The Standford Prison Experiment: Did They Go Too Far?

The presentation of the Stanford Prison Experiment in the film, Quiet Rage, shows a controversial study of the human response to captivity and the effects of imposed social roles on behavior. The 1971 experiment led by Phillip Zimbardo, placed paid volunteers in the roles of guards and prisoners working and living in a mock prison. Zimbardo actually played a role as the prison warden. The experiment very quickly got out of hand with a riot breaking out on day two. The guards became sadistic and emotionally abused and humiliated the prisoners repeatedly. The result was severe emotional trauma to the prisoners. As a result of this trauma, the mock prison was closed after only 6 days of operation. This experiment has been widely criticized and for being unscientific and even more concerning, unethical.

There was definitely harm done to the participants of the mock Stanford Prison during the course of the experiment. Emotional abuse was inflicted on one group of people from another group. The prisoners were first humiliated by making them wear smocks similar to women's clothing, not allowing them to wear underwear, and making them wear pantyhose on their heads. Zimbardo was trying to make their "prison-lives" dehumanizing, uncomfortable experiences. The prisoners were referred to as a "number" sewn onto their smocks. Prisoner "counts" were used to familiarize the prisoners with their numbers. These counts soon turned into hour-long ordeals, in which guards would torment and impose physical punishments onto the prisoners. The physical punishments included long bouts of forced exercise. The prison also became unsanitary. Bathroom rights became privileges that were denied if prisoners "misbehaved."

The guards also instituted a separation of the prisoners that included a "bad" cell and a "good" cell. The prisoners in the bad cell had their mattresses and smocks taken away and they were forced to sleep naked on the concrete floor. Food was also frequently denied as a means of punishment. Another source of punishment was "the hole." This was a closet used for solitary confinement. One prisoner was forced into the closet for three hours because he wouldn't eat cold sausages for supper. Zimbardo actually intervened and had this prisoner returned to his cell.

All of this dehumanizing treatment caused emotional and psychological harm to the prisoners. One prisoner developed a rash all over his body upon finding out that his "parole" had been turned down. Zimbardo turned him down because he thought he was faking an illness to get out of "prison." Many of the prisoners cried uncontrollably and were disorganized in their thinking. Two of the prisoners suffered such severe trauma that they were actually removed from the experiment. Even though the participants consented to the study and understood that they would be treated as real prisoners, I do not believe they thought that the guards would ever treat them as poorly as they did.

I would have stopped the experiment because the benefits did not outweigh the risk. I feel that the continuing of the experiment after the first signs of severe emotional distress would not benefit anyone. The experiment basically showed a game of role play going way too far. I also feel that Zimbardo never should have had himself play a role in the prison. As the Superintendent of the prison, he became part of the harm done to the prisoners. Had he only been the researcher, perhaps he would have been able to see the severity of the way the guards treated the prisoners as a viewer from the outside. Many of the other "outsiders" didn't see the severe treatment by the guards. It wasn't actually stopped until someone completely unfamiliar with the experiment observed the mock prison. She was completely disturbed by what she saw.

A benefit of the experiment was that it showed what authority and power over others can do to perfectly mentally sound individuals. It can cause them to act abusively and erratically. Another benefit is that it showed the profound effects that confinement and absolute control can do to prisoners. Overtime, such abuse could possibly cause permanent psychological damage. I do not feel, however, that these benefits outweighed the detriments of the experiment. In retrospect, the risk of harm to the individuals was too great. There were risks recognized before the beginning of the experiment but the events during the first few days of operation should have prompted a dismissal of all subjects. I would have ended the experiment when the first prisoner showed that he needed to be dismissed. The benefits of the experiment were not so innovative as to continue the experiment any further. Even in 1971, these conclusions could be drawn in other ways, such as observation in real prison settings or even reflecting on past historical events and experiments performed. The Stanford Prison Experiment is a perfect example of a human research experiment gone way too far.