zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment Aims: To investigate how readily people conform to social roles.

Procedures: Mentally and physically healthy male university student participants were divided randomly into two groups of prison officers and prisoners. The 'prisoners' were arrested at their homes and taken to a police station. From there they were then placed in a prison cell (which was in the basement of Stanford University) and locked up for 24 hours a day whilst the officers patrolled in 8 hour shifts. On arrival the prisoners were stripped and sprayed with delousing spray (deodorant) and dressed in a smock with an ID number on, which they would now be called. The guards were issued with sunglasses, handcuffs, whistles, nightsticks etc. Prisoners had to call them 'Mr. Correctional Officer, Sir'. The participants were then left to their own devices, monitored by cameras to see how the situation developed.

Findings: The officers appeared to relish their new roles. At first punishments included a loss of privilages (books, letters) but over time they became more brutal (loss of sleep, solitary confinement, loss of food). Prisoners were routinely woken up in the middle of the night (when the officers thought the cameras were not filming) and marched out into the cell yard. Most of the time the prisoners obeyed. One, though, began a hunger strike. The other inmates rejected him as he drew attention to himself and was causing trouble. The participants assumed their roles rapidly. A 'good' officer was tough, aggressive and arrogant. Even the less aggressive guards soon conformed to this role model. Prisoners

stuck to the rules. On the third day a prisoner was released with 'acute emotional disturbance'. Another got a psychosomatic rash. The experiment was intended to last two weeks, but it was terminated after just 6 days. Conclusion: This experiment shows the power and potency of social influences. In many respects the participants became the roles that they were playing. Evaluation: It was UNETHICAL.Participants were not informed that the 'prisoners' would be arrested at home. It is also questionable as to whether they were protected from psychological harm. Although from debriefing, it was concluded that they were no lasting psychological harm. It lacked INTERNAL VALIDITY. The participants could not have belived that it was a real prison as it was just a setup in the basement of a university. It lacked EXTERNAL VALIDITY. The officers were not given any indication of how to act as real prison officers would. It is also said that people just ACTED out their roles. It can be said that the participants were just conforming to STEREOTYPICAL roles seen in movies. This can be supported by the fact that officers were given items such as reflective sunglasses, which are useless in a basement. Most guards later admitted that they were just acting this role out. Though the fact that anger, hostility and distress was shown indicates that this was NOT JUST ACTING, that the participants became their role. Other Points: People say this experiment was highly unethical as the benifits did not outweigh the costs. However, from this experiment and Milgram's experiment, an agreed

code of conduct and ethical guidelines were produced.