The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most significant psychological investigations ever done. Almost every introduction to psychology textbook mentions it. They tend to emphasize how immoral it was, rather than the ostensible conclusion.
On August 14th, 1971, police in Palo Alto, California, start collecting twelve young men from their houses, place them under arrest, and transport them to a makeshift prison in the Stanford University basement. Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychology professor, leads a study on the psychology of prison life.
A group of 24 volunteers, 12 guards, and 12 inmates have decided to spend the next two weeks replicating life in jail. The inmates are taken into custody and stripped naked. They’ve been compelled to wear smocks, stocking caps, and shackles, and they’re no longer individuals. Only their prisoner numbers allowed them to be recognized.
The guards adjust to their new job swiftly. Because of their mirrored sunglasses, some of them begin to control the inadequate food supplies and restrict the use of the lavatory by the captives. As emotions increase, so do their heinous tactics. Some viewers may find the documentation of the experiment, which includes photos and video recordings, upsetting.
The experiment, which was supposed to last 1-2 weeks, was forced to halt on the sixth day after the convicts were subjected to severe and dehumanizing torture at the hands of their peers. Prisoners were seized at their houses without notice and sent to the local police station, just like any other criminal. They were fingerprinted, photographed, and taken to jail.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, according to Zimbardo and his associates, highlighted how people effortlessly adhere to the social roles they are intended to behave, especially when the positions are as thoroughly classified as those of prison guards. Because they were in a position of power and authority, the guards began acting in a manner they would not normally behave in their daily lives.
The prison atmosphere played a significant role in the guards’ violent behavior. As a result, the data support the situational rather than the affective interpretation of behavior.
