Z. Set up a mock prison in the basement of
Stanford University Psychology department.
Selected 21 male participants and assigned
either role of prisoner or prison guard.
Uniform
Prisoners: Loose smock to wear and a
cap to cover their hair and were
identified by number.
Guards: Own
uniform to reflect
status, wooden
bat, handcuffs and
shades.
Creates
de-individualisation and
meant they were more
likely to conform to
their role.
Prisoners were encourage to identify
with their role in deep ways, such as if
they wanted to leave their study, they
would request to be 'placed on parole'.
Findings
Guards took role with enthusiasm,
treating prisoners harshly. Within
two days prisoners rebelled.
After the rebellion, prisoners became
depressed, anxious and subdued. 1 prisoner
leaving due to psychological disturbance, 2
more released the 4th day and 1 went on a
hunger strike.
Guards identified closely with
their role, becoming aggressive
and abusing their power.
Study ended after 6 days rather than the 14.
Evaluation
Weaknesses
Lack of realism
Banuazizi and Mohavedi argued that
participants were merely adhering to their roles,
and acting. Their performances were based on
behaviour that had seen on tv and characters.
E.G on guard said he had based his behaviour off
of a character from 'Cool Hand Luke'
Role of dispositional influences
Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the
power of situational influence, therefore minimising
the influence of personality factors. E.G on a third of
the guards behaved in a brutal manner
Ethical issues
Participants underwent severe trauma as prisoners due
to the abuse. Zimbardo had taken his role as
superintendent too seriously and when a prisoner
asked to be released, did not act as a researcher.
Strengths
Control over variables
Zimbardo had control over who was chosen for
the experiment, e.g selection of participants.
Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and
randomly assigned roles of guard and prisoner.
Increases internal validity of the experiment.
Replicates real social roles
Mark McDermott (2019) argues that
participants behaved as if the prison was
real to them. 90% of the prisoners'
conversations were about prison life,
discussing how it was impossible to leave
before their sentences were over.
Prisoner 416 later explained how he believed it was a real prison
ran by psychologists rather than the government.