Stanford Prison Experiment 

The Stanford Prison Experiment, or SPE for short has been one the most talked about psychology experiments from the 1970’s. Conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, it has been featured in numerous documentaries, news articles, and magazines while being taught in sociology, criminology, and psychology textbooks. It is often referenced in scholarly literature and literature revolving around violence, aggressive behaviours, and genocide. The experiment has even inspired novels and films alike. 

SPE has been one of the most talked-about experiments of the past 47 years, also receiving heavy criticism over the years. In 1972, Zimbardo published a detailed account of the experiment and was swiftly criticised by psychologist Erich Fromm. The treatment of prisoners was done in a dehumanising and hostile manner. The pre-experiment personality test could easily be administered to someone showing signs of sadism or extreme cruelty. As a participant in the prison environment, the situation was bound to be perplexing. It was a reproduction of a prison with a fictitious component, which easily creates thematic confusion. 

Experiment raised concerns? 

Fromm had trouble accepting Zimbardo’s claim that behaviour was solely attributed to situational changes one encountered in life. Not cruel, for example, thirty-five per cent of the guards who were not sadistic chose not to resort to any abusive behaviour. One of the critique experiments presented the outline of the experiment to 150 students and queried them about what they thought the researchers intended to study. Most students (81%) correctly guessed the experiment, and in addition, it was predicted that 90% of the subjects would think that the guards are abusive.

This suggests that many participants behaved in a manner that they perceived was expected of them rather than being solely influenced by the context within which they found themselves (Texier, 2019). Other than the concern of subjects acting according to what they thought the researchers wanted, the Stanford prison experiment (SPE) has received critique for numerous other reasons. It has been argued that: The results cannot be applied to everyday life (there is a lack of generalizability and ecological validity). The method of selection of participants was questionable and potentially biased.

The study violated ethical principles. It did not adequately account for the reasons participants exhibited different behaviours. Some even argue that the study is not real science but rather a bizarre performance masquerading as a scientific endeavour. Due to all this criticism, individuals began questioning psychology textbooks’ discussion of the SPE. Textbooks, as Morawski (1992) points out, are very important when it comes to both educating students and the general populace regarding psychology. So, textbooks must provide correct information. As the SPE is among the most well-known experiments, textbooks must provide a correct explanation. 

Griggs (2014) examined to what extent 13 textbooks on introductory psychology explained the SPE and criticisms of it. He discovered that the majority of them failed to do so. Of 11 books that addressed the experiment, 5 failed to mention any of the criticisms, and the others only touched on them. Griggs implied two explanations: (1) authors of textbooks may be unaware of all of the criticisms, and (2) there simply may not be sufficient space in introductory textbooks to discuss everything at length. 

Role of Social Psychology

Yet, these justifications shouldn’t hold as much for introductory social psychology textbooks. As those books only deal with social psychology and are authored by professionals in the field, the authors ought to be more sensitive to the criticism. Additionally, space isn’t as constrained, as they don’t need to include other branches of psychology. So, in this study, the researchers decided to look at how social psychology textbooks discuss the SPE and its problems. They expected these books to provide more complete and balanced coverage. If that turned out to be true, they’d study what kind of coverage was given. If not, they’d try to figure out why the coverage is still lacking. 

In the summer of 1971, a makeshift prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University. What was meant to be a simple simulation transformed into a psychological storm that continues to spark debate even five decades later. Known as the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), this study, led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, exposed alarming consequences of unchecked authority and, more significantly, revealed deep ethical gaps in how psychological research was conducted.

Zimbardo enlisted 24 healthy male college students, randomly assigning them as guards or prisoners in a simulated prison setting. Though the experiment was initially intended to run for two weeks, it was terminated after six days. Why? The guards had become more authoritarian and violent, while prisoners displayed emotional suffering, passivity, and symptoms of trauma. The boundaries between role-playing and actual psychological damage became perilously thin. What began as an investigation into situational behaviour descended into an ethical debacle. 

Breaking Down the Ethical Missteps 

The SPE has been roundly condemned for several ethical shortcomings, including:

Lack of informed consent: Participants were not adequately informed about the risk of psychological damage. Exposure to distress: Participants’ psychological pain was neither predicted nor well-managed. Conflict of interest: Zimbardo’s double role of primary researcher and prison superintendent undermined objectivity. Limited participant autonomy: Volunteers were dissuaded from withdrawing, infringing the ethical requirement of free participation.

These infractions contradicted the progressive ethical standards of the era, and their revelation facilitated a critical rethinking of how psychological research needs to be performed. More recently, Thibault Le Texier (2018), after examining archived documents and unpublished materials, argued that parts of the SPE may have been staged or manipulated to fit Zimbardo’s theory, further muddying its scientific value. 

A Cautionary Milestone 

Although the Stanford Prison Experiment is not a sound source of scientific evidence today, its actual legacy is its lasting influence on research ethics. It was a wake-up call—a dramatic reminder that psychological understanding must never be pursued at the expense of human well-being. Contemporary research ethics, more systematic and subject-sensitive than ever before, owe much to the lessons derived from this notorious episode in psychology. The experiment might no longer be considered revolutionary science, but it is still a turning point in how the psychological world faced shortcomings and improved. 

Final Thoughts: A Cautionary Milestone 

Although the Stanford Prison Experiment is not a sound source of scientific evidence today, its actual legacy is its lasting influence on research ethics. It was a wake-up call—a dramatic reminder that psychological understanding must never be pursued at the expense of human well-being. Contemporary research ethics, more systematic and subject-sensitive than ever before, owe much to the lessons derived from this notorious episode in psychology. 

The SPE might no longer be considered revolutionary science, but it is still a turning point tale of how the psychology world faced its shortcomings and improved as a result. 

FAQS 

What were the Academic reactions to the experiment?

Soon after the study appeared, psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1973) challenged its scientific merit, noting that not all guards acted abusively, implying individual differences were more significant than the researchers were willing to admit. In the meantime, Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) identified the role of demand characteristics, demonstrating that 81% of students surveyed accurately forecasted the study’s results when provided with a description. This casts some doubt on how “natural” the participants’ behaviour was. 

Years afterwards, Carnahan and McFarland (2007) supplemented the fact that those who volunteered to participate in prison-related experiments already scored higher in authoritarianism and aggression. This brought into contention the risk of participant self-selection bias, speculating whether or not the sample itself was contaminating the outcome. 

What ethical guidelines did the experiment lay down? 

The controversy over the SPE spurred necessary overhauls of the ethics of psychological experimentation: 

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) became more formalised and demanding in their approval processes. The American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code was revised extensively, specifically regarding informed consent, risk appraisal, and rights to withdraw. Ethical codes such as the Belmont Report (1979) stressed respect for persons, beneficence, and justice principles that came to inform psychological studies as much as medical research. In several respects, the moral backlash against the SPE served to establish the fences that now shield participants in behavioural science.

Was the Stanford experiment useful? 

Despite continuing to be cited often in texts and classrooms, the scientific validity of the experiment has been progressively questioned. In 2014, an examination by Richard Griggs found that most introductory textbooks for psychology either ignore or briefly mention the multiple criticisms of the SPE. Among 11 books that cited the study, five did not report the criticisms at all, with the others giving little coverage. This indicated a disconnection between academic discourse and teaching material. More recently, Thibault Le Texier (2018), after examining archived documents and unpublished materials, argued that parts of the SPE may have been staged or manipulated to fit Zimbardo’s theory, further muddying its scientific value.