All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 27, 2008 - Skeptoid
14:24
Skeptoid #102: What You Didn't Know about the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment, said to have proven that evil environments produce evil behavior, was completely unscientific and unreliable. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Good People Turn Evil 00:05:52
The Stanford Prison Experiment from 1971 attempted to show that totally ordinary people can become cruel and monstrous if placed into circumstances that encourage it.
It became one of the most famous pieces of pop psychology.
But what if it turned out that nearly everything about it was fundamentally unscientific and essentially invalid as proof of anything?
The truth about the Stanford Prison Experiment is coming up today on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's HyperFixed, the new podcast for Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
What you didn't know about the Stanford Prison Experiment.
It was 1971 when the prisoner, emotionally drained, sleep-deprived, chained, and dehumanized in his rough muslin smock, was thrown into a tiny dark closet by the cruel guard nicknamed John Wayne to endure solitary confinement without food or bathroom privileges.
You might think this scene was from Hanoi in Vietnam, or at best a military prison in the United States.
You'd be close, this brutal activity was funded by the United States Navy, which was interested in learning more about the psychological mechanisms in a prison environment.
It took place at Stanford University in California, and the prisoner had done nothing wrong other than to volunteer for a research project.
This was the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by professor of psychology, Dr. Philip Zimbardo.
Philip Zimbardo grew up in what he describes as a South Bronx ghetto, and as a boy, watched his close friends engage in acts of violence, drug abuse, and wind up in jail.
He grew fascinated by the question of why good people do bad things and became convinced from a very young age that bad environments tend to poison the people placed into them.
Put a good person into an evil situation, and that person will become evil.
He later wrote, To investigate this, I created an experiment.
We took women's students at New York University and made them anonymous.
We put them in hoods, put them in the dark, took away their names, gave them numbers, and put them in small groups.
And sure enough, within half an hour, those sweet women were giving painful electric shocks to other women within an experimental setting.
Any situation that makes you anonymous and gives permission for aggression will bring out the beast in most people.
That was the start of my interest in showing how easy it is to get good people to do things they say they would never do.
From his body of work, it is easy to conclude that he was actively interested in justifying a preconceived notion that good people will become evil if you put them into an evil environment.
About a decade after getting his PhD in psychology from Yale, Zimbardo went to Stanford University, where he got tenure and then set about planning the experiment that was to define his career.
24 students were recruited for a two-week experiment for which they would each receive $15 per day.
They were randomly assigned to be either prison guards or inmates.
The prisoners were surprised to be picked up unexpectedly at their homes by real Palo Alto police officers.
They were roughly hustled to their new home, stripped, deloused, and put into rough muslin smocks with no underwear.
Zimbardo described it.
The question there was, what happens when you put good people in an evil place?
We put good ordinary college students in a very realistic, prison-like setting in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford.
We dehumanized the prisoners, gave them numbers, and took away their identity.
We also de-individuated the guards, calling them Mr. Correctional Officer, putting them in khaki uniforms, and giving them silver reflecting sunglasses, like in the movie Cool Hand Luke.
Essentially, we translated the anonymity of Lord of the Flies into a setting where we could observe exactly what happened from moment to moment.
The results have become legendary.
Some of the guards seemed to relish their newfound authority a little too much, becoming sadistic and working extra hours just for fun.
The torment they put on the prisoners was real.
Some began showing physical manifestations of stress and psychological trauma, to the point that one-third of them had to be removed from the experiment early.
In fact, it got so bad that Zimbardo decided to end the experiment after only six days, less than half the planned duration.
Zimbardo's conclusion was clear.
Good ordinary college students willingly become sadistic tormentors simply because they were given the permission, the means, and the expectation of doing so.
The Stanford prison experiment and this well-publicized result became a permanent fixture in the popular conception of psychology.
Why Skepticism Matters 00:08:10
The problem is that a lot of the psychology community disagrees with his findings.
Some found that any results were rendered meaningless by insufficient controls.
Some have problems with his analysis of the results, reaching a different conclusion based on the same data.
Some found the sample population invalidated by selection biases, or the size of the sample inadequate for statistically useful results.
Some found methodological flaws that tainted the participants' behavior.
Let's look at some of these criticisms in closer detail.
Hey everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Malagas, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating, skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
First, the issue of selection bias.
Selection bias is where you choose your subjects in such a way that they are not truly representative of the general population.
In this case, Zimbardo advertised to students to participate in an experiment about prison life.
Clearly, a large segment of the general population would be repulsed by such a concept, so you've got to have questions about anyone attracted to that idea.
Thus, all applicants to the Stanford prison experiment were pre-selected for comfort with the idea of prison life.
Most of the Stanford guards did not exhibit any cruel or unusual behavior, often being friendly and doing favors for the prisoners.
The most notorious guard, nicknamed John Wayne, explained that he was simply trying to emulate Struther Martin's character from Cool Hand Luke.
Other analysts have found it difficult to support Zimbardo's conclusions, since the allegedly poisonous environment did not affect most participants, and the most notorious participant explained that his motivation came from a completely different source.
Zimbardo himself was also criticized for actively participating in the experiment as one of the characters.
He was the prison superintendent.
Although he may have restrained himself from having any influence on the experiment, the fact that he put himself in the position of ultimate active authority over the guards' behavior calls this into question.
Many designers of such experiments would summarily throw out such a study based on this alone.
Some researchers have also questioned why Zimbardo neglected the effect of individual personalities, instead generally attributing all behavior to the prison environment.
How did John Wayne's behavior as a guard compare to his behavior outside the experiment?
Was he generally a friendly guy?
Or might he have already been a royal jerk?
We don't know, so there was insufficient data to conclude that his behavior was changed by the experiment.
The statistical validity of the sample of participants, 24 male Stanford students of about the same age, has been called into question as being too small and restrictive to be generally applicable to the population at large.
I have one other issue with Zimbardo's results that I didn't find anyone else raising, and it goes back to my 15-point checklist in Skeptoid number 37, How to Spot Pseudoscience.
Zimbardo has dedicated much of his career to the promotion of the idea that bad environments drive bad behavior.
I tend to be cautious of claims coming from sources dedicated to promoting them.
The scientific method starts with a null hypothesis, not with a preconceived notion to justify, and that process invariably produces data that do not support the conclusion, and theories tend to change over time as a result.
By my analysis, Zimbardo appears to be cherry-picking his results to justify the same conclusion that he has been promoting throughout his career.
This doesn't make him wrong.
It just gives me cause for skepticism.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that by today's standards, the Stanford prison experiment was unethical and could never be performed in the United States.
However, this point is not relevant to the validity of the results, and in any event, it was perfectly legal at the time.
Dr. Zimbardo and the Stanford experiment came into the news again in 2004, following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.
American prison guards were accused of cruelty to Iraqi prisoners, the great Naked Human Pyramid Gate scandal.
A number of soldiers and senior officers were court-martialed and imprisoned or demoted.
The prosecutors claimed that a few bad apples were responsible.
The defense disagreed and called in Dr. Zimbardo as an expert witness to testify that it was the environment that was responsible, not the individuals.
You can't be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel, he famously said.
The court disagreed, finding, rightly as many would say, that individuals must be held accountable for their own actions, and the few bad apples went to jail.
Dr. Zimbardo then wrote the book, The Lucifer Effect, drawing further parallels between his prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Psychology is complicated, and there will probably never be a perfect theory explaining all human behavior.
So people should never assign too much significance to the results of any given experiment, like the Stanford prison experiment.
And when an experiment receives a large amount of scholarly criticism from mainstream science, as this one did, you have very good reason to look past its portrayal in the popular media and instead, be skeptical.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double-doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Support Skeptoid Premium 00:00:18
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection