Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Stanford prison experiment
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Critiques of scientific validity == In 1975, Ali Banuazizi and Siamak Movahedi argued that the behavior of the participants in the SPE was a result of [[demand characteristics]] and not the prison environment, that there is no single definition of prisoner behavior, and that participants were simply acting in the role in which they had been cast.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal|author1=Benuazizi, A.|author2=Movahedi, S.|date=February 1975|title="Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis"|url=http://www.faculty.umb.edu/siamak_movahedi/Library/zimbardo.pdf|journal=[[The American Psychologist]]|volume=30|issue=2|pages=152–160|doi=10.1037/h0076835}}</ref> Participants' behavior may have also been influenced by knowing that they were watched ([[Hawthorne effect]]).<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title = Zimbardo – Stanford Prison Experiment|url = http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html|website = www.simplypsychology.org|access-date = November 11, 2015|quote=Zimbardo (1973) was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e., dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e., situational).}}</ref> Instead of being restrained by fear of an observer, guards may have behaved more aggressively when supervisors observing them did not restrain them.<ref name="NewYorker"/> The study was also criticized for demand characteristics in 2012 by psychologist Peter Gray, who argued that participants in psychological experiments are more likely to do what they believe the researchers want them to do, and specifically in the case of the SPE, "to act out their stereotyped views of what prisoners and guards do."<ref>{{cite news|author=Gray, Peter|date=2013|title=Why Zimbardo's Prison Experiment Isn't in My Textbook|work=Freedom to Learn blog|url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in-my-textbook}}</ref> In 2007, Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland argued that the experiment suffers from [[selection bias]], as the recruiting posters for SPE specifically advertised participation in a study about prison life. Carnahan and McFarland argued that those who applied to participate with the SPE thus likely already had traits associated with abusiveness, [[aggression]], [[authoritarianism]], [[Machiavellianism (psychology)|Machiavellianism]], [[social dominance orientation]], and [[narcissism]]. Further, low dispositional [[empathy]] and [[altruism]] would also be indicators of someone who would volunteer.<ref name="revisitingSPE">{{Cite journal|last1=Carnahan|first1=Thomas|last2=McFarland|first2=Sam|date=April 17, 2007|title=Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty?|url=http://www.pitt.edu/~bertsch/Carnahan.pdf|journal=[[Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin]]|language=en|volume=33|issue=5|pages=603–14|doi=10.1177/0146167206292689|issn=0146-1672|pmid=17440210|s2cid=15946975}}</ref> In 2018 Thibault Le Texier, a French researcher, in his book, {{lang|fr|Histoire d'un Mensonge}} (''The History of a Lie''), questions the scientific validity and merit of the SPE.<ref name="auto1">{{cite book|last=Le Texier|first=Thibault|title=Histoire d'un mensonge: enquête sur l'expérience de Stanford|publisher=Zones|year=2018|isbn=978-2-35522-120-0|publication-place=Paris|page=|language=fr|trans-title=The History of a Lie|oclc=1034777209}}</ref> He further discussed his critiques in an article published by the APA in 2019. Le Texier asserts his arguments using testimonies of those participants who were assigned as guards. In his opinion, the sadism and submission displayed in the SPE was directly caused by Zimbardo's instructions to the guards and the guards' desire to please the researchers. In particular, he has established that the guards were asked directly to behave in certain ways in order to confirm Zimbardo's conclusions, which were largely written in advance of the experiment.<ref name = "LeTexier"/><ref>{{cite journal|last=Le Texier|first=Thibault|year=2019|title=Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment|journal=[[American Psychologist]]|publisher=[[American Psychological Association]]|volume=74|issue=7|pages=823–839|doi=10.1037/amp0000401|pmid=31380664|s2cid=199437070 |issn=1935-990X|url=https://psyarxiv.com/mjhnp/|id=[[PsycNET]] [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-45337-001 2019-45337-001]}}</ref><ref name="auto1" /> Zimbardo and colleagues contend that Le Texier's critiques were mostly [[ad hominem]] and ignored available data that contradicts his counterarguments.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zimbardo |first1=Philip G. |last2=Haney |first2=Craig |date=April 2020 |title=Continuing to acknowledge the power of dehumanizing environments: Comment on Haslam et al. (2019) and Le Texier (2019) |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32250143/ |journal=The American Psychologist |volume=75 |issue=3 |pages=400–402 |doi=10.1037/amp0000593 |issn=1935-990X |pmid=32250143|s2cid=214811340 }}</ref> In 2020, Dutch historian [[Rutger Bregman]] claimed the experiment to be dubious. He states that the guards were urged to act aggressively towards the prisoners. In his book ''[[Humankind: A Hopeful History]]'', he is of the opinion that in similar experiments, researchers intentionally created hostility between groups and then interpreted the findings to suit their needs.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bregman|first=Rutger|title=Humankind: a hopeful history|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|year=2020|isbn=978-1-4088-9893-2|publication-place=London|page=|oclc=1119596186}}</ref> Participant guard David Eshelman acknowledged that his theater background lent itself well to his role as guard, that he purposely thought of new ways to demean the prisoners – on one shift, Eshelman instructed the prisoners to simulate sodomy.<ref>"'John Wayne' (name withheld) Interview: 'The Science of Evil'". ''Primetime: Basic Instincts''. KATU. January 3, 2007</ref> Zimbardo has responded to this argument by stating that other guards acted similarly or engaged with Eshelman in the treatment of prisoners. While it is possible that one guard adopted his behavior from a movie (Eshelman identified with the warden in ''[[Cool Hand Luke]]''), others did not. Also, guards on a different shift than Eshelman exacted similar acts of emotional and mental brutality. Zimbardo further argues that the behaviors of the participant guards were not unlike those of real-world prison atrocities or the actions taken by American soldiers in the Abu Ghraib prison.<ref name="auto" /> Most of the guards have stated since the SPE that they were intentionally acting.<ref name=":0" /> The [[#BBC prison study|BBC prison study]] has indicated the importance of direction, of the form displayed by Zimbardo when briefing guards in the Stanford experiment, in the emergence of tyranny.<ref name=":3">{{Cite news|date=2005-10-31|author= John Sutherland |title=The ideas interview: Alex Haslam|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/oct/31/highereducation.uk1|access-date=2023-03-16|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{cite interview|last=Reicher|first=Steve|interviewer=Briggs, Pam|title=''Learning from the Experiment''|last2=Haslam|first2=Alex|url=http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/interviews/experiment.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221194634/http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/interviews/experiment.htm|archive-date=February 21, 2009|work=The Psychologist|author-link=Steve Reicher|author-link2=Alex Haslam}}</ref> === Carlo Prescott as a prison consultant === In 2005, an article was published by Carlo Prescott in ''[[The Stanford Daily]]'', explaining that the antagonistic tactics used by the guards were ones that he experienced during his time spent in [[San Quentin Rehabilitation Center|San Quentin]]. He shared each one in detail with the researchers prior to the experiment. In Prescott's opinion, the participants with the experiment, having no experience as prison guards, could not have acted in the ways they did unless they had been told of the explicit details of the actions they took.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Prescott|first=C.|date=2005|title=The lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment|url=https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/04/28?page=4§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE21#article|website=archives.stanforddaily.com|publisher=The Stanford Daily|access-date=November 9, 2021}}</ref> Zimbardo has stated that he believed that the article was not written by Prescott, but rather by the screenwriter and producer [[Michael Lazarou]], who had attempted unsuccessfully to get the movie rights to the story of the SPE. In Zimbardo's opinion, Prescott would not have written in such a legalistic way, and Zimbardo claims that, in telephone records and emails obtained by Brett Emory, the SPE movie's producer asserted Prescott was not the author.<ref name="auto">Zimbardo, P., Hardwick, D. (2021). Zimbardo My Life Revealed. Giunti Psychometrics</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)