Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment - Report Example

Was Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment an important contribution to the understanding of situational influences on behaviour, or an experiment fatally flawed by methodological weaknesses? Name University Name Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is one of the most important and widely-debated pieces of research in social psychology (Lovaglia, 2007). However, there are suggestions that the SPE has handed down an ‘ambiguous legacy’ (Haslam & Reicher, 2006, p55) because of some methodological weaknesses and an improbability that it will ever be replicated perfectly due to ethical considerations. Despite these issues, the SPE is indubitably important in highlighting the effect that context has on behaviour, and indicated that there may be more to tyranny than simply being ‘evil’. The purpose of this essay is to examine the SPE in the context of more recent research (such as the BBC Prison Experiment []) to show that, whilst there are definite methodological considerations to make, the SPE made a huge contribution to this field of psychology and opened up a new dynamic of assessing and understanding situational influences on behaviour. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971, and was originally intended to help uncover some of the psychological aspects of conflict between military guards and prisoners (Zimbardo, 2004). The experiment consisted of 24 male participants who were selected by Zimbardo from a group of volunteers for having good physical and mental health (Zimbardo, 1975). These participants were then randomly assigned roles, termed ‘prisoner’ and ‘guard’, in a mock prison setting at Stanford University, and were then observed to obtain results about what would happen in this situation. Many of the participants adapted to their role extremely quickly, with prison guards becoming militant and authoritarian in their actions, and prisoners staging a revolt (Zimbardo, 1975). These results, whilst having some methodological considerations, shocked the world of social psychology, and many members of the public due to the release of films showing parts of the experiment. One of the conclusions of the infamous SPE was that a legitimizing ideology is a great behavioural adapter, because it can justify previously unappealing actions for a greater good (Zimbardo, 1975). This conclusion helps to establish why situational influences on behaviour can explain many of the horrific events of the 20th century, and perhaps even before that (Zimbardo, 2007). Rationalizing a behaviour by adapting it to a worldview is thought to be common in human behaviour, and several studies have reinforced this idea (e.g. Brady & Logsdon, 1988). Interestingly, Zimbardo stated that several people came to view the SPE, and only one of these visitors voiced concerns about the ethical issues of the study (Zimbardo, 2007), which are now well established (e.g. DeJong, 1975, Lovaglia, 2007). Whilst this finding was not part of the official, published results of the study, it does add some weight to the conclusion, as the legitimizing ideology in this case was the furthering of scientific interest, which allowed visitors to look past ethical issues in favour of science. This conclusion, however, is hotly debated simply because of some methodological considerations that must be made when analysing the SPE. One of the main criticisms of the study is that it’s very nature meant that Zimbardo could not keep to standard scientific controls (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975) and could not maintain objectivity throughout the study (Lovaglia, 2007). This meant that much of the released information about the SPE was based on anecdotal evidence, and it has been argued that this is a flaw which renders the findings of the entire study obsolete (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975). However, there are those that argue that this type of finding can be useful if it is kept in context and the flaws are taken into account when using the information (Brady & Logsdon, 1988). It is clear from film extracts and published material on the study that, despite possible interpretation bias and methodological flaws, there are situational influences on behaviour, many of which can be influenced by (although not completely dictated by) role-play. Another criticism often made of the SPE is that it lacks ecological validity because the conditions imposed by Zimbardo do not necessarily represent true prison conditions, as they were orchestrated somewhat arbitrarily (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). This is a somewhat valid criticism, in that it represents the truth – the prison was artificial and held in a basement – but there are several problems with accepting this as an invalidating methodological flaw. Additionally, many pointed out the similarity between the SPE and the situation found in Abu Ghraib, suggesting that there are some real-world situations which can be likened to the SPE (Zimbardo, 2006), however rare they may be. Despite questionable ecological validity, there are still interesting conclusions that can be drawn from the SPE. There are many situations in which role-play, legitimizing ideology, and imposed authority play a role outside of prison situations (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Whilst this is an extreme form of many environments, it is still evident that some effect was still being exerted on the prisoners. Again, it is important to take into account this flaw when considering the results of the SPE, but it does not detract from the contribution it made to social psychology. Another strength of the SPE is that some parts of the experiment are available on publically available video recording (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975). Despite criticisms that some results were never published in peer-review journals (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975) and that results were not available for statistical analysis (Banuazizi & Movahedi , 1975), anecdotal evidence does provide some value in psychology (Lovaglia, 2007). The fact that Zimbardo willingly allows others to view and evaluate this experiment has perhaps strengthened the contribution to psychology the SPE has made. Additionally, it can be argued that video presents less of a bias than some other media (Lovaglia, 2007), and therefore the SPE does provide information that does not rely on memories of the event or fall back on opinions of occurrences at the time, which strengthens the case that the SPE results should be trusted and have made a huge contribution to the understanding of external influences on behaviour. One major criticism of the SPE is that the conclusions that Zimbardo made were ultimately false and should not be trusted (Haslam, 2006). One of these conclusions is that only situational influences have an effect on external behaviours, where there is evidence from other studies that show personality has an effect. These seemingly conflicting views could, however, both play a role in the way that someone chooses to act in soe situations, as suggested by the results of the BBC Prison Study (Haslam & Reicher, 2006). Evidently, the conclusion that situations exert the strongest influence on behaviour, or even the sole influence, should be disregarded in light of other evidence, but this alone does not mean that the SPE has made no contribution. Again, it is important to take the results of the study contextually and to understand that methodological weaknesses does not necessarily need to undermine the results from the entire experiment, particularly one that has been so influential in shaping recent forays into the field. Another important factor to consider is that the SPE has paved the way for several other investigations into the effect of situational influences on behaviours, and can be said to have contributed hugely to the field by providing (alongside the experiments of Milgram) a basis for further research (Lovaglia, 2007). One of the most famous of these was the BBC Prison Study, which despite having criticisms of its own (Haslam, 2006) did provide a replicable experiment. The BBC Prison Study also raised less ethical concerns than the original study by Zimbardo, and published findings in several peer-reviewed papers (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). Although some findings by Haslam & Reicher (2006) differed from that of the original SPE, there was still evidence that prisoners do conform to a group ideology and that this can occasionally lead to tyranny and oppression. This suggests that the SPE did provide legitimate information as a starting point for later experimental ideas to form. In conclusion, there are some obvious problems with the SPE and the way that it was analysed and presented to the scientific community. Some of these methodological weaknesses include the fact that some of the information was not made available for peer-review, that there are several moral and ethical problems with the study, and that it lacks ecological validity and generalizability. However, if one analyses the results of the SPE whilst bearing these criticisms in mind, it is clear that the experiment has had a huge impact on the way that situational influences on behaviour are examined in social psychology, as well as providing information about tyranny and its development in response to social clues. Additionally, further studies such as the BBC Prison Experiment highlight some of the problems with the SPE but suggest that some of the results were accurate by reproducing them in a more ethical, scientifically valid way. It may also be useful to re-evaluate or disregard some of the strong conclusions made by Zimbardo in the original study. Overall, it seems evident that the SPE played a huge part in the development of this area of psychology, despite methodological flaws. Word Count: 1509 References Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/30/2/152/ Brady, F. N., & Logsdon, J. M. (1988). Zimbardo’s ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ and the relevance of social psychology for teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(9), 703–710. Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 603–614. DeJong, W. (1975). Another look at Banuazizi and Movahedi’s analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/30/10/1013/ Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1–40. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Debating the psychology of tyranny: Fundamental issues of theory, perspective and science. British journal of social psychology, 45(1), 55–63. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). When Prisoners Take Over the Prison A Social Psychology of Resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154–179. Lovaglia, M. J. (2007). Knowing People: The Personal Use of Social Psychology. Rowman & Littlefield. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York. Retrieved from http://mesharpe.metapress.com/index/y706v443818540n7.pdf Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Does psychology make a significant difference in our lives? American Psychologist, 59(5), 339. Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Reflections on the Stanford prison experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm, 193–237. Read More