What are the implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

What are the implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971 Dr Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in the basement of Stanford University. This involved imprisoning nine volunteers in a mock up of Stanford prison, which was policed by nine guards (more volunteers). These guards had complete control over the prisoners. They could do anything to the prisoners, but use physical violence. The subjects were all students applying for summer jobs to get some money. To make it a fair test, the subjects were made to take psychological tests to make sure they were mentally fit.

On the first day, the prisoner subjects were picked up by a panda car and arrested on a mass crackdown on violations of penal codes. They were arrested like normal suspects are arrested, given their legal rights and searched. They were then taken away in the panda car as many of their neighbours thought that they had actually done something wrong. Then he was given his rights at the station and was fingerprinted. He was then taken to a holding cell to think about what he had done

On the second day the guards’ behaviour began to degenerate so by the sixth day the experiment was cancelled. Two prisoners were removed from the experiment in this time.

The experiment obviously had a serious flaw; this is thought to be Dr Zimbardo’s involvement (he acted as the superintendent). This was clear when a prisoner 8612 began to show signs of mental harm Zimdardo believed the prisoner was faking this to try to be released. If Zimbardo had not been involved he would have released him sooner. Another minor problem with the experiment is the definitions of a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

On the second day the guards’ behaviour began to degenerate so by the sixth day the experiment was cancelled. Two prisoners were removed from the experiment in this time.

A great deal about mankind was learnt from the Stanford prison experiment, the most shocking was how quickly the subjects’ behaviour deteriorated from “good,” peace loving people, to violence and lack of respect for human life. It showed that when given power, many will abuse it. This is very useful as we can apply these lessons to a real life situation, which could save thousands of people in a real prison. A conclusion of the experiment is that if you put good people in an evil and unfair place they will become evil. It also makes us conscious of what people are capable of whatever you think of them. The guards acted the worst in the middle of the night it is suggested that this is because the believed they were not being watched.

It has been asked if what was learnt was worth the “sacrifice” of the people involved? I simply think it was worth the sacrifice. The people involved may have suffered mental anguish due to this experiment but they will die, and other people can take their place: but the knowledge gained will not be forgotten so easily. Also I think it is wrong to simply blame the experiment; there is nothing wrong with putting people in a false prison being controlled by other people. What was wrong was the evil the people in control exerted on the prisoners.

The BBC has repeated the experiment, which some see as wrong. The repeat of the experiment has been “improved” by adding several safe guards to protect the prisoners from the guards. However these safe guards will reduce the reality of the experiment, which defies the point of conducting it. It has been questioned if more lives should be put in jeopardy to discover what we already know. From a scientific point of view the BBC experiment is too different for the purposes of faire testing but not different enough to discover anything new. Another problem facing the repeat is the accusation that it is being done for the purpose of entertainment rather than science.

Connections with other experiments have been made. For example in the Milgrim experiment it was revealed that 2/3 of test subjects would administrate a potentially fatal electric shock if encouraged by a figure of authority. This coincides with a popular explanation from soldiers who have committed war crimes “I was just following orders”.

Whilst studying this thought provoking topic I have composed several ideas on how humanity can develop from the concepts learnt from the Stanford prison experiment. The experiment put good people in an evil environment and the results showed the people became evil. What would be interesting is experimenting if the change can be reversed by putting evil people in a good place will they change for the better?

There is a connection between the Stanford prison experiment and the novel The Lord of the Flies as the both discuss “man’s essential illness”. In both the experiment and the novel the subjects are male, perhaps this could mean the essential illness belongs to man (I appreciate the novel could be refereeing to mankind). Therefore it suggests women do not posses this illness. It may be useful to repeat the experiment with female subjects. It would also be interesting to discover how people treat others of the opposite sex; will men restrain from exacting violence on women? (How long will our chauvinistic society last?).

A reason for why the environment was so evil was that the prisoners were treated unfairly and the guards were given superiority over the prisoners for no reason. The prisoners and guards were not treated as equals. This would suggest a “good” environment would be one of complete equality, communism. Unfortunately communism only works in theory, as in practice there has always been a Stalin figure, which means there is not equality. If a system of complete equality can be established, it could bring an end to all evil created by man.