In 1973 Stanford University, California transformed their basement into a fully functional prison. For authenticity cells were created with CCTV, no windows or clocks were permitted. Zimbardo was to participate by assuming the position of ‘Prison Superintendent’. The volunteers were recruited through an advert in a newspaper offering $15.00 per day. The 24 successful candidates were young male students which were given preliminary personality tests to judge their emotional stability. This was an attempt to predict how the individual would conduct his behaviour while partaking in the experiment. They were then divided equally into two groups, guards and prisoners.
Guards were advised to administer their own punishments on condition that it was not physical abuse. They were also under the guidance of Warden David Jaffe. Their attire consisted of a khaki style uniform, clubs, whistles, cuffs, keys and sunglasses. The sunglasses were a compulsory item to be worn at all times, ensuring that eye contact was impossible therefore unable to ‘read’ a persons emotions effectively. As for the prisoners they were arrested at their homes and driven directly to the Stanford County Jail. They were shackled at all times a reminder of their oppressive environment. Hairstyles were hidden by stockings, instead of being shaved. Names were replaced with numbers. All these effects were to eliminate evidence of any personal identity previously adopted by the prisoner. Through the progression of the experiment the personalities of the 24 participants changed dramatically. The guards began to act sadistically, and became inventive in their punishments. On one such occasion the guards breached human rights by disallowing the prisoners’ fundamental right to sanitary relief. The prisoners however, started to withdraw and show signs of pathological behaviour, such as disorganised thinking, rages and uncontrollable crying. They no longer had ranks with unity, but were isolated individuals.
The Stanford County Jail experiment was intended to last two weeks. However, six days after the start it was abruptly terminated. Strong objection came from Christina Maslach PhD when she witnessed the prison. She claimed “the prisoners were suffering degrading abuse unnecessarily”. Christina was exercising the ethic ‘Colleagues’. This is where “A psychologist who believes that another psychologist may be conducting research that is not in accordance with the ethical principles should encourage that researcher to re-evaluate the research”. Criticism also came from Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher; they stated “leadership of Zimbardo represents a serious confound in the study, which calls into question the internal validity of his analysis”. Becoming a participant as opposed to observer allowed Zimbardo to manipulate various situations that occurred. An example of which came when the parents of one prisoner confronted Zimbardo after visiting their son at the Stanford County Jail, they claimed that their son was suffering as a direct result of participating in the experiment. Zimbardo then directly asked the couple “is your son up to this?” This immediately made the parents defensive, and pride convinced them allow their son to continue with the experiment.
It has been suggested that some of the ethics outlined by the American Psychological Association were breached in Zimbardo’s research. Briefing was carried out, but not expansively. However, Zimbardo was looking for an environment induced reaction; therefore, to explain fully could have resulted in the conclusions being misleading due to the participants awareness. Withdrawal from the investigation is another ethic that investigators have to follow. This allows the participant to leave at any time during the experiment. Prisoners were offered on day four to forfeit the money and go home. The prisoners’ reponses to this was to accept the offer, yet they still returned to their cells.
Zimbardo wanted to design an authentic prison. However, from the start there was lacking in realism. Prisoners were snatched from their homes by police cars, omitting the usual court case that precedes a sentence. Guards were made to wear khaki, giving them an aura of military than prison guard. The procedure of removing prisoners’ identification such as names and hairstyles, and the guards wearing sunglasses are not usual practices carried out in American prisons.
Research needs to be continued, controversial issues need to be continually approached, even if it journeys into the boundaries of socially sensitive areas. Ethics may occasionally have to be broken for a comprehensive study of the mind to be conducted fully. This should not be done at detrimental costs to the investigators or participants. Investigators should also remain detached from the study, and maintain the observers’ perspective to enable them to conduct the research objectively.