Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (Social)
Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Prisoners and Guards (textbook pg. 118-120) “Understand the aims, procedures and findings (results and conclusions), strengths and weaknesses of: Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison”
Background to the study: The researchers set up
a fake prison to investigate the conditions under
which people become aggressive. They wanted to
understand how the conflict between prisoners
and guards arose.
Description: APRC
| A | • They wanted to investigate prisoner-guard conflict in a simulated prison environment. • They also wanted to investigate what behaviours would occur when people were allocated the roles of “guards” and “prisoners.” |
| P | • They placed an advertisement in a newspaper asking for volunteers to take part in a study about prison life, paying $15 per day for participation. Out of 75 that responded, 22 were selected. One dropped out, leaving 21 participants – 10 prisoners and 11 guards – randomly assigned to the two roles. All were male college students who were psychologically healthy. • Participants agreed to play their role and were aware they would be under constant observation by video and audio recordings (overt observation). They were also told they might lose their basic civil rights, such as freedom if given the prisoner role. All were told to be available on a specific day to start the experiment. • A fake prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University, with three cells, a yard, a guardroom and a closet for solitary confinement. • The guards were briefed on their duties and the only rule stated to them was that physical punishment was not allowed. They were given military style uniforms to suggest power and authority. • Palo Alto City Police Department “arrested” the prisoners from their homes and they went through the normal arrest process at the police station, which involved being handcuffed and searched. They were then blindfolded and driven to the mock prison to serve their two-week sentence for burglary or armed robbery. • Here, they were stripped and made to stand naked in the yard before given their uniform (plain smock with ID number, ankle chain and no underwear to deindividualise and humiliate them). • Guards read the rules to prisoners (only referring to them by their ID number) such as “three meals per day”, “daily registers three times a day” and “three supervised toilet breaks a day.” • The prisoners and guards were free to interact however they wished – no direction was given as to how they should or should not interact with each other. • All participants completed questionnaires and tests to assess their mood and were observed throughout the process. |
| R | • Interactions between guards and prisoners were limited and tended to be hostile. • Guards only addressed prisoners by their ID numbers and were often verbally aggressive. They became more hostile over time and came up with punishments such as push-ups and solitary confinement. • Guards twisted the rules (e.g. not allowing agreed privileges like movies) and sometimes voluntarily remained on duty after their shifts, seeming to enjoy their role. • On day two, prisoners rebelled by shutting themselves in their cells – but the guards forced them out and placed the ringleaders in solitary confinement. • There were individual differences, as some prisoners were passive whilst others were rebellious. Some guards were aggressive whilst others avoided conflict. • Five prisoners had to be released early due to extreme distress (crying, anxiety, depression and rage). The fifth needed treatment for a psychosomatic rash, and some prisoners requested a lawyer to get them out of the prison. • On day six, the experiment was terminated early (8 days ahead of the planned end date) as the experiment got out of hand, beyond the experimenters’ expectations. |
| C | • Both the prisoners and guards conformed to the roles that they had been assigned: prisoners became submissive and guards became hostile. • The uniforms caused individuals to become deindividualised (loss of personal identity and responsibility) causing a change in behaviour and adoption of the norms of the roles they had been given. |
Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Key Term Glossary
| Overt observation | Observation where the participants are aware they are being observed. |
| Volunteeer sample | Sampling method in which participants self-select to be in the study by responding to an advertisement |
| Deindividualisation | The loss of personal identify and responsibility due to being in a group. |
| Need more help? Want to stretch your understanding? Need a video example? |
| https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html https://www.holah.karoo.net/zimbardostudy.htm https://explorable.com/stanford-prison-experiment https://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/ |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GePFFf5gRKo (2 min clip of the study) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsRQVRoIPWE (30 min documentary) |
Evaluation: GRAVE
| G | • The study used a small sample of 21 young males, therefore not reflecting the target population of the variety of people within prisons, limiting the generalisability of the results. |
| R | • The study was replicated (with several alterations) in 2002 by Haslam and Reicher which was filmed for a BBC documentary called “The Experiment.” Some findings were consistent over time such as aggression and again the study being ended early due to unethical behaviour. However, differences occurred, for examples the guards were overthrown by the prisoners and many guards felt guilty about their high status role and tried to give their food to the prisoners, suggesting the results are not consistent over time. |
| A | • The study highlighted that uniforms cause deindividualisation, therefore to encourage people to act with personal responsibility, we should avoid deindividualisation. For example, prison guards wearing name tags and prisoners addressed by name rather than ID number to encourage personal responsibility and personal identity. |
| V | • The prison was artificially set up for the experiment with some rules (e.g. no physical violence) therefore the behaviours might not reflect that of real life prisons, where physical violence may have been seen at this time. The study was also only due to last 2 weeks, with the participants knowing it was a short-term experience, making their behaviours not reflect real cases of long-term imprisonment. • Despite the artificial setting, participants seemed to become immersed in the prison life, as most of the time, they all talked about prison life rather than their personal lives, showing they were truly engaged with the setting. Efforts were made to make the experience realistic, such as the real arrest from the Palo Alto City police department. |
| E | • Participants gave consent to take part in an experiment about prison life, and were agreed to having their basic civil rights removed. They were also given debriefs after the experiment and follow up psychological evaluations to ensure their wellbeing. • The study was extremely unethical and participants experienced physical and psychological harm – prisoners were humiliated by the punishments, verbal aggression and behaviour of the guards, leading to great distress. • Participants could not withdraw themselves from the study freely – but five prisoners experienced distress so severe they had to be removed early and the experiment had to be stopped after 6 days. |
Still got a question? Leave a comment
Leave a comment