stanford prison experiment ethical issues essay

Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay

Nowadays, modern psychologists are expected to adhere to a strict and rigid code of ethical principles in order to ensure the validity of their practices and the safety of the patients and participants. Any psychological experiments that are to be conducted are forced to undergo an extensive review by a competent board of experts and receive their approval prior to proceeding. However, it was not always the case.

The formal acknowledgment of these ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association happened only after the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo (“Ethical Guidelines for Human Research” par. 12). Despite the fact that the experiment provided interesting results and the data accumulated during the research was later used as a basis for improvement of prison conditions, it still violated several ethical guidelines and put the physical and mental health of the participants at unnecessary risk. The purpose of this paper is to explore the moral qualms of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Professor Philip Zimbardo, when conducting his study, wanted to find out how readily the participants would adapt and conform to the roles of a prisoner and a guard during a roleplay exercise. The investigation was sparked by numerous reports of the brutality of the guards in prisons. This experiment was supposed to give an answer as to whether this tendency had something to do with the personalities of the guards or the environment that they found themselves in.

For this experiment, 24 participants were chosen out of 75 volunteers. The students were split in half. One group had to play the prisoners and another – the guards. The setting emphasized realism – the fake prison looked very real, and the professor even arranged an unexpected arrest of the participants in their homes by the local police department. The prisoners were told to refer to one another only by their numbers. The guards wore dark shades to avoid any direct eye contact with the prisoners. No explicit rules about prisoner conduct were given, aside from the fact that no violence was allowed. The guards were instructed to maintain order through any means necessary (Danko 1).

Although the experiment was meant to last for two weeks, it was terminated after six days. The research became famous due to the unexpected brutality that the mock guards showed towards the prisoners. All participants were tested prior to the experiment and showed no inclination towards sadistic behavior. During these six days, the guards treated the prisoners with increasing neglect, contempt, and abuse. There was one case of a prison riot when the participants barricaded themselves in their cells.

One prisoner had to be released from the experiment due to experiencing a psychological breakdown. The experiment concluded that the brutal behavior of the guards was a situational behavior and not a dispositional one (McLeod 1).

The study has received numerous criticisms concerning professional ethics. The major points of all ethical complaints include a lack of fully informed consent and endangering the participants’ mental health (“Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” par. 4). The participants were unable to give fully informed consent since the professor himself was unable to predict the results of the experiment. The episode with the fake arrests was a last-minute addition that none of the participants consented to. Not only was this incident a breach of ethics, but it was also a violation of the contract Zimbardo signed with the participants (Zimbardo 1).

A much more pressing concern, however, was endangering the participants’ mental health. The students involved in the experiment were exposed to a great amount of stress, humiliation, and psychological harm. One of the prisoners suffered a mental breakdown and had to be released from his cell prematurely. He succumbed to uncontrolled bursts of screaming, crying and laughter (“The First Prisoner Released” par. 8). Although no permanent long-term effects were noticed for any of the subjects, it was still a case of dangerous misconduct. The experiment breached the general principles of psychological ethics, such as the principle Benevolence and Non-maleficence and the Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity (“Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” par. 3).

Professor Zimbardo was fortunate that the experiment he conducted did not cause any lasting or permanent damage to the participants. As the incident with the breakdown of one of the students had shown, the possibilities for psychological trauma were plenty. The experiment should have been stopped after that incident. Instead, it continued for three more days and was terminated only after the interference of Christina Maslach (McLeod 1), who was brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and the prisoners.

The history of unsavory experiments shows that the experiments, which have little regard for morals and ethics, tend to lend better results. However, there is a danger in such a way of thinking. Modern psychology is dedicated to helping people and studying human behavior. These goals could be achieved without endangering those who agreed to aid the scientists in their noble goals. It should stay that way. Perhaps these measures would restrain the speed of progress. However, it is better this way. The scientific community should take care not to undermine the trust the people are putting into them. The public outrage caused by the Stanford Experiment shows how fragile that trust could be.

Works Cited

Danko, Meredith . 10 Famous Psychological Experiments That Could Never Happen Today . Web.

Ethical Guidelines for Human Research, 2016. Web.

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct , 2010. Web.

McLeod, Saul. Stanford Prison Experiment . Web.

The First Prisoner Released , 2016. Web.

Zimbardo, Philip. Consent Form . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ethical-issues-of-the-stanford-experiment/

"Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-ethical-issues-of-the-stanford-experiment/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ethical-issues-of-the-stanford-experiment/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ethical-issues-of-the-stanford-experiment/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-ethical-issues-of-the-stanford-experiment/.

• The Stanford Prison Experiment and My Perception of Human Behaviour
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Ethics Principles
• The Stanford Prison Experiment Overview
• Ethics in Psychology and the Mental Health Professions
• Counseling: Poor Attention and Communication Skills
• Ethical Considerations of Human Psychological Research
• Post-Traumatic Stress and Evidence-Based Practice
• Mental Health Illness Problems Corrections

Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo’s Famous Study

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

• The experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to examine situational forces versus dispositions in human behavior.
• 24 young, healthy, psychologically normal men were randomly assigned to be “prisoners” or “guards” in a simulated prison environment.
• The experiment had to be terminated after only 6 days due to the extreme, pathological behavior emerging in both groups. The situational forces overwhelmed the dispositions of the participants.
• Pacifist young men assigned as guards began behaving sadistically, inflicting humiliation and suffering on the prisoners. Prisoners became blindly obedient and allowed themselves to be dehumanized.
• The principal investigator, Zimbardo, was also transformed into a rigid authority figure as the Prison Superintendent.
• The experiment demonstrated the power of situations to alter human behavior dramatically. Even good, normal people can do evil things when situational forces push them in that direction.

Zimbardo and his colleagues (1973) were 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).

For example, prisoners and guards may have personalities that make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and order and guards being domineering and aggressive.

Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons.

Zimbardo predicted the situation made people act the way they do rather than their disposition (personality).

To study people’s roles in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison.

He advertised asking for volunteers to participate in a study of the psychological effects of prison life.

The 75 applicants who answered the ad were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse.

24 men judged to be the most physically & mentally stable, the most mature, & the least involved in antisocial behaviors were chosen to participate.

The participants did not know each other prior to the study and were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were two reserves, and one dropped out, finally leaving ten prisoners and 11 guards.

Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked.’

Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells. Here the deindividuation process began.

When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only.

The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number.

Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.

All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible.

Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was permitted.

Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.

Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Asserting Authority

Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to harass prisoners. At 2:30 A.M. prisoners were awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many “counts.”

The counts served as a way to familiarize the prisoners with their numbers. More importantly, they provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners.

The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards.

They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.

Physical Punishment

The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized.

Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards. One of the guards stepped on the prisoners” backs while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit on the backs of fellow prisoners doing their push-ups.

Asserting Independence

Because the first day passed without incident, the guards were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion which broke out on the morning of the second day.

During the second day of the experiment, the prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door.

The guards called in reinforcements. The three guards who were waiting on stand-by duty came in and the night shift guards voluntarily remained on duty.

Putting Down the Rebellion

The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out.

The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary confinement. After this, the guards generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.

Special Privileges

One of the three cells was designated as a “privilege cell.” The three prisoners least involved in the rebellion were given special privileges. The guards gave them back their uniforms and beds and allowed them to wash their hair and brush their teeth.

Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in the presence of the other prisoners who had temporarily lost the privilege of eating. The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.

Consequences of the Rebellion

Over the next few days, the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.

As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive.

As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything, so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.

Prisoner #8612

Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage.

After a meeting with the guards where they told him he was weak, but offered him “informant” status, #8612 returned to the other prisoners and said “You can”t leave. You can’t quit.”

Soon #8612 “began to act ‘crazy,’ to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control.” It wasn’t until this point that the psychologists realized they had to let him out.

A Visit from Parents

The next day, the guards held a visiting hour for parents and friends. They were worried that when the parents saw the state of the jail, they might insist on taking their sons home. Guards washed the prisoners, had them clean and polish their cells, fed them a big dinner and played music on the intercom.

After the visit, rumors spread of a mass escape plan. Afraid that they would lose the prisoners, the guards and experimenters tried to enlist help and facilities of the Palo Alto police department.

The guards again escalated the level of harassment, forcing them to do menial, repetitive work such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands.

Catholic Priest

Zimbardo invited a Catholic priest who had been a prison chaplain to evaluate how realistic our prison situation was. Half of the prisoners introduced themselves by their number rather than name.

The chaplain interviewed each prisoner individually. The priest told them the only way they would get out was with the help of a lawyer.

Prisoner #819

Eventually, while talking to the priest, #819 broke down and began to cry hysterically, just like two previously released prisoners had.

The psychologists removed the chain from his foot, the cap off his head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the prison yard. They told him they would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor.

While this was going on, one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud:

“Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer.”

The psychologists realized #819 could hear the chanting and went back into the room where they found him sobbing uncontrollably. The psychologists tried to get him to agree to leave the experiment, but he said he could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner.

Back to Reality

At that point, Zimbardo said, “Listen, you are not #819. You are [his name], and my name is Dr. Zimbardo. I am a psychologist, not a prison superintendent, and this is not a real prison. This is just an experiment, and those are students, not prisoners, just like you. Let’s go.”

He stopped crying suddenly, looked up and replied, “Okay, let’s go,“ as if nothing had been wrong.

An End to the Experiment

Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for two weeks, but on the sixth day, it was terminated, due to the emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression of the guards.

Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards.

Filled with outrage, she said, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.

Zimbardo (2008) later noted, “It wasn’t until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point — that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist.“

This led him to prioritize maintaining the experiment’s structure over the well-being and ethics involved, thereby highlighting the blurring of roles and the profound impact of the situation on human behavior.

Here’s a quote that illustrates how Philip Zimbardo, initially the principal investigator, became deeply immersed in his role as the “Stanford Prison Superintendent (April 19, 2011):

“By the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of “Stanford Prison Superintendent.” And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics. When a prisoner broke down, what was my job? It was to replace him with somebody on our standby list. And that’s what I did. There was a weakness in the study in not separating those two roles. I should only have been the principal investigator, in charge of two graduate students and one undergraduate.”

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards.

Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal lives.

The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study).

Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one.

Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner’s “final submission.”

Deindividuation may explain the behavior of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.

The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm. They also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore.

Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner’s submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.

After the prison experiment was terminated, Zimbardo interviewed the participants. Here’s an excerpt:

‘Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed. The research had felt “real” to them. One guard said, “I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something.” Another guard said “Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure.” And another: “… during the inspection I went to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to let me mess it up. He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry.”’

Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutal ways that they had. Many said they hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things.

The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had responded in the submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to be assertive types normally.

When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.

A further explanation for the behavior of the participants can be described in terms of reinforcement.  The escalation of aggression and abuse by the guards could be seen as being due to the positive reinforcement they received both from fellow guards and intrinsically in terms of how good it made them feel to have so much power.

Similarly, the prisoners could have learned through negative reinforcement that if they kept their heads down and did as they were told, they could avoid further unpleasant experiences.

Critical Evaluation

Ecological validity.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is criticized for lacking ecological validity in its attempt to simulate a real prison environment. Specifically, the “prison” was merely a setup in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department.

The student “guards” lacked professional training, and the experiment’s duration was much shorter than real prison sentences. Furthermore, the participants, who were college students, didn’t reflect the diverse backgrounds typically found in actual prisons in terms of ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status.

None had prior prison experience, and they were chosen due to their mental stability and low antisocial tendencies. Additionally, the mock prison lacked spaces for exercise or rehabilitative activities.

Demand characteristics

Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behavior may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behavior in real life. This means the study’s findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e, the study has low ecological validity.

One of the biggest criticisms is that strong demand characteristics confounded the study. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) found that the majority of respondents, when given a description of the study, were able to guess the hypothesis and predict how participants were expected to behave.

This suggests participants may have simply been playing out expected roles rather than genuinely conforming to their assigned identities.

In addition, revelations by Zimbardo (2007) indicate he actively encouraged the guards to be cruel and oppressive in his orientation instructions prior to the start of the study. For example, telling them “they [the prisoners] will be able to do nothing and say nothing that we don’t permit.”

He also tacitly approved of abusive behaviors as the study progressed. This deliberate cueing of how participants should act, rather than allowing behavior to unfold naturally, indicates the study findings were likely a result of strong demand characteristics rather than insightful revelations about human behavior.

However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. For example, 90% of the prisoners’ private conversations, which were monitored by the researchers, were on the prison conditions, and only 10% of the time were their conversations about life outside of the prison.

The guards, too, rarely exchanged personal information during their relaxation breaks – they either talked about ‘problem prisoners,’ other prison topics, or did not talk at all. The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay.

When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out.

Fourteen years after his experience as prisoner 8612 in the Stanford Prison Experiment, Douglas Korpi, now a prison psychologist, reflected on his time and stated (Musen and Zimbardo 1992):

“The Stanford Prison Experiment was a very benign prison situation and it promotes everything a normal prison promotes — the guard role promotes sadism, the prisoner role promotes confusion and shame”.

Sample bias

The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The study’s findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture (where people are generally less conforming), and the results may be different in collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).

Carnahan and McFarland (2007) have questioned whether self-selection may have influenced the results – i.e., did certain personality traits or dispositions lead some individuals to volunteer for a study of “prison life” in the first place?

All participants completed personality measures assessing: aggression, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, social dominance, empathy, and altruism. Participants also answered questions on mental health and criminal history to screen out any issues as per the original SPE.

Results showed that volunteers for the prison study, compared to the control group, scored significantly higher on aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance. They scored significantly lower on empathy and altruism.

A follow-up role-playing study found that self-presentation biases could not explain these differences. Overall, the findings suggest that volunteering for the prison study was influenced by personality traits associated with abusive tendencies.

Zimbardo’s conclusion may be wrong

While implications for the original SPE are speculative, this lends support to a person-situation interactionist perspective, rather than a purely situational account.

It implies that certain individuals are drawn to and selected into situations that fit their personality, and that group composition can shape behavior through mutual reinforcement.

Contributions to psychology

Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participants led to the formal recognition of ethical  guidelines by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented.

Most institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and government agencies, require a review of research plans by a panel. These boards review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These boards may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure, or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

Contribution to prison policy

A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).

However, in the 25 years since the SPE, U.S. prison policy has transformed in ways counter to SPE insights (Haney & Zimbardo, 1995):

• Rehabilitation was abandoned in favor of punishment and containment. Prison is now seen as inflicting pain rather than enabling productive re-entry.
• Sentencing became rigid rather than accounting for inmates’ individual contexts. Mandatory minimums and “three strikes” laws over-incarcerate nonviolent crimes.
• Prison construction boomed, and populations soared, disproportionately affecting minorities. From 1925 to 1975, incarceration rates held steady at around 100 per 100,000. By 1995, rates tripled to over 600 per 100,000.
• Drug offenses account for an increasing proportion of prisoners. Nonviolent drug offenses make up a large share of the increased incarceration.
• Psychological perspectives have been ignored in policymaking. Legislators overlooked insights from social psychology on the power of contexts in shaping behavior.
• Oversight retreated, with courts deferring to prison officials and ending meaningful scrutiny of conditions. Standards like “evolving decency” gave way to “legitimate” pain.
• Supermax prisons proliferated, isolating prisoners in psychological trauma-inducing conditions.

The authors argue psychologists should reengage to:

• Limit the use of imprisonment and adopt humane alternatives based on the harmful effects of prison environments
• Assess prisons’ total environments, not just individual conditions, given situational forces interact
• Prepare inmates for release by transforming criminogenic post-release contexts
• Address socioeconomic risk factors, not just incarcerate individuals
• Develop contextual prediction models vs. focusing only on static traits
• Scrutinize prison systems independently, not just defer to officials shaped by those environments
• Generate creative, evidence-based reforms to counter over-punitive policies

Psychology once contributed to a more humane system and can again counter the U.S. “rage to punish” with contextual insights (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998).

Evidence for situational factors

Zimbardo (1995) further demonstrates the power of situations to elicit evil actions from ordinary, educated people who likely would never have done such things otherwise. It was another situation-induced “transformation of human character.”

• Unit 731 was a covert biological and chemical warfare research unit of the Japanese army during WWII.
• It was led by General Shiro Ishii and involved thousands of doctors and researchers.
• Unit 731 set up facilities near Harbin, China to conduct lethal human experimentation on prisoners, including Allied POWs.
• Experiments involved exposing prisoners to things like plague, anthrax, mustard gas, and bullets to test biological weapons. They infected prisoners with diseases and monitored their deaths.
• At least 3,000 prisoners died from these brutal experiments. Many were killed and dissected.
• The doctors in Unit 731 obeyed orders unquestioningly and conducted these experiments in the name of “medical science.”
• After the war, the vast majority of doctors who participated faced no punishment and went on to have prestigious careers. This was largely covered up by the U.S. in exchange for data.
• It shows how normal, intelligent professionals can be led by situational forces to systematically dehumanize victims and conduct incredibly cruel and lethal experiments on people.
• Even healers trained to preserve life used their expertise to destroy lives when the situational forces compelled obedience, nationalism, and wartime enmity.

Evidence for an interactionist approach

The results are also relevant for explaining abuses by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

An interactionist perspective recognizes that volunteering for roles as prison guards attracts those already prone to abusive tendencies, which are intensified by the prison context.

This counters a solely situationist view of good people succumbing to evil situational forces.

Ethical Issues

The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being “arrested” at home. The prisoners were not told partly because final approval from the police wasn’t given until minutes before the participants decided to participate, and partly because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise. However, this was a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all of the participants had signed.

Protection of Participants

Participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying, and anger.

Here’s a quote from Philip G. Zimbardo, taken from an interview on the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th anniversary (April 19, 2011):

“In the Stanford prison study, people were stressed, day and night, for 5 days, 24 hours a day. There’s no question that it was a high level of stress because five of the boys had emotional breakdowns, the first within 36 hours. Other boys that didn’t have emotional breakdowns were blindly obedient to corrupt authority by the guards and did terrible things to each other. And so it is no question that that was unethical. You can’t do research where you allow people to suffer at that level.”

“After the first one broke down, we didn’t believe it. We thought he was faking. There was actually a rumor he was faking to get out. He was going to bring his friends in to liberate the prison. And/or we believed our screening procedure was inadequate, [we believed] that he had some mental defect that we did not pick up. At that point, by the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of “Stanford Prison Superintendent.” And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics.”

However, in Zimbardo’s defense, the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset.

Approval for the study was given by the Office of Naval Research, the Psychology Department, and the University Committee of Human Experimentation.

This Committee also did not anticipate the prisoners’ extreme reactions that were to follow. Alternative methodologies were looked at that would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.

Withdrawal 

Although guards were explicitly instructed not to physically harm prisoners at the beginning of the Stanford Prison Experiment, they were allowed to induce feelings of boredom, frustration, arbitrariness, and powerlessness among the inmates.

This created a pervasive atmosphere where prisoners genuinely believed and even reinforced among each other, that they couldn’t leave the experiment until their “sentence” was completed, mirroring the inescapability of a real prison.

Even though two participants (8612 and 819) were released early, the impact of the environment was so profound that prisoner 416, reflecting on the experience two months later, described it as a “prison run by psychologists rather than by the state.”

Extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held, and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, and then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects.

Zimbardo also strongly argues that the benefits gained from our understanding of human behavior and how we can improve society should outbalance the distress caused by the study.

However, it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were, in fact, more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.

Discussion Questions

What are the effects of living in an environment with no clocks, no view of the outside world, and minimal sensory stimulation?

Consider the psychological consequences of stripping, delousing, and shaving the heads of prisoners or members of the military. Whattransformations take place when people go through an experience like this?

The prisoners could have left at any time, and yet, they didn’t. Why?

After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt?

If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you have conducted a follow-up study?

Frequently Asked Questions

What happened to prisoner 8612 after the experiment.

Douglas Korpi, as prisoner 8612, was the first to show signs of severe distress and demanded to be released from the experiment. He was released on the second day, and his reaction to the simulated prison environment highlighted the study’s ethical issues and the potential harm inflicted on participants.

After the experiment, Douglas Korpi graduated from Stanford University and earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. He pursued a career as a psychotherapist, helping others with their mental health struggles.

Why did Zimbardo not stop the experiment?

Zimbardo did not initially stop the experiment because he became too immersed in his dual role as the principal investigator and the prison superintendent, causing him to overlook the escalating abuse and distress among participants.

It was only after an external observer, Christina Maslach, raised concerns about the participants’ well-being that Zimbardo terminated the study.

What happened to the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards exhibited abusive and authoritarian behavior, using psychological manipulation, humiliation, and control tactics to assert dominance over the prisoners. This ultimately led to the study’s early termination due to ethical concerns.

What did Zimbardo want to find out?

Zimbardo aimed to investigate the impact of situational factors and power dynamics on human behavior, specifically how individuals would conform to the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment.

He wanted to explore whether the behavior displayed in prisons was due to the inherent personalities of prisoners and guards or the result of the social structure and environment of the prison itself.

What were the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

The results of the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that situational factors and power dynamics played a significant role in shaping participants’ behavior. The guards became abusive and authoritarian, while the prisoners became submissive and emotionally distressed.

The experiment revealed how quickly ordinary individuals could adopt and internalize harmful behaviors due to their assigned roles and the environment.

Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30 , 152-160.

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, 603-614.

Drury, S., Hutchens, S. A., Shuttlesworth, D. E., & White, C. L. (2012). Philip G. Zimbardo on his career and the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th anniversary.  History of Psychology ,  15 (2), 161.

Griggs, R. A., & Whitehead, G. I., III. (2014). Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory social psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 41 , 318 –324.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison . Naval Research Review , 30, 4-17.

Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment.  American Psychologist, 53 (7), 709–727.

Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. (1992) (DVD) Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment Documentary.

Zimbardo, P. G. (Consultant, On-Screen Performer), Goldstein, L. (Producer), & Utley, G. (Correspondent). (1971, November 26). Prisoner 819 did a bad thing: The Stanford Prison Experiment [Television series episode]. In L. Goldstein (Producer), Chronolog. New York, NY: NBC-TV.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment.  Cognition ,  2 (2), 243-256.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts.  Japanese Journal of Social Psychology ,  11 (2), 125-133.

Zimbardo, P.G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil . New York, NY: Random House.

Further Information

• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 45 , 1.
• Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks
• The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Website

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

• Participants
• Setting and Procedure

In August of 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues created an experiment to determine the impacts of being a prisoner or prison guard. The Stanford Prison Experiment, also known as the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, went on to become one of the best-known studies in psychology's history —and one of the most controversial.

This study has long been a staple in textbooks, articles, psychology classes, and even movies. Learn what it entailed, what was learned, and the criticisms that have called the experiment's scientific merits and value into question.

Purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo was a former classmate of the psychologist Stanley Milgram . Milgram is best known for his famous obedience experiment , and Zimbardo was interested in expanding upon Milgram's research. He wanted to further investigate the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

Specifically, the researchers wanted to know how participants would react when placed in a simulated prison environment. They wondered if physically and psychologically healthy people who knew they were participating in an experiment would change their behavior in a prison-like setting.

Participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment

To carry out the experiment, researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building. They then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards.

Participants were chosen from a larger group of 70 volunteers based on having no criminal background, no psychological issues , and no significant medical conditions. Each volunteer agreed to participate in the Stanford Prison Experiment for one to two weeks in exchange for $15 a day.

Setting and Procedures

The simulated prison included three six-by-nine-foot prison cells. Each cell held three prisoners and included three cots. Other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the jail guards and warden. One tiny space was designated as the solitary confinement room, and yet another small room served as the prison yard.

The 24 volunteers were randomly assigned to either the prisoner or guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24 hours a day during the study. Guards were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, they were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift.

Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

So what happened in the Zimbardo experiment? While originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety .

It was noted that:

• While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were hostile or even dehumanizing.
• The guards began to become aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive and depressed.
• Five of the prisoners began to experience severe negative emotions , including crying and acute anxiety, and had to be released from the study early.

Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the jail guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment.

One possible explanation for the results of this experiment is the idea of deindividuation , which states that being part of a large group can make us more likely to perform behaviors we would otherwise not do on our own.

Impact of the Zimbardo Prison Experiment

The experiment became famous and was widely cited in textbooks and other publications. According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior.

Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not usually act in their everyday lives or other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control , became submissive and depressed.

In 2011, the Stanford Alumni Magazine featured a retrospective of the Stanford Prison Experiment in honor of the experiment’s 40th anniversary. The article contained interviews with several people involved, including Zimbardo and other researchers as well as some of the participants.

In the interviews, Richard Yacco, one of the prisoners in the experiment, suggested that the experiment demonstrated the power that societal roles and expectations can play in a person's behavior.

In 2015, the experiment became the topic of a feature film titled The Stanford Prison Experiment that dramatized the events of the 1971 study.

Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

In the years since the experiment was conducted, there have been a number of critiques of the study. Some of these include:

Ethical Issues

The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited as an example of unethical research. It could not be replicated by researchers today because it fails to meet the standards established by numerous ethical codes, including the Code of Ethics of the American Psychological Association .

Why was Zimbardo's experiment unethical?

Zimbardo's experiment was unethical due to a lack of fully informed consent, abuse of participants, and lack of appropriate debriefings. More recent findings suggest there were other significant ethical issues that compromise the experiment's scientific standing, including the fact that experimenters may have encouraged abusive behaviors.

Lack of Generalizability

Other critics suggest that the study lacks generalizability due to a variety of factors. The unrepresentative sample of participants (mostly white and middle-class males) makes it difficult to apply the results to a wider population.

Lack of Realism

The Zimbardo Prison Experiment is also criticized for its lack of ecological validity. Ecological validity refers to the degree of realism with which a simulated experimental setup matches the real-world situation it seeks to emulate.

While the researchers did their best to recreate a prison setting, it is simply not possible to perfectly mimic all the environmental and situational variables of prison life. Because there may have been factors related to the setting and situation that influenced how the participants behaved, it may not truly represent what might happen outside of the lab.

Recent Criticisms

More recent examination of the experiment's archives and interviews with participants have revealed major issues with the research method , design, and procedures used. Together, these call the study's validity, value, and even authenticity into question.

These reports, including examinations of the study's records and new interviews with participants, have also cast doubt on some of its key findings and assumptions.

Among the issues described:

• One participant suggested that he faked a breakdown so he could leave the experiment because he was worried about failing his classes.
• Other participants also reported altering their behavior in a way designed to "help" the experiment .
• Evidence suggests that the experimenters encouraged the guards' behavior and played a role in fostering the abusive actions of the guards.

In 2019, the journal American Psychologist published an article debunking the famed experiment. It detailed the study's lack of scientific merit and concluded that the Stanford Prison Experiment was "an incredibly flawed study that should have died an early death."

In a statement posted on the experiment's official website, Zimbardo maintains that these criticisms do not undermine the main conclusion of the study—that situational forces can alter individual actions both in positive and negative ways.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is well known both inside and outside the field of psychology . While the study has long been criticized for many reasons, more recent criticisms of the study's procedures shine a brighter light on the experiment's scientific shortcomings.

Stanford University. About the Stanford Prison Experiment .

Stanford Prison Experiment. 2. Setting up .

Sommers T. An interview with Philip Zimbardo . The Believer.

Ratnesar R. The menace within . Stanford Magazine.

Jabbar A, Muazzam A, Sadaqat S. An unveiling the ethical quandaries: A critical analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment as a mirror of Pakistani society . J Bus Manage Res . 2024;3(1):629-638.

Horn S. Landmark Stanford Prison Experiment criticized as a sham . Prison Legal News .

Bartels JM. The Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks: A content analysis .  Psychol Learn Teach . 2015;14(1):36-50. doi:10.1177/1475725714568007

American Psychological Association. Ecological validity .

Blum B. The lifespan of a lie . Medium .

Le Texier T. Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment . Am Psychol . 2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401

Stanford Prison Experiment. Philip Zimbardo's response to recent criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy

Introduction, archival sources.

• Primary Documentation of the SPE
• Biographical Background
• SPE and Related Experiments in Media
• SPE in Textbooks, Handbooks, and Histories of Psychology
• Replication of the SPE and Related Replications
• Psychological Prison and Punishment Literature Related to the SPE
• Methodological Criticisms
• Ethical Criticisms
• Thibault Le Texier

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Authoritarian Personality
• Bystander Effect
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Prosocial Behavior

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Remote Work
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy by David C. Devonis LAST REVIEWED: 26 August 2020 LAST MODIFIED: 26 August 2020 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0269

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) took place at a time when the sources of authoritarianism and evil were a focal concern in psychology. It emerged from a tradition of activist social psychological research beginning with Solomon Asch in the 1940s and extending through Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments in the early 1960s. The SPE was a product of the research program of social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, a member of the Stanford psychology faculty since 1968. Discussions among Zimbardo’s students in spring 1971 led to a plan to simulate a prison environment. They converted portions of the basement of a University building into a combination booking room and jail. Zimbardo and a number of his graduate and undergraduate students took on supervisory roles. Before the Experiment began, paid participants recruited through newspaper advertisements were screened to eliminate obvious psychopathology, then randomly assigned to either the role of ‘guard’ or ‘prisoner.’ On the first experimental morning August 14, 1971, actual local police simulated an arrest of each of the prisoner participants. After they arrived, blindfolded, a simulated booking took place. Guards escorted them to the prison hallway where prisoners were required to strip and exchange their clothing for simple shifts and slippers. After a simulated spray delousing, they entered makeshift cells. After this, the Experiment evolved as an extended improvisation, by both the guards and prisoners, on prison-related themes. Episodes of deprivation, bullying, and humiliation emerged unplanned. Originally planned to run for two weeks, the Experiment lasted only six days, prematurely terminated when its supervising personnel judged that the simulation had gotten out of their control. The coincidence of its termination with the Attica prison uprising in New York led to its immediate dissemination in the news. Since then the SPE has become one of the most iconic psychological studies of psychology’s modern era. Although intended to expose and ameliorate bad prison conditions, its effectiveness in this regard diminished during a rapid shift in US prison policy, in the mid-1970’s, from reform to repression. Over succeeding decades, the Experiment continued to stimulate the popular imagination, leading to an extensive replication on British television and its portrayal in two feature films. Soon after its original publication, the SPE attracted criticisms of its methodology. After 2010, critical scrutiny of the SPE as well as similar iconic studies from the 1960s and 1970s increased, fueled by the growing ‘replication crisis’ in psychology. This most recent phase of criticism reflects not just a turn toward reflexive disciplinary self-criticism but also the increased availability of archival sources for examination. The SPE continues to excite both passionate support and equally passionate obloquy, much as have other comparable simulations of human social behavior.

Philip Zimbardo, the primary investigator of the SPE, has been unusually generous in making archival donations during his lifetime. Two of these are physical archives in two different locations: the Zimbardo (Philip G.) Papers at the Stanford University Archives and the Philip Zimbardo Papers at the Drs. Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology (CCHP) at the University of Akron. Alongside these is a virtual archive, the Stanford Prison Experiment website, maintained for over twenty years by Zimbardo and others. The Stanford Prison Experiment: 40 Years Later , a website constructed by the Stanford University archivist in connection with an exhibition at Stanford, contains links to much of the transcribed data collected by Zimbardo and his colleagues in 1971. Le Texier 2018 and Le Texier 2019 (cited under Thibault Le Texier ) represent the most complete use of the archives to date, and citations in these critiques of the SPE form a virtual finding aid for the many subdivisions of the available archival material.

Philip Zimbardo Papers. Drs. Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology (CCHP). Univ. of Akron, Akron, Ohio.

This collection, a subset (4.5 linear feet in 16 boxes) of the Stanford Zimbardo archive, is focused on the SPE. It contains SPE-specific materials, teaching materials, and materials relating to the development of Zimbardo 2008 (cited under Primary Documentation of the SPE ). The CCHP also holds several oversize folders of SPE materials and has some of the original props and costumes from the SPE. The finding aid also has a brief Zimbardo biography. The finding aid is available online .

The Stanford Prison Experiment .

Well-designed and informative website, maintained with National Science Foundation (NSF) funding under sponsorship of the Social Psychology Network, with links to much of the primary documentary and contextual material relating to the SPE as well as to major media presentations of the Experiment. Historically it evolved from the original slide show Zimbardo and White 1972 (cited under SPE and Related Experiments in Media ) circulated among social psychologists in the 1970s.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: 40 Years Later In Stanford Libraries: Special Collections and University Archives .

This site contains copies of material related to the SPE from the Stanford Archives, including accessible transcripts of several documents related to the SPE such as the original informed consent forms, audio clips, and photos, as well as links to the original eighty-slide slideshow from the 1970s.

Zimbardo (Philip G.) Papers. Stanford University Archives, Collection SC0750.

This collection runs 256 linear feet in 182 boxes, and contains material directly and peripherally related to the SPE, including a substantial amount of audiovisual and film material and materials used in Zimbardo’s classes at Stanford. The finding aid, available online , has a brief Zimbardo biography attached.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Affirmative Action
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Critical Thinking
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Discrimination
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• Heuristics and Biases
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• Intergroup Conflict
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Life-Span Development
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Microaggressions
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Peace Psychology
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Protocol Analysis
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotype Threat
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Student Success in College
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Teaching of Psychology
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Power of the Situation

• First Online: 20 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Harry Perlstadt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0233-0463 3  

Part of the book series: Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice ((CSRP))

229 Accesses

Philip Zimbardo is best known for his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Early in his career, he conducted experiments in the psychology of deindividualization, in which a person in a group or crowd no longer acts as a responsible individual but is swept along and participates in antisocial actions. After moving to Stanford University, he began to focus on institutional power over the individual in group settings, such as long-term care facilities for the elderly and prisons. His research proposal for a simulated prison was approved by the Stanford University Human Subjects Research Review Committee in July 1971. He built a mock prison in the basement of the University’s psychology building and recruited college-aged male subjects to play prisoners and guards. The study began on Sunday, August 8th, and was to run for 2 weeks but ended on Friday morning August 13th. In less than a week, several of the mock guards hazed and brutalized the mock prisoners, some of whom found ways of coping, while others exhibited symptoms of mental breakdown.

The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. — attributed to Fyodor Dostoevsky, The House of the Dead

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alexander, M. (2001, August 22). Thirty years later, Stanford Prison Experiment lives on. Stanford Report . Accessed April 22, 2022, from https://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/august22/prison2-822.html?msclkid=7d17df2ec26f11ec8086da6bf715d359

Amdur, R. J. (2006). Provisions for data monitoring. In E. A. Bankert, & J. R. Amdur (Eds.), Institutional review board: Management and function , 2nd edition (pp. 160–165). Jones & Bartlet

Google Scholar  

Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30 , 152–160.

Article   Google Scholar  

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . Wiley.

Farkas, M. A. (2000). A typology of correctional officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X00444003

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcombe, T. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47 , 382–389.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.

Frohnmayer, D. (2004, November 30). “Situational ethics, social deception, and lessons of machiavelli” Judge learned hand award Luncheon Oregon chapter of the American Jewish Committee Tuesday . http://president.uoregon.edu/speeches/situationalethics.shtml

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates . Doubleday Anchor. http://www.diligio.com/goffman.htm

Gross, B. (2008, Winter/December). Prison violence: Does brutality come with the badge? The Forensic Examiner . http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/winter08/6/

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 30 , 4–17.

Lovibond, S. H., Mithiran, & Adams, W. G. (1979). Effects of three experimental prison environments on the behaviour of non-convict volunteer subjects. Australian Psychologist, 14 (3), 273–285.

Maslach, C. (1971). The “truth” about false confessions. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20 (2), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031675

Maslach, C. (1974). Social and personal bases of individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (3), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036031

Maslach, C., Marshall, G., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1972). Hypnotic control of peripheral skin temperature: A case report. Psychophysiology, 9 (6), 600–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1972.tb00769.x

Morgan, A. H., Lovibond, S. H., & Adams, W. G. (1979). Comments on S. H. Lovibond, Mithiran, & W. G. Adams: “The effects of three experimental prison environments on the behaviour of non-convict volunteer subjects”. Australian Psychologist, 14 (3), 273–287.

NHLBI. (2008). National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Data and safety monitoring policy . http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dsmpolicy.htm

O’Toole, K. (1997, January 8). The Stanford prison experiment: Still powerful after all these years. Stanford report . Stanford University News Service. http://www.stanford.edu/news/gif/snewshd.gif

Prescott, C. (2005, April 28). The lie of the Stanford prison experiment. The Stanford Daily .

Sawyer, K. D. (2021). George Jackson, 50 years later . Accessed January 18, 2022, from https://sfbayview.com/2021/08/george-jackson-50-years-later/?msclkid=4afbd2c7c26b11eca875b013aedf20b3

Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7 (1), 19–48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009514731657

Schlesinger Report. (2004). Final report of the independent panel to review Department of Defense Detention Operations . http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_04_abughraibreport.pdf

SPE Website. (n.d.). Stanford Prison Experiment Website. The story: An overview of the experiment . Accessed February 28, 2022, from https:// www.prisonexp.org/the-story

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization . Oxford University Press.

Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). University of Nebraska Press.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), 1969 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237–307). University of Nebraska Press. Accessed January 19, 2022, from https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/gk002bt7757/gk002bt7757.pdf

Zimbardo, P. G. (1971a). Application for institutional approval of research involving human subjects . August, 1971. Available at: http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/humansubjects.pdf . Accessed December 1, 2023.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1971b). Prison life study: General information sheet . August, 1971. Available at: http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/geninfo.pdf . Accessed December 1, 2023.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2008). The lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil . Random House.

Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1972). Stanford prison experiment . Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc. (Tape recording).

Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1972, April 8). The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison. New York Times Magazine, Section 6, 36, ff.

Zimbardo, P. G., Marshall, G., & Maslach, C. (1971). Liberating behavior from time-bound control: Expanding the present through hypnosis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1 (4), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1971.tb00369.x

Zimbardo, P. G., Marshall, C., White, G., & Maslach, C. (1973). Objective assessment of hypnotically induced time distortion. Science, 181 (4096), 282–284.

Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Chapter 11: Reflections on the Stanford prison experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the milgram paradigm (pp. 193–237). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Chris Herrera, Jonathan K. Rosen, David Segal and Ruth Spivak for their comments on this chapter.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

(emeritus) Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Harry Perlstadt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Perlstadt, H. (2023). The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Power of the Situation. In: Assessing Social Science Research Ethics and Integrity. Clinical Sociology: Research and Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34538-8_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34538-8_8

Published : 20 January 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-34537-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-34538-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Stanford Prison Experiment: The issue of Ethicality

In 1971, a research was conducted in which subjects played the roles of prisoners and guards in a period of time simulating the prison environment for the purpose of studying a number of problems of psychological and sociological relevance. The projected two- week study had to be prematurely terminated when it became apparent that many of the ‘prisoners’ were in serious distress and many of the ‘guards’ were behaving in ways which brutalized and degraded their fellow subjects.

Related Papers

Ayoub Nejjari

Incarceration

Stephen Bottoms

Almost 50 years on, the Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971 remains one of the most notorious and controversial psychology studies ever devised. It has often been treated as a cautionary tale about what can happen in prison situations if there is inadequate staff training or safeguarding, given the inherent power differentials between staff and inmates. But what exactly was the ‘situation’ in the simulated prison at Stanford University, and how exactly did the participants respond to it? This article provides a new analysis of the behaviour of the nine Stanford ‘guards’, which draws on unpublished archival records and original interviews with some of the participants. It adopts an interactionist approach, whereby the individual backgrounds and personalities of the participants are seen to inform their behaviour within the situation provided, as well as vice versa. A key suggestion to emerge from this analysis is that the conduct of the three guard shifts, within the experiment, diffe...

Current Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities

Harry Perlstadt

The Stanford Prison Experiment has continued to raise questions about social science research ethics. Male student volunteers were randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards in a simulation in which the guards became sadistic and the prisoners showed extreme stress. Two ethical issues are the ability of the participants to leave the experiment and the failure to provide adequate oversight and intervening to limit the abuse of the prisoners. In 2018, these issues were revisited and some declared the experiment unscientific and untrustworthy. However, the experiment was carried out before many social science research ethics were established. A detailed description of the experiment reveals insights on how group dynamics and social structure can encourage normal individuals to harm one another in a prison environment. The study is a cautionary tale that should be included in textbooks to improve social science research, demonstrate the need for research ethics, and prevent outrageous ...

Mark McDermott

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Bernice S Elger

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Sam McFarland

Behavioral Sciences & the Law

James Overholser

Mark R. McDermott

Leonidas Cheliotis

Siamak Movahedi

RELATED PAPERS

Hapidah 261001

CENTRAL EUROPEAN SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICS 2019 (CEST)

Dr. Saeed Islam Dept. of Maths, UCS Shankar

Recherches amérindiennes au Québec

Pascale Vaillancourt

Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research

F. Moreira da Silva

Revista De Ingenierias Universidad De Medellin

German Urrego G.

Emmanuel Aguwa

Journal of Refugee Studies

James Milner

Annals of Hematology

Esther Oliva

Nancy Duxbury

Pediatric Clinics of North America

Natella Rakhmanina

Galang Pangestu

Psychology, Society, & Education

Felix Angulo Rasco

Phytologia Balcanica

Journal of Natural Products

Russell Cox

International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems

Journal of Applied Geophysics

Abel Carrasquilla

Anterior Jurnal

MUHAMMAD FAUZI AZHARI

DYNAMIC MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF NIGERIA DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, ABRAKA, DELTA STATE, NIGERIA

TIMILEHIN O L A Y I N K A OMONIYI, Ph.D

UCLA文凭证书 加州大学洛杉矶分校文凭证书 klhjkgh

Camilla Buarque

SSRN Electronic Journal

Kenneth Shores

Håkan Lennerstad

Journal of Immunotherapy

annaleen louwes

Repositorio de la Universidad Estatal de Milagro

CAROL RUBIO

International journal of innovation and scientific research

Eric Tchibozo

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Stanford Prison Experiment — The Controversial Issues Of The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Controversial Issues of The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Categories: Controversial Issue Prison Stanford Prison Experiment

About this sample

Words: 1098 |

Published: May 14, 2021

Words: 1098 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Law, Crime & Punishment Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1807 words

3 pages / 1435 words

2 pages / 984 words

4 pages / 1743 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 has been widely regarded as one of the most controversial psychological studies of all time. This essay aims to analyze the impact of groupthink on the [...]

Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology. Led by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, the experiment aimed to observe the behavior of individuals in an institutional [...]

If we refer to criticism we have to take in count that it practice the judging of something or someone. When a new major discover is released or an event of great magnitude occurs it is expected to be criticized in many [...]

In the movie entitled, “Stanford Prison Experiment“, the experiment aimed to study the psychological effects of prison life, and students played the roles of guards and prisoners. Zimbardo structured the experiment to make [...]

The mental idea of the Stanford Prison investigation was that Zimbardo and his partners were keen on seeing whether the mercilessness among gatekeepers in America and penitentiaries was because of the twisted characters of the [...]

Psychology is the way that human beings are able to get a deeper understanding of each other. The people that study psychology experience astonishing outcomes of the ways of mankind. Dr. Phillip Zimbardo is a psychologist known [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Psychology , Psychology Experiments

Stanford Prison Experiment: Role-ing With It

Knock, knock. It’s late, but you open the door anyway and find police officers standing outside. They inform you that you’re under arrest for armed robbery. You try to insist that they’ve got the wrong person, that you were at home studying for your psychology exam. It’s useless. They drive you down to the station, get your fingerprints, and snap a mugshot. You’re taken to prison. That night, you hear an inmate hysterically screaming until guards drag him away - you don’t see him in the morning. Guards punish you for the slightest misstep and take pleasure in humiliating you. How do you react to this new environment?

Explanation

The infamous Stanford Prison “Experiment” was allegedly designed to find the answers to these questions. Lead researcher Philip Zimbardo reported that he wanted to see how people reacted to drastically different assigned roles: would participants rebel against them or seamlessly slip into them?

Stanford Prison Experiment 

In the middle of August 1971, Philip G. Zimbardo held what would be later called the Stanford Prison Experiment. Twenty four participants were split into two groups: prisoners and guards. Originally planned to last two weeks, the study was stopped after six days once an outside observer expressed concerns over the ethicalness of the work as well as over the wellbeing of the participants. The study has historically pointed to how ordinary people in the right environment will inevitably become broken victims or violent aggressors. It’s raised a plethora of ethical questions and recent evidence questions if not outright invalidates Zimbardo’s findings.

The Experiment

Day one at Stanford University was rather uneventful. On day two, prisoners rebelled, blocking cell doors with their cots and refusing to listen to guards. In response, guards used fire extinguishers to subdue them. From there, things only got worse. One prisoner suffered such a terrifying mental breakdown that he was released. Guards denied prisoners cots, made them use a bucket as a bathroom, insisted that prisoners’ numbers were their new identities, and performed other acts of cruelty. One third of the guards were reported to display sadistic tendencies. Zimbardo insisted prisoners had also thoroughly internalized their roles, citing that some had said they’d accept “parole” and when told that a fellow prisoner would be released from solitary only if all prisoners returned their blankets, only one actually did so. Zimbardo used his findings to insist that it was a person’s environment, not their personality, that caused their behavior.

Issues Raised

This study was hugely unethical. Prisoners were kept in unsafe, unsanitary, and dehumanizing facilities. Several of them told guards they wanted to leave, but they were refused. The three men who were removed from the study were only allowed to when researchers thought they were too traumatized to safely continue. One prisoner later lamented that he never sued the researchers over their ill treatment. Zimbardo’s study wasn’t just unethical - it was illegal.  

In recent years, the legitimacy of Zimbardo’s work has come under attack. Guards were briefed beforehand and told that their role was to instill a feeling of fear and helplessness in prisoners. They didn’t “naturally” come up with their acts of cruelty on their “own” - many were suggested ideas by Zimbardo and his undergraduate student David Jaffe. In fact, Zimbardo and Jaffe even served as superintendent and ward of the makeshift prison. It begs the question of whether participants were merely acting how they thought experimenters wanted them to.

Considering the testimonies of the star guard and prisoner, the answer is most likely a firm yes. Both stated that they treated it as an improv experiment. The prisoner, Douglas Korpi, reported that keeping up the roll was often exhausting and that his alleged breakdown was completely staged. Considering he also requested to leave several times, it’s not hard to imagine he faked his torment in order to get out early or garner favor with the researchers. The guard, Dave Eshleman, said he purposefully adopted an over-the-top persona to help the experimenters get the results they wanted. It’s also worth noting that when guards did small favors for prisoners and treated them kindly, they were told to be more “tough” by researchers.  

Finally, there are also confounding variables. For example, it’s been found that more aggressive and less empathetic individuals will respond to an ad asking for participants in a “prison life” study. There was no control group or independent variable either. It’s also questionable whether participants were truly randomly assigned to their groups, and Zimbardo himself was not a neutral observer. He’s stated multiple times that he “lost himself” in his role. The Stanford Prison Experiment is not an experiment.

If the Stanford Prison Experiment was highly manipulated, why should we still care about it? For one, it serves as a reminder that we need to be more rigorous and responsible when conducting an experiment. Participants place a lot of trust in researchers - thus, researchers must strive to be worthy of that trust. Also, when we meddle to get particular results, we’ll miss equally interesting findings. The Stanford Prison Study certainly doesn’t prove that any individual, if assigned a role, will independently conform to it. It does however show that certain institutions and environments demand sadism and tyranny, and some individuals are willing to work for them. Also, people are far too willing to commit cruelty in the name of “greater good.”

Think Further

• What parts of the study can’t be replicated because of today’s ethical standards?
• The study was later ethically recreated without the coaching of the guards. Do you think that those results would be significantly different? How so?
• What are some other lessons we can take away from the Stanford Prison Experiment?

Teacher Resources

Sign up for our educators newsletter to learn about new content!

Educators Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up

Get updated about new videos!

Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up

Infographic

This gave students an opportunity to watch a video to identify key factors in our judicial system, then even followed up with a brief research to demonstrate how this case, which is seemingly non-impactful on the contemporary student, connect to them in a meaningful way

This is a great product. I have used it over and over again. It is well laid out and suits the needs of my students. I really appreciate all the time put into making this product and thank you for sharing.

Appreciate this resource; adding it to my collection for use in AP US Government.

I thoroughly enjoyed this lesson plan and so do my students. It is always nice when I don't have to write my own lesson plan

Sign up to receive our monthly newsletter!

• Academy 4SC
• Educators 4SC
• Leaders 4SC
• Students 4SC
• Research 4SC

Accountability

Please wait while we process your request

Stanford Prison Experiment: The Ethical Issues

Words: 0 | Pages: 0

Introduction

The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most controversial and widely discussed psychological experiments in history. Conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971, it aimed to study the effects of perceived power on individuals' behavior within a simulated prison environment. What started as an attempt to understand human nature quickly spiraled out of control, raising serious ethical issues that continue to be debated today.

In this essay, we will delve into the details of the Stanford Prison Experiment and explore the various ethical concerns it raises. The experiment involved randomly assigning participants as prisoners or guards, with Zimbardo himself assuming the role of prison superintendent. The initial plan was for a two-week simulation but had to be abruptly terminated after only six days due to extreme psychological distress experienced by both prisoners and guards.

As we examine this notorious experiment further, we will consider its impact on our understanding of ethics in research and raise questions about informed consent, psychological harm inflicted upon participants, and the responsibility researchers have towards their subjects. By critically analyzing these ethical dilemmas surrounding the Stanford Prison Experiment, we can gain valuable insights into how such experiments should be conducted responsibly while safeguarding participant well-being.

Background of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo's inspiration for the study came from his fascination with deindividuation theory, which suggests that people may lose their individuality and personal values when immersed in a group setting. He aimed to explore whether situational factors could override an individual's inherent sense of morality. To do so, he designed a simulated prison environment within Stanford University's psychology department basement.

The selection process involved screening potential participants for psychological stability and conducting interviews to ensure they had no prior knowledge or experience related to prisons or law enforcement. 24 male college students were chosen out of 70 applicants who met these criteria.

By understanding the historical context and motivations behind Zimbardo's experiment, we can better grasp why it generated significant interest at both academic and public levels. It is crucial not to let these factors overshadow the ethical concerns that emerged during its implementation – concerns that have since fueled ongoing debates about research ethics in social psychology.

Overview of the methodology employed

To enhance the realism of the situation, Zimbardo instructed guards to establish their authority by any means necessary while prisoners were expected to comply with all rules and regulations set by the guards. This power dynamic quickly escalated as guards became increasingly sadistic in their treatment of prisoners, subjecting them to verbal abuse, humiliation, and even physical punishments.

Throughout the experiment, Zimbardo played an active role in shaping participant behavior as he encouraged guards' aggressive actions and failed to intervene when ethical boundaries were crossed. Zimbardo's close involvement blurred the line between researcher and participant roles - another ethical concern that arose during this study.

By understanding how Zimbardo implemented his methodology for this experiment, we can better comprehend how certain factors may have contributed to unethical behavior within this simulated prison environment. The extreme nature of these methods raises important questions about researchers' responsibility towards their subjects' welfare and highlights why ethical guidelines are essential when conducting psychological experiments.

Discussion on the ethical concerns raised by the experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment has sparked intense debate regarding its ethical implications. One of the most significant concerns revolves around informed consent. Participants were not fully aware of the psychological distress they would endure, and while they signed a consent form, it did not adequately inform them about the potential harm or extent of the experiment. This lack of informed consent raises questions about whether participants truly understood what they were agreeing to and if their autonomy was compromised.

Another pressing ethical issue is the psychological harm inflicted upon participants. The extreme conditions within the simulated prison led to severe emotional distress among both prisoners and guards. Some prisoners experienced depression and anxiety, while others became passive or even showed signs of rebellion against their oppressors. Guards, on the other hand, exhibited abusive behaviors that went beyond what was necessary for research purposes. This raises concerns about researchers' responsibility in ensuring participant safety and well-being during experiments.

Zimbardo's dual role as both researcher and prison superintendent blurred professional boundaries and contributed to unethical behavior going unchecked. As a result, Zimbardo failed to intervene when participants displayed signs of distress or when abuse occurred in the experiment setting. This highlights another important ethical consideration - researchers must prioritize their duty to protect participants over any personal interests or biases that may arise during an experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment serves as a stark reminder of how easily ethics can be compromised in research settings. The lack of informed consent, psychological harm inflicted upon participants, and Zimbardo's dual role all raise serious concerns about conducting experiments responsibly with utmost regard for human welfare. It is essential for researchers to adhere strictly to ethical guidelines when designing studies involving human subjects to ensure participant well-being is prioritized at all times

Analysis of the psychological impact on participants

The psychological impact on participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment was profound and alarming. Both guards and prisoners experienced extreme distress, with some individuals displaying signs of emotional breakdowns. The dehumanizing treatment inflicted upon the prisoners resulted in feelings of powerlessness, humiliation, and even depression. On the other hand, the guards exhibited a disturbing transformation as they embraced their roles and engaged in sadistic behaviors that went beyond what Zimbardo had anticipated.

This raises significant ethical concerns about the potential harm that participants may experience during psychological experiments. While it is true that researchers aim to understand human behavior under certain conditions, it becomes crucial to prioritize participant well-being over experimental goals. The severe psychological trauma endured by those involved in this study highlights why strict ethical guidelines must be followed to ensure participant safety. There are questions about whether informed consent was obtained from all participants before the experiment began. It is essential for individuals to have a clear understanding of what they are agreeing to when participating in research studies, including any potential risks or adverse effects on their mental health. Informed consent serves as a safeguard against exploitation and ensures that participants can make an autonomous decision regarding their involvement. The Stanford Prison Experiment continues to ignite debates surrounding its ethics due to its detrimental impact on participants' well-being. The study's methodology raised serious concerns about researcher responsibility and adherence to ethical guidelines regarding informed consent and avoiding harm to subjects. By examining these issues critically, we can strive for improved standards of ethics when conducting research within the field of psychology

Examination of the role of power and authority in the experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment shed light on the powerful influence that authority and power dynamics can have on human behavior. The guards, who were given a position of authority, quickly embraced their roles and adopted authoritarian attitudes towards the prisoners. This shift in power dynamics led to an abuse of power, with guards using their positions to assert control and dominance over the prisoners.

The experiment highlighted how individuals placed in positions of authority can easily become corrupted by their newfound power. In this case, participants who were initially chosen for their psychological stability and lack of criminal backgrounds transformed into sadistic figures within just a few days. This raises important questions about the potential dangers inherent in granting unchecked authority to individuals.

The role of Zimbardo himself as prison superintendent played a crucial part in shaping participant behavior. As he encouraged aggressive actions from the guards without intervening when ethical boundaries were crossed, it raises concerns about how researchers' involvement can contribute to unethical conduct during experiments. It also emphasizes the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between researcher and participant roles to prevent such abuses of power from occurring.

By examining these aspects, we gain insight into how power dynamics within social environments can lead individuals to engage in morally questionable behaviors. It highlights the need for strict ethical guidelines and oversight when conducting research involving power structures or potentially harmful situations

Evaluation of the implications for research ethics and human subjects protection

The Stanford Prison Experiment sparked a significant reevaluation of research ethics and the protection of human subjects. It highlighted the need for informed consent, as participants were not fully aware of what they would experience in the experiment. The distress caused by the study also calls into question the responsibility researchers have to ensure their subjects' psychological well-being.

Zimbardo's role as both researcher and prison superintendent raises concerns about objectivity and potential abuse of power within experimental settings. This blurring of roles can lead to unethical behavior going unchecked, emphasizing the importance of clear boundaries between researchers and participants. The ethical issues raised by this experiment have prompted changes in research practices, such as stricter guidelines for obtaining informed consent and monitoring participant welfare during studies. Institutional review boards now play a crucial role in evaluating proposed experiments to ensure ethical standards are upheld.

While the Stanford Prison Experiment provided valuable insights into human behavior under extreme circumstances, its ethical shortcomings cannot be overlooked. The controversy surrounding this study has significantly influenced how research is conducted today and serves as a stark reminder that safeguarding participants' rights and well-being should always be paramount in psychological research.

Critique of the ethical justifications provided by researchers involved

Critics argue that the ethical justifications provided by Zimbardo and his team do not adequately excuse the ethical breaches observed in the Stanford Prison Experiment. One of the main justifications was that participants had given informed consent, as they were aware that they would be participating in a study involving a simulated prison environment. It can be argued that their understanding of what they were consenting to was limited, as they could not have predicted the extreme psychological distress and harm they would experience.

Another justification put forth by researchers is that the experiment yielded valuable insights into human behavior and social dynamics. While this may be true, it does not justify subjecting participants to such intense emotional and psychological trauma without proper safeguards in place. The potential knowledge gained should never come at the expense of participant well-being or violate basic ethical principles.

These justifications fall short when considering the long-lasting negative effects on participants' mental health and Zimbardo's failure to intervene when abuses occurred. This raises concerns about researchers prioritizing scientific discovery over the welfare of their subjects, highlighting an urgent need for stronger ethical guidelines within psychological research practices.

Exploration of the long-term effects on participants and society as a whole

The Stanford Prison Experiment had far-reaching consequences for both the participants and society as a whole. Many of the participants experienced severe emotional distress during their time in the simulated prison, with some even developing symptoms resembling those of post-traumatic stress disorder. The experiment's effects on individuals' mental well-being raised concerns about the potential long-term harm that can result from unethical research practices. This study brought attention to issues of authority and power dynamics within institutions. It demonstrated how easily individuals can abuse their positions of authority when placed in certain situations, highlighting the importance of ethical guidelines and safeguards to prevent such abuses from occurring in real-life settings.

On a broader scale, the Stanford Prison Experiment sparked conversations about research ethics and led to changes in how psychological experiments are conducted. Institutional review boards were established to ensure participant safety and ethical considerations are prioritized in future studies. By examining both individual and societal impacts, we can appreciate why this experiment continues to be studied and debated today. It serves as a cautionary tale about the potential dangers inherent in unchecked power dynamics and emphasizes the need for researchers to prioritize participant welfare while conducting experimental studies.

The Stanford Prison Experiment serves as a cautionary tale in the realm of social psychology research. It exposed serious ethical issues and highlighted the potential for psychological harm that participants can experience when subjected to extreme situations without adequate safeguards. This experiment led to significant changes in ethical guidelines for conducting research, emphasizing the importance of informed consent, debriefing procedures, and protecting participant well-being.

Moving forward, it is essential for researchers to prioritize ethical considerations when designing experiments involving human subjects. Informed consent should be obtained from participants, ensuring they are fully aware of the nature and potential risks involved in the study. Researchers should also establish clear boundaries and mechanisms for intervention to prevent any form of harm or abuse during the course of an experiment.

It is crucial for researchers to critically reflect on their own biases and avoid becoming overly immersed or identified with their roles within an experiment. Maintaining objectivity allows researchers to make sound judgments about participant welfare and intervene if necessary.

While Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment shed light on important aspects of human behavior under extreme circumstances, its unethical implementation raises significant concerns about research ethics. By learning from this controversial study, we can ensure that future research endeavors adhere strictly to ethical principles while advancing our understanding of human behavior responsibly and compassionately.

Get your project done perfectly

Professional writing service

But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness.

"At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident."

"On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue."

Try it now!

Calculate your price

Number of pages:

Plagiarism checker

Our Services

Writing Help

RELATED CATEGORIES

• Emotional Intelligence Essay Examples
• Social Psychology Essay Examples
• Child Observation Essay Examples
• Childhood Essay Examples
• Sigmund Freud Essay Examples
• Human Behavior Essay Examples
• Perseverance Essay Examples
• Archetype Essay Examples

Stanford prison experiment: The ethical issues. (2023, August 07). Pro-Papers. Retrieved May 14, 2024, from https://pro-papers.com/samples/psychology/human-behavior/stanford-prison-experiment

"Stanford Prison Experiment: The Ethical Issues" Pro-Papers , 07 Aug. 2023, pro-papers.com/samples/psychology/human-behavior/stanford-prison-experiment

Stanford Prison Experiment: The Ethical Issues , 2023. [online]. (updated 07 Aug. 2023) Available at: [Accessed 14 May 2024].

Stanford prison experiment: The ethical issues. [Internet]. Pro-Papers. 2023 Aug 07. [cited 2024 May 14]. Available from: https://pro-papers.com/samples/psychology/human-behavior/stanford-prison-experiment

Related samples

Explore the transformative influence of the Harlem Renaissance on African American music. This article delves into the evolution of jazz, blues, and… .

Harlem Renaissance Essay Examples

Uncover Harriet Tubman's lesser-known role in the Women's Suffrage Movement. From her advocacy for women's rights to forging alliances, explore… .

Harriet Tubman Essay Examples

Nursing plays a vital role in promoting patient-centered care by prioritizing individual needs, preferences, and values, enhancing overall treatment… .

Nursing Essay Examples

We can take care of your essay

24/7 Support

We really care about our clients and strive to provide the best customer experience for everyone.

Fair and Flexible Cost

Fair and flexible cost affordable for every student.

Plagiarism-free Papers

Plagiarized texts are unacceptable in the academic community, and our team knows it perfectly well. For this reason, we have strict plagiarism detection tools which we use for each of our orders.

Compliance with Any Deadline

The minimal timeframe needed to complete your paper is 6 hours. So if you need your paper by tomorrow, this is the job for our experts!

Reset password

We’ve sent you an email containing a link that will allow you to reset your password for the next 24 hours.

Please check your spam folder if the email doesn’t appear within a few minutes.

Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: a Critical Analysis

This essay about the ethical implications of the John Money experiment critically examines the tragic case of David Reimer, who was raised as a girl following a failed circumcision and subsequent medical advice. It discusses issues of informed consent, the harm caused by unethical medical practices, and the misuse of authority in clinical research. The text highlights the severe psychological impact on Reimer and critiques the ethical lapses in handling his case, emphasizing the need for compassion and strict ethical standards in medical practices and research.

How it works

The story of the John Money experiment is a cautionary tale of the interplay between medical ethics and the complexities of gender identity.

This episode in the history of psychology and medical science revolves around the tragic case of David Reimer, originally born as Bruce Reimer, who was raised as a girl following catastrophic medical advice and treatment initiated by Dr. John Money. The ethical implications of this case are profound, impacting notions of consent, the responsibilities of healthcare professionals, and the psychosocial dynamics of gender identity.

In 1965, Canadian twin boys, Bruce and Brian Reimer, were born healthy. However, during a routine circumcision, Bruce’s penis was irreparably damaged. Dr. Money, a psychologist and sexologist who advocated for the theory that gender identity is primarily learned through social and environmental cues rather than biological, inherited traits, advised the distraught parents to raise Bruce as a girl. Consequently, Bruce was renamed Brenda, surgically altered, and raised as a female. This case presented Money with a unique opportunity to further his research and theories on gender identity and fluidity.

From an ethical standpoint, the first major issue was the lack of informed consent. Although the Reimers were desperate for a solution, they were arguably not fully informed of the potential risks and the experimental nature of the treatment proposed. Money’s assurance of success was based on theoretical assumptions rather than concrete evidence. The principle of informed consent is critical in medical ethics, ensuring that patients or, in the case of minors, their guardians, are fully aware of all potential risks and outcomes associated with a medical intervention. The Reimers’ decision was influenced heavily by Money’s authority and the promise of a normal life for their child, which clouds the authenticity of their consent.

Secondly, the experiment underscores the ethical responsibility of healthcare professionals to avoid harm—primum non nocere (first, do no harm). Money’s experiment, though initially seeming to show Brenda adapting well, eventually resulted in severe psychological distress and confusion for her as she grew. The dissonance between Brenda’s biological sex and imposed gender identity led to significant behavioral and emotional issues, which Money reported misleadingly to support his hypothesis. This manipulation of data for theoretical validation, rather than patient welfare, starkly contravenes medical ethics.

Moreover, the experiment raises critical questions about the ethical treatment of children in medical research. Children are a vulnerable population, and any medical intervention, especially those involving identity and psychological wellbeing, must be approached with extreme caution and ethical rigor. Money’s continuation of the experiment, despite evident adverse effects on Brenda’s mental health, highlights a grievous ethical lapse—the prioritization of research outcomes over the patient’s wellbeing.

The psychological toll on David Reimer (who reassumed his male identity in adolescence after learning the truth of his medical history) was immense. He suffered long-term consequences, including depression and identity struggles, ultimately leading to his tragic suicide at the age of 38. This outcome serves as a potent reminder of the ethical responsibility towards long-term welfare in medical decision-making, particularly in cases involving non-urgent, non-life-threatening conditions.

Analyzing this case through the lens of virtue ethics, which emphasizes the moral character of the practitioner rather than the ethicality of an act, presents an additional dimension of critique. The virtues of empathy, humility, and integrity, essential for ethical medical practice, were conspicuously lacking in Money’s handling of the Reimer case. His determination to prove a theory seemingly took precedence over the humane treatment of Brenda/David.

In conclusion, the John Money experiment with David Reimer exposes profound ethical violations, highlighting the necessity for rigorous ethical standards in medical and psychological research. This case study is a critical reminder of the potential human cost when ethical boundaries are overlooked in the pursuit of scientific advancement. It underscores the enduring need for compassion, rigorous adherence to informed consent, and the prioritization of individual welfare in all medical practices. This tragic narrative invites ongoing discourse on medical ethics, reinforcing the imperative to safeguard the most vulnerable among us from experimental practices devoid of empirical validation and ethical integrity.

Cite this page

Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: A Critical Analysis. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-implications-of-the-john-money-experiment-a-critical-analysis/

"Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: A Critical Analysis." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-implications-of-the-john-money-experiment-a-critical-analysis/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: A Critical Analysis . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-implications-of-the-john-money-experiment-a-critical-analysis/ [Accessed: 14 May. 2024]

"Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: A Critical Analysis." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 14, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-implications-of-the-john-money-experiment-a-critical-analysis/

"Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: A Critical Analysis," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-implications-of-the-john-money-experiment-a-critical-analysis/. [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Ethical Implications of the John Money Experiment: A Critical Analysis . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/ethical-implications-of-the-john-money-experiment-a-critical-analysis/ [Accessed: 14-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers