. Pulling the student
aside, he forcefully reminded him that he
was not really an inmate and that the experiment
was not really a prison. The prisoner is alleged
to have stopped crying and looked at Zimbardo
like a small child awakened from a nightmare. After that, 819 agreed to leave. On the sixth day, a
recent Ph.D. recipient named Christina
Maslack was brought in to interview the prisoners. Horrified by what she saw,
she confronted Zimbardo, asking him how he could
see what she had seen and not care about the
students who were suffering? According to Zimbardo, he
quickly realized she was right. It was at that moment
that he decided to prematurely end the study. Later, he would reflect on
his own behavior and claim that it wasn't until his
discussion with Maslack that he realized how
deeply he had internalized his role at the prison. Ultimately, he concluded
he was thinking like a prison superintendent
rather than a research psychologist. Both the ethics and conclusions
of the Stanford prison experiment remain
highly controversial. Its scientific rigor has
been repeatedly questioned by scientists who have
been unable to duplicate its results. And even Zimbardo
himself has admitted the whole thing was
more of a demonstration than a scientific experiment. A 2018 book by French
academic Thibault Le Texier dismissed the entire
thing as nonsense. He argued that the
guards had been told what results they
were supposed to produce and were advised and guided
by Zimbardo and his staff the whole way through. So what do you think? How would you have
fared in the study? Let us know in the
comments below. And while you're at it, check
out some of these other videos from our Weird History.
