Overview
Notorious for its horrific treatments and abuse of its participants, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study – an interesting one at that. Conducted by Professor Philip G. Zimbardo of Stanford University, the experiment was devised to last for two weeks; however, it had to be cut short to six days due to the psychological trauma inflicted on the participants. It was condemned nationally, serving as an unscrupulous example of intellectual experimentation.
From August 14, 1971, to August 20, 1971, the experiment was located in the basement of Stanford University’s Psychology Department. Twenty-four male volunteers were needed – 12 for the guards and 12 for the prisoners. Over 70 applicants responded to what seemed to be a profitable opportunity, advertised in newspaper classifieds for a whopping $15 per day, equivalent to around $116 in 2025 money.
However, the 24 participants chosen after being interviewed, tested, screened, and evaluated were soon exposed to a different reality. In short, these ‘prisoners’ were stripped, deloused, ridiculed, maimed, and stripped of their individuality in return for the assessment of the conditional variables’ effects on people’s behaviours.
Zimbardo was enthralled by the conclusions the study seemed to present. Young, ordinary, male students selected to serve as ‘guards’ reveled in their new anonymous status and increased authority. They exerted their power beyond the researchers’ request, to the point of violating the rules implemented. ‘Prisoners’ – some quickly and some gradually – had begun to believe that they were in an actual prison, not an experiment.
New Insights
Though decades later, one person publicly recalled and questioned the study’s implications. Michael Stevens, best known as Vsauce on social media platforms, is a 39-year-old American educator and orator, having attained 24.6 million subscribers on YouTube channel. He publishes videos on both concrete and abstract subjects, portraying his dedication to challenging and informing notions worldwide.
On December 19, 2018 – as a festive prelude to Christmas – Stevens posted his “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” a 30-minute video that encapsulates the study and also scrutinizes the findings that Zimbardo attained. Specifically, he highlighted that “Zimbardo insists that demand characteristics played little role in his subjects’ behaviour.” (Demand characteristics refer to subtle cues in an experiment that lead the participants to speculate the study’s purpose, which may engender differences in behaviour).
In fact, after interviewing Dave Eshelman – one of the most despicable guards there – Stevens was determined to answer a question of his own: “In the absence of outside influence, can anonymity, power, and depersonalization alone lead to evil?” To ascertain a response to the inquiry, Stevens collaborated with Dr. Jared Bartels of William Jewell College to create an examination of their own.
This study emphasized the fundamentals of the Stanford Prison Experiment, mentioned above – depersonalization, anonymity, and power – but in a more ethical approach. The team gathered participants who scored the most in righteous divisions and placed them into a pitch-dark room to solve puzzles, whilst at their disposal was a tool to distract, or maim, another group of participants.
Surprisingly, they found uplifting results. Bartels and Stevens realized that none of the participants exploited their power to harm others intentionally. For them, this served as advocacy for the hypothesis that the situation – what Zimbardo theorized – cannot be the only component considered; personality must also be taken into account.
Conclusions
With the combined findings of Zimbardo and Vsauce, some conclusions can be assumed. First, individuals with high moralities are less likely to utilize their power for malicious intent. That being said, perhaps the opposite is true. Although it is not confirmed by Zimbardo’s study, it can be inferred that the guards may have a predisposition for aggression, given that they signed up for a prison experiment, and therefore have lower moralities. Hence, that may explain their ease in transitioning into such an authoritarian system.
As global politics progress, it is imperative that leaders fulfill their obligations – one of which is caring for their citizens. However, it has become increasingly apparent that, instead, those with authority may manipulate it for their own avarice. Not only will this result in a scarcity of citizen representation and prerogatives, but also lead to the escalation into authoritarianism.
With this in mind, these verdicts are critical to consider current and future leaders of our communities, nations, states, countries, national and international organizations, and the list goes on. Observing so many people becoming less knowledgeable about politics, and others not analyzing the policies and background of politicians, we need to encourage a mass reawakening of scrutinizing the directives and initiatives of these representatives and government institutions.
