Was the Stanford Prison Experiment a Sham? (nypost.com)

Frosty Piss writes: The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo using college students to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power by focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. In the study, volunteers were randomly assigned to be either "guards" or "prisoners" in a mock prison, with Zimbardo serving as the superintendent. The results seemed to show that the students quickly embraced their assigned roles, with some guards enforcing authoritarian measures and ultimately subjecting some prisoners to psychological torture, while many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, by the officers' request, actively harassed other prisoners who tried to stop it. After Berkeley graduate Douglas Korpi appeared to have a nervous breakdown while playing the role of an inmate, the experiment was shut down. There's just one problem: Korpi's breakdown was a sham. Dr. Ben Blum took to Medium to publish his claims. "Blum's expose -- based on previously unpublished recordings of Zimbardo, a Stanford psychology professor, and interviews with the participants -- offers evidence that the 'guards' were coached to be cruel," reports New York Post. "One of the men who acted as an inmate told Blum he enjoyed the experiment because he knew the guards couldn't actually hurt him."

"There were no repercussions. We knew [the guards] couldn't hurt us, they couldn't hit us. They were white college kids just like us, so it was a very safe situation," said Douglas Korpi, who was 22-years-old when he acted as an inmate in the study. The Berkeley grad now admits the whole thing was fake. Zimbardo also "admitted that he was an active participant in the study, meaning he had influence over the results," reports New York Post. According to an audio recording from the Stanford archive, you can hear Zimbardo encouraging the guards to act "tough."

Comments

Re:This does not invalidate the results

[hey!]

There have been doubts about the validity of the Stanford Prison Experiment since the very beginning, and the weight has probably been on the side of the doubters for years now. The same for the famous MIlgram experiment. Those early experiments are famous because everybody learns about them in Psych 101, but they are so far from meeting modern standards of research quality anyone citing them today, except to question the results, would face serious peer review backlash.

I once saw a tape of Zimbardo telling an anecdote of one of his colleagues dropping by the experiment. Zimbardo showed him around and told him what was going on, but the colleague seemed confused. "What is your null hypothesis?" the colleague asked. The crowd Zimbardo was regaling laughed at that as if it were a silly, obtuse question. Actually it was a very good question, and it points to the reason that the Stanford Prison Experiment will likely never be replicated in its original form. Without a null hypothesis, you have no basis for systematically eliminating experimenter bias.

In a modern experiment -- presuming you could get ethical clearance -- your null hypothesis would be that guards do *not* spontaneously exhibit cruel and dehumanizing behavior; you would then carefully remove any hint of encouragement for them to do so. By just throwing them into a situation and seeing what happens, you don't know whether or not what you are seeing is a result of something you unconsciously made them do.

Re:Science: Is it replicable?

[Anonymous Coward]

This so called "study" is BS! You want to see the real deal? Check out the USAF Survival School at Fairchild AFB WA, and talk to anyone that has been through it. There were ~30 others in the group when I attended, and at the end of the POW course there was not a dry eye among us when they raised the American Flag signifying the end of the POW experience. Every single one of us was convinced we were in a real POW camp and would never see home again. It lasted less than 48 hours, and was the most intense experience of my life.

Here's the site: http://www.fairchild.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/238992/us-air-force-survival-school/

And this is how they currently describe it : "Finally, students are returned to Fairchild and receive Code of Conduct training in evasion and conduct after capture".

A subtle way to describe an experience that drove me to attempt to kill the guards, and others to collaborate with the enemy. One guy was even guarding the rest of the prisoners with a (unloaded) gun, he had a massive breakdown at the end of the camp when he realized what he had done. I never saw him again. Talk to any alumnus, don't take my word.

Re:Then so was the holocaust!

[Notabadguy]

Nitpicking a past study which nobody has the guts to attempt to properly recreate (or improve upon.) Many real actual atrocities which rhyme with the experiment is all we need to realize that environmental conditions GREATLY influence human behavior.

Um...let me try different words. The reason nobody has the "guts" to recreate this experiment, or use it as a foundation are as follows:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...

1. The study was fake.
2. The control group was fake.
3. The students were paid actors.
4. They were COACHED on expected behavior during the study.
5. The paid actors then:
          -Psychologically abused the inmates as they were coached and encouraged to do.
          -Rebelled / Rioted as the news told them prisoners do.

After 6 days, the "game" wasn't fun for the prisoners anymore, they were tired of the psychological abuse, and Zimbardo ended the study, claiming to have proven something.

All he proved is that 18-22 year old psychology students getting paid $15 a day in 1970 will do what they're told to do. At least for 6 days.