stanford prison experiment movie guide (zimbardo)

Philip Zimbardo reflects on ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ movie

Today, Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford, will see the story of his famously controversial Stanford Prison Experiment unfold on the big screen.

Conducted in 1971, the experiment simulated a prison environment with a group of 22 male college students. The young men, hand-picked for their physical and mental maturity, among other factors, were randomly assigned the role of “prisoner” or “guard.” While the students were specifically instructed against the use of physical punishment, they were given no further instructions. Throughout the six-day study , half of the prisoners suffered from “extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety” and had to be excused from the experiment.

Since the study was conducted, Zimbardo has written “The Lucifer Effect,” a book in which he discusses the gradual changes experienced within the subjects and himself throughout the experiment. The research has been widely studied by psychology students and beyond, serving as a controversial but poignant example of the effect of a prison environment.

With “The Stanford Prison Experiment” set to premiere today, Zimbardo spoke with The Daily about the original study, as well as his thoughts about the motion picture.

The Stanford Daily (TSD): What were your initial expectations for the original experiment?

Philip Zimbardo (PZ): [We wanted to expand on] Milgram’s experiment on obedience through authority, in which he showed that situational factors can get good people to do bad things… Our study was a follow-up of that, in which we focus less on powerful authority and obedience…

In the earlier research – in most psychological research – it [the study] only goes for a single hour. We wanted to observe the gradual transformation of people into their character, into their role… What’s dramatic about the research – and now what’s dramatic about the movie – is that you see for the first time character transformations – people becoming their role, becoming guards, becoming prisoners – in a relatively short time.

TSD: Why did you decide to conduct the study with college-age males?

PZ: I wanted to have bright, intelligent college students. And unlike Milgram’s study, we gave them personality tests. We only picked the most normal and healthy. The bottom line is, I want to say, here we have normal, intelligent, bright, college students who should understand things about [themselves]. Even more than ordinary, uneducated people. And the point is, it works for them as well as for the ordinary men in Milgram’s study.

TSD: In some of the interviews after the experiment, students explained that the prison became more than just an experiment, that they really grew into their roles as prisoners and guards. Did you also grow into your role as prison superintendent? How did this it affect your research?

PZ: Oh, absolutely. I made the mistake of playing two roles simultaneously. One role was principal investigator of the research project, and in that role I am objective; I am distant; I am emotionally neutral. But then I made the mistake of also being the prison superintendent, and my undergraduate assistant David Chassey played the role of the warden, and my two graduate students…played the two attendants. But we all had a prison-life role to play.

Over time, hour-by-hour, day-by-day, I fell into that role, and in that role I observed guards brutalizing prisoners – in some cases sadistically… And I did not stop it. The only thing I stopped was physical force, but I didn’t stop psychological force, which, in the long run is much worse. I had become, without my awareness, the indifferent superintendent of the Stanford Prison Experiment. And in my book “The Lucifer Effect,” I write about it in great detail – that this was a mistake I made. I should have had someone else play that role.

PZ: When I finished this study, I wrote a few articles about it, because it was really, to me, not a big deal… And then what happened was Abu Ghraib in 2004 – there were obvious parallels with the prison study. Military guards put bags over prisoners’ heads, stripped them naked, humiliated them, just as our guards had done. And so I became an excellent witness to one of those military guards and got to know everything about that horrendous military situation in Iraq. And then I decided I should really go back and review what happened in the Stanford Prison Study, which was 30 years earlier.

And so what I did is I looked at 12 hours of our videotape along with two students who didn’t know anything about this study… And what I decided to do is write a book in which we basically detail what happened in the study. We basically have a chapter of each day, and of course a chapter of setting it [the experiment] up, and other chapters on other things and other kinds of evil situations. My book, “The Lucifer Effect,” [has] been a great success. It’s been in 20 different languages around the world; it’s being used not only by college students and psychologists but in military situations and even in mental hospitals.

TSD: Was there a particular time when your role started to shift from principal investigator to prison superintendent, or was it gradual?

PZ: It’s totally gradual. The point is that we all – I mean I lived there, I slept in my office – hadn’t noticed [the changes] at all. That is, we lived the experiment.

The other problem was we – we meaning my research team – were really not prepared for the intensity an experiment that goes 24/7. Because there are endless logistical things to do – prisoners have to be fed morning, lunch, evening. In order to make it realistic we had parole board hearings two times, with an ex-convict heading it. The secretaries had visiting days two times, with parents, boyfriends, girlfriends. We had a visiting by a prison chaplain…

But the changes are gradual. The changes occur, as I said, a little bit more each day. It’s not a single dramatic thing.

TSD: You mentioned that your two-week study was terminated after just six days; why did you make the decision to conclude the study at the point that you did?

PZ: It’s a critical dramatic instance of heroic action by a young woman, who brought me to my senses…On Thursday night, one of those former graduate students [coming to help with the study], a young woman named Christina Maslach [Ph.D. ’71] – she had been my graduate student at Stanford and also my teaching assistant, and she had just graduated in June – had gotten a job at Berkeley as an assistant professor in psychology and was on her way [to Stanford]…

We had just decided in addition in the beginning of August that we would move in together. We were having a romantic relationship… So she happened to be at Stanford on Thursday working in the library, and contacted me and said, “Hey, can we get together for dinner at the end of the night shift?” And I said, “Sure, why don’t you come down and just check out what’s happening.”

And she comes down and observes guards brutalizing prisoners with bags over their head, yelling, screaming, chaining their legs together, and when I looked at what was happening on the monitor it was nothing more than the 10 o’clock toilet shift – because 10 o’clock was the last time prisoners could go to a real toilet… She begins to tear up, and runs out and says “I can’t look at this”…

I’m arguing about why this is such an important study, and then she [asks], how could I not see the suffering that was so obvious to her? And if this was the real me, because what she had known me before – the professor, who was a caring, loving teacher… I’m not sure I want to continue my romantic relationship with you. And at that point it was really stunning because it was exactly what I needed to shake me loose from my fantasy, from my craziness… At this point it’s like 11 o’clock at night, and I say, “All right, I’m going to end the study tomorrow… ” We ended the study on Friday, the next day.

TSD: Shifting focus from the actual study to the film that’s coming out, how accurately do you think the film portrays your experiment?

PZ: It’s a remarkably accurate portrayal. Now, the only issue of course is they’re compressing six days into two hours – it is a two hour film. So in fact, they had to leave out many traumatic scenes. There are no scenes that were put in that didn’t happen in the real study. There were no scenes that had to be put in for the drama. If anything, they left out a lot of what I consider powerful scenes, which they actually had in and it just went too long so they had to cut it out. I’d say it’s roughly 90 percent accurate.

Now in addition, when I was writing “The Lucifer Effect,” I was sending to the scriptwriter Tim Talbott all of the dialogue between prisoners and guards. So in the movie almost all of what the guards say to prisoners, prisoners say to guards, came exactly from “The Lucifer Effect” (and I got a screen citation).

TSD: What was your involvement with the making of the movie?

PZ: From the beginning, I was the consultant. I reviewed the script; I made significant changes in the script; I contributed to the script. And I was on the set a couple of days. Unfortunately, I couldn’t be there all the time because I was in Europe. And even when the film was shown at Sundance, there were several parts of the movie which were just wrong psychologically, and then also we added the screen credits. Several things which are now in the movie.

TSD: There have been several documentaries and informational videos made about the experiment, but this is more of a motion picture than a documentary. How do you think the dramatization of the experiment affects the events and conclusions that are presented? Are they easier to relate to for the audience?

PZ: Our movie sticks essentially to the facts… So the movie, then, is a dramatic recreation. It’s dramatic in that it’s highlighting some things and not getting into details about something else. But it has the visiting days. It has the parole board hearing. It has at least one scene of the police arrest. It has the interaction of me and my staff making group decisions about what we should do with certain prisoners. At least more than half of the movie is just prisoner and guard interaction with no one else present.

What’s dramatic is, the audience, in looking at the movie – it’s as if they’re looking through a one-way screen, as we were doing. They are taking the place of the observers looking at the drama unfolding. But they are also observing the observers. Observing the changes in me and my graduate students as these things unfold.

I think it’s a unique movie; it’s the only movie I know where the whole movie is about a psychological experiment.

TSD: If you could change something about the movie, what would you change?

PZ: The confrontation I had with Christina is the reason we ended the study – and it makes her a hero. Because in doing what she was doing, she was willing to say two things. She doesn’t know these boys, doesn’t know anything about them. But she’s just saying “I see human suffering, and you are responsible. I don’t want to have a relationship with somebody who could do that… ” That’s heroic. Heroes defend their moral cause aware of the risk.

But they didn’t use that to end the movie. They had a confrontation, and then I go down to the dungeon, and I’m looking at the video, and the video is the worst thing that happens… They wanted a traumatic scene, wanted to have the biggest traumatic impact – which it does… And then I go down, I enter the yard and say, “Okay, this study is over.” So the way the movie does, it doesn’t give her the heroic status that she deserves.

TSD: You mentioned that the audience will be encased in the basement as well. What do you hope viewers will take away from that experience?

PZ: It’s: What kind of guard would I have been if I was in that study? Would I have been a cruel guard; would I have been a good guard; would I have stopped what the bad guards did? What kind of prisoner would I have been? Would I have been defiant? Would I have stood up for my rights? Would I have helped other prisoners who were breaking down? If I would have been the prison superintendent, what would I have done to make the situation not erupt so horribly?

Essentially, we would like them to identify with the prisoners, the guards and me and my staff. And then also the question is: Would you have allowed it to go the second week, or would you end it earlier?… The point is to reflect. We’ve got all this stuff happening, prison riots in New York and Rikers Island – it’s really about abuse of power. Abuse of police power we see everywhere.

This interview has been condensed and edited.

Contact Lea Sparkman at 16lsparkman ‘at’ castilleja.org.

Login or create an account

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

What's the Tomatometer®?
Login/signup

stanford prison experiment movie guide (zimbardo)

Movies in theaters

Opening this week
Top box office
Coming soon to theaters
Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

Fandango at Home
Netflix streaming
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

Inside Out 2 Link to Inside Out 2
Hit Man Link to Hit Man
Thelma Link to Thelma

New TV Tonight

House of the Dragon: Season 2
Hotel Cocaine: Season 1
Tony Awards: Season 77
Megamind Rules!: Season 1
Shoresy: Season 3
Grantchester: Season 9
Cult Massacre: One Day in Jonestown: Season 1
Hart to Heart: Season 4
Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini: Season 1
Chopper Cops: Season 1

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Where to watch.

Watch The Stanford Prison Experiment with a subscription on Paramount+, rent on Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy on Prime Video, Apple TV.

What to Know

As chillingly thought-provoking as it is absorbing and well-acted, The Stanford Prison Experiment offers historical drama that packs a timelessly relevant punch.

Critics Reviews

Audience reviews, cast & crew.

Kyle Patrick Alvarez

Billy Crudup

Dr. Philip Zimbardo

Michael Angarano

Christopher Archer

Moises Arias

Anthony Carroll

Nicholas Braun

Gaius Charles

More Like This

Related movie news.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, the stanford prison experiment.

Now streaming on:

Students of high school or university psychology classes are probably familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment. Run in 1971 at the behest of the U.S. Navy, the experiment intended to investigate the cause of conflict between guards and prisoners in military correctional facilities. Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his team chose 24 male Stanford students and divvied them up into guards and prisoners. Turning the basement of one of the student halls into a makeshift prison, Zimbardo placed his subjects under surveillance and watched as the prisoners became passive and the guards exhibited authority by way of sometimes sadistic psychological torture. Zimbardo ended the experiment 6 days into its 2-week run, mostly due to the objections of his fiancée. She felt Zimbardo had become an unhealthy part of his own experiment.

A documentary about this could potentially be fascinating, as some of the actual experiment exists on film. Unfortunately, “The Stanford Prison Experiment” is a dramatization, and no matter how much it may adhere to the well-documented specifics of Zimbardo’s work, it is a massive failure. It prefers to abstract the experiment from any psychological theories or details, opting instead to merely harp on endless, repetitive scenes of prisoner abuse. One particular guard, who thinks he’s Strother Martin in “ Cool Hand Luke ,” abuses the prisoners. The prisoners take the abuse, rebelling once or twice before becoming passive. Zimbardo glares at a TV screen doing nothing while his guards break the rules of the contract everybody signed at the outset. Repeat ad nauseum.

These scenes are supposed to shock the viewer, but they did not work for me, because I just didn’t care. The film reduces the entire experiment to a Dead Teenager movie whose slasher just roughs them up. Prisoners are referred to by numbers in order to strip them of their personal identities, and the film keeps them at this level of distance. We never get to know any subject outside of brief sketches, so the victims become disposable. Despite the best efforts of the actors on both sides of the law, the film is completely clinical in its depiction, striking the same note for over 2 hours. It gets real dull, real fast.

I didn’t care because this isn’t remotely like an actual prison; it’s a bunch of privileged kids playing dress-up for $15 a day. Even a priest Zimbardo hires as a prison chaplain tells the doctor “it’s good that these privileged kids experience prison life.” The actual reasons for the experiment (and its military involvement) are never expressed in Tim Talbott ’s screenplay, so the priest’s comment almost serves as the reason for these tests. And the film takes great pains to tell us that nobody in the experiment suffered “long term psychological damage” after it was abruptly cancelled. I’m sure someone who has experienced the harsh realities of actual prison life would feel relieved that these young men weren’t scarred.

The best scene in “The Stanford Prison Experiment” deals with an actual prisoner and serves to highlight my disdain for how the film trades emotion and details for exploitative shocks. The fantastic Nelsan Ellis (last seen in “ Get On Up ”) plays Jesse, an ex-con brought in by Zimbardo’s team as an expert witness to their proceedings. At a mock parole board hearing, Jesse rips into an inmate, treating him as inhumanely as possible while verbally shredding the inmate’s explanation for why he should be paroled. After the stunned inmate is sent back to his cell, Jesse reveals that he was recreating his own parole board treatment. He tells Zimbardo that playing the role of his own tormentor “felt good, and I hated that it did.” This, in a nutshell, is what the actual experiment sought to explore, that is, the nature of even the nicest human beings to commit evil. Jesse’s revelation, and the psychological toll it takes on him, is more effective than anything else the film conjures up. If only the movie had spent more time interacting with the Strother Martin-wannabe’s own thoughts rather than trudging him out only for sadism.

The film reduces Zimbardo to some kind of megalomaniac who doesn’t know what he is doing. This makes his research seem half-assed and unethical. He watches the guards strike the prisoners (a direct violation of the rules) and the film paints him as the biggest villain of all. He challenges anyone who questions his methods and authority, and at one point, he absurdly sits in a hallway like a low-rent Charles Bronson hoping for the return of a subject who might jeopardize his research. (In the actual case, Zimbardo simply moves the prison to a location unknown by the subject.) And though his intentions are to “feminize” the prisoners by giving them “dresses” that barely hide their genitalia, “The Stanford Prison Experiment” implies that Zimbardo’s sole reason for stopping the experiment was the moment when his guards forced the inmates into a gay sex pantomime. Violence and hog-tying inmates were OK, but none of that gay stuff, the movie seems to say.

Billy Crudup deserves some kind of medal for his attempt to breathe life into his one dimensional character, as do actors like Ezra Miller and Olivia Thirlby . But they are undermined by a poor script, horror movie-style music and ripe dramatizations that exist solely to make the viewer feel superior. I despise movies like this and “ Compliance ” because they pretend to say something profound about their scenarios but are, at heart, cynically manipulative trash designed to make audiences pat themselves on the back for not being “like those people.” Had we been forced to identify with anyone, prisoner or guard, the film might have achieved the palpable discomfort of forcing us to look at ourselves. That was one of the goals of the actual Stanford Prison Experiment. This movie just wants to superficially disturb, and it’s not even successful at that.

Odie Henderson

Odie "Odienator" Henderson has spent over 33 years working in Information Technology. He runs the blogs Big Media Vandalism and Tales of Odienary Madness. Read his answers to our Movie Love Questionnaire here .

Now playing

Christy Lemire

Back to Black

Peyton robinson.

The Beach Boys

Brian tallerico.

The Garfield Movie

Nothing Can't Be Undone by a HotPot

Simon abrams.

Monica Castillo

Film credits.

The Stanford Prison Experiment movie poster

The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015)

Rated R for language including abusive behavior and some sexual references

122 minutes

Billy Crudup as Dr. Philip Zimbardo

Ezra Miller as Daniel Culp - Prisoner '8612'

Michael Angarano as Christopher Archer

Tye Sheridan as Peter Mitchell - Prisoner 819

Olivia Thirlby as Christina Zimbardo

Johnny Simmons as Jeff Jansen

Gaius Charles as Banks

James Wolk as Penny

Thomas Mann as Prisoner 416

Moisés Arias as Actor

Keir Gilchrist as John Lovett

Nelsan Ellis as Jesse Fletcher

Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Tim Talbott

Director of Photography

Jas Shelton

Latest blog posts

GTA San Andreas and the Legacy of Playing as a Black Guy in Video Games

Hollywood Continues to Fail Its Black Final Girls

58th KVIFF Welcomes Viggo Mortensen, Steven Soderbergh, Clive Owen, And More

Juneteenth Film Festival Returns For A Powerful Second Year

Things you buy through our links may earn Vox Media a commission

What the Creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment Thinks of the New Film About It

When the Stanford Prison Experiment concluded in 1971, it was a watershed moment for social psychology. The study, conducted by Stanford University Professor Philip Zimbardo, was designed to fully simulate a jail for 14 days in order to study the effects of imprisonment. Twelve young men were randomly assigned to be guards, and twelve were assigned to be prisoners, and locked in a Palo Alto basement.

Over the course of six days, the young men took on their roles fully. “Guards” emotionally and physically abused the “inmates,” and “inmates” became reticent to question authority and sank into deep depressions. Things degraded to the point that the experiment was called off early. Although today the study is widely acknowledged as unethical, the experiment is still taught in psychology classes as an example of how authority corrupts — not to mention as an example of why scientific research involving human subjects is so heavily regulated.

The movie version, which has been kicking around Hollywood for years, has finally been released, allowing viewers to experience the study and all its horrifying and elucidating truths about human nature. Starring Billy Crudup, Ezra Miller, and Michael Angarano and based Zimbardo’s book The Lucifer Effect , director Kyle Patrick Alverez re-creates the experiment with startling, and often upsetting, accuracy. (At the 2015 Sundance Film Festival, the film won the Alfred P. Sloan prize for science in film.) Zimbardo, who was a consultant on the film, spoke with Science of Us at the movie’s New York premiere at No. 8 about watching himself depicted onscreen, the film’s honesty, and why he still stands by his findings.

What was it like for you to watch this film? Strange. Because they used my name. Everyone else has a fictional name. When I’m watching someone say “Dr. Zimbardo,” I say “yes.” And then, of course, I know all the dialogue. So I’m finishing in my head the sentence of the prisoner or guard, but it was very exciting. Because the movie is a brilliant re-creation of what really happened that weekend in the basement, and it is done better than I could have imagined. This has been going on for 35 years. Many, many studios, many, many scripts, many, many famous actors were going to play, and it all crashed.

I had given up hope and was like, Oh my gosh, I’m going to die before anything comes of this. But for me, what the movie does, is it informs the general public about an important psychological experience. That’s where the media connects this experience with the general public, and in this movie it does it as good as can be. I was on the set for some of the shooting, so I feel like I had a really positive involvement in it. It is a really disturbing movie, but the hope is that people will come away asking important questions about themselves and human nature. What kind of guard would I have been? What kind of prisoner? How could people do this, what are other situations in everyday life where people do this? It is really about abuse of power, so you want people to ask what happens when people get in positions of power, like a boss; it makes you think about bullies. It ought to trigger lots of reflection as well as stress. Is it an accurate representation of what happened that weekend? It’s at least 90 percent exactly right on. There are a few scenes that moved around. But nothing is added in the movie that wasn’t in the study.

Was it an accurate portrayal of yourself? The portrayal was very accurate; it was painfully accurate, and it revived my guilt for allowing the experiment to go on too long. I should have ended it after the second day, after the second prisoner broke down, but he is me, if anything he is a more intense me, but Billy Crudup is also playing an academic professor. He’s even more serious than I am or was. But it was eye opening. It is like opening a wound from 44 years ago.

What’s still relevant today about the experiment? It’s an experiment about human nature, but it’s about asking what would you do if you had total power over someone else. What would you do if people were dominating you and you were in a group? How would you organize the prisoners to rebel against the guards. But it’s relevant in the situation in New York and how guards treated prisoners at Rikers Island; it is relevant for retraining police officers to be aware of their bias; and it really ought to reform changes in the correctional system. We have 2 million citizens in prison — more than twice as much as any nation in the world. Citizens pay millions of dollars in taxes for a system that doesn’t work. I hope it will trigger ideas about what’s happening in our prisons, or in our schools.

This interview has been edited.

philip zimbardo
the stanford prison experiment
social psychology
science of us

The Cut Shop

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

What is your email.

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

Lower case letters (a-z)
Upper case letters (A-Z)
Numbers (0-9)
Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

Cast & crew
User reviews

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971, twenty-four male students are selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
The Stanford prison experiment was ostensibly a psychological study of human responses to captivity and its behavioral effects on both authorities and inmates in prison. It was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. Undergraduate volunteers played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Within one day things got out of hand, and the "guards" used unmonitored brute force on many of the inmates. The experiment was cancelled after 6 days instead of the planned 14.

Contribute to this page

See more gaps
Learn more about contributing

Dr. Zimbardo Says His Role in the Stanford Prison Experiment Was Like Being a Movie Director

The stanford prison experiment is a study with a long history and one that has been firmly etched into the collective discourse on social psychology..

Kyle Patrick Alvarez's THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

The latest film rendition of the experiment, in which test subjects randomly inhabit the roles of prisoners and inmates, premiered at Sundance '15 (where it won the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award and the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize ) and is now hitting theaters.

We got the opportunity to have Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, the lead researcher on the original study in 1971, weigh in on its portrayal in the new film by Kyle Patrick Alvarez. Here's the trailer for the film:

With the film, the audience gets to step back and observe the observers.

NFS: Are you a film buff? How do feel about the experiment being translated to film?

Dr. Zimbardo: I'm a huge movie buff, but I never have enough time to watch a lot of movies. It's a little bit like 12 Angry Men or a very old movie Lifeboat , where the audience gets captured in this claustrophobic tiny space, and that's what happened in the prison study. The whole thing took place in an area about 6 feet wide and 20 feet long with tiny prison cells. So the movie captures that sense of claustrophobia and it's brilliant editing by the director Kyle Patrick Alvarez. There are scenes that are so compressed that you just see a guard's face, pushing or screaming, so the movie is, for me, riveting, and it translates in a very direct way. Each time I see it I notice something different, something new — but it's also emotionally distressing. The big question is: will audiences come away saying "Oh my god, it was overwhelming emotionally" or will they say "Oh my god, it made me think about issues of power?"

I wrote a book called the Lucifer Effect and it has 10 chapters on the Prison experiment. So what do you get out of a movie that you don't get out of reading? [In the book] the audience is really looking in on a one-way screen at me and my research team, with the film the audience gets to step back and observe the observers. So in a unique way it captures the kind of voyeurism that some films engage in. So instead of just imagining the scene, you imagine "what kind of guard would I have been like?"

NFS: Do you feel that the data from the study was accurately represented in the film?

Dr. Zimbardo: It's a very tasteful rendition. I should mentioned that in order to use the word "Stanford," the Stanford legal council made the producers agree that everything in the film would stick to the basic facts of what happened. So they couldn't invent new dramatic scenes, and in fact the exact opposite happened. Condensing 6 days down into 2 hours, there were a lot of dramatic things that happened that they couldn't put in the movie — or they filmed it but had to delete it because the film would run too long.

NFS: It seems like being the lead of an experiment has interesting parallels to being a film director. You're setting up your subjects, with their chemistries and watching them explode.

Dr. Zimbardo: In a funny way you really hit on it, most people don't. I was the researcher but I was also the prison superintendent — and that was a mistake to get into that role. But before that I was the director of this scene. I arranged the costumes, the physical setting, the only thing is we didn't have an audience, but we did have the video. There was no script and the experiment was all about the improvisation of the prisoners and guards. So essentially I was the director of the pilot of the movie, and then I was the researcher and unfortunately the superintendent who got sucked into the situation.

NFS: What ways have you seen the data from the experiment being used over the years that has surprised you?

Dr. Zimbardo: Shortly after the study I was contacted by clinical psychologists working in a state mental hospital in Elgin, Ohio saying there had been many abuses by psychologists of the patients. I consulted with them and they did a mock prison weekend in which the staff played inmates and staff — so half of the clinical staff played inmates. They did it for a weekend in part of the old hospital, and what happened was an exact replication of the Prison study. They started abusing the patients and putting them in straight jackets, cursing and screaming. So the consequence was that they became aware of how they were abusing their power. Since then they have a monthly meeting of staff, patients, and former patients to talk about how to keep the institution humane and compassionate and avoid the excesses that are possible in any kind of closed institution where nobody is looking in from the outside. That's been one of the most important direct extensions of the studies for good.

Essentially I was the director of the pilot of the movie, and then I was the researcher and unfortunately the superintendent who got sucked into the situation.

NFS: What are your thoughts on the human rights of test subjects in relation to the learnings that we could potentially gain about the human psyche?

Dr. Zimbardo: You're hitting on one of the basic questions that this raises on the ethics of behavioral research. Clearly people suffered more in this experiment than they expected to. There was in fact a committee that we submitted this to, but neither the students or me or my staff could've imagined how severe it would've been. So there was informed consent, but now we know that in those settings it could get out of hand and people really suffered.

The problem now is that all human subject committees at universities and other institutions have gotten extremely concerned with it and don't allow any of this kind of research. When what they could do is give a provisional acceptance — "We'll let you do it for an hour, a day, we'll look at the videos and then decide to let you go on." But it's all shut down. So in one way it makes the prison study more famous because it's in an ethical time capsule and it can never be done again. So in addition to its own merit it becomes a curiosity piece. But see, for me it means there are so many questions now that will never be answered. What would happen if somebody trained different groups of guards to be more compassionate? What would happen if you had all women? All minorities? So there's interesting questions about human nature that have important implications that can never be answered because you can't do this research.

NFS: What was your level of involvement and contribution to this film?

Dr. Zimbardo: I was a film consultant throughout and I worked a little with Tim Talbott , the screenwriter. I was sending him the chapters I was writing for The Lucifer Effect on the prison guard dialogue. I went back and forth with Kyle Alvarez, and in some places I would say "This is psychologically wrong" and they would eliminate it from the script. I was on set for a couple of days and talking to the principles, Billy Crudup who did a fantastic job of being an attractive me, and Olivia Thirlby who plays the lead female researcher.

NFS: If you could go back what would you change about the experiment?

Dr. Zimbardo: If I could go back I would not play the prison superintendent. I would have somebody else do that because then I could've been more objective. I probably would have ended the study at the end of the second day. When the second prisoner broke down, we proved our point and didn't need to keep going. The problem was in my mind we had said it might go 2 weeks, so I'm thinking how am I going to end after 2 days? It would be like a failure versus being a success. So I would have someone else play that role, or have an ombudsman watching and telling us when to shut down the show, saying when it becomes too distressing or too overwhelming.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is playing in select theaters now.

Love in the Darkest Place: Composer Kara Talve on Scoring 'The Tattooist of Auschwitz'

How can you bring music into such a desolate story.

Written by Kara Talve

When I learned I’d be writing the score for The Tattooist of Auschwitz alongside Hans Zimmer , my initial reaction was a mix of astonishment and out and out fear of the overwhelming task before me, and I remember being extremely flattered and thinking to myself: There’s no way I can do this. The subject matter is incredibly important, complex, time relevant, and I think I speak for the whole music team when I say that we took the responsibility of doing the story justice as a personal crusade especially when me, Hans and Russell Emanuel (score producer) all have family connections directly to the Holocaust.

My Grandma Matty was nine years old when the Nazi’s invaded Paris. The officer’s knocked on the door of her family apartment with a list of names, intending to arrest everyone who resided there. Miraculously, my Grandma’s name was not on the list—it was a total fluke, and the officers pointed at her in question. Her mother pushed her out of the way, saying something along the lines of “She’s not on your list, so you have no business with her”.

My young Grandma escaped through the fire escape, running to her piano teacher, André Levallois, who was working with the French Resistance at the time. She hid Grandma and several other Jews for the duration of the war. When the war was over, Grandma’s piano came overseas with her from Paris to Brooklyn, and when she passed away just a few years ago, I inherited that very piano which lives in my studio. I always wanted to use her piano to write music for a greater cause, and The Tattooist of Auschwitz seemed like the perfect series for that.

The piano itself retains its original condition and tuning, and it is exactly this imperfection that transports you back to the 1940s and is the sonic DNA of the score. The piano can sound incredibly intimate and human, while the lower keys sound very dark and disturbing. In this series, all of the above exist. While the series focuses on Lali and Gita’s love story, it isn’t a simple or traditional love story in any way… It’s love in the darkest place. When we were finding the initial tone for the score, Hans said something very impactful that really resonated with me. “If we are sentimental, we will fail”, and this stuck with me through the whole score. We had to be deeply emotional without being sentimental, or over the top with the music. I learned so much from Hans; as we all know, he is a profound composer, but he is equally a masterful storyteller.

Throughout the series, there is a distinctive way of marking death. When another innocent life is lost, there is a moving portrait of their face. It forces the viewer to really look into the eyes of the person who died, rather than looking at the deaths as statistics; it’s also a reminder that murder was constantly happening at Auschwitz, it was “normal” practice within this factory of death. These portraits were very inspiring imagery to us. The musical cue that plays over each portrait became one with the picture, as director Tali Shalom-Ezer said. The sound was made by creating a massive impact by hitting a cluster of keys in the low end of Grandma’s piano. It made this interesting, bell-like tone, it almost sounded like a train whistle, and the railroad network played such a crucial role in transporting people to Auschwitz, and other horrific camps. It's very haunting to hear his sound over the portraits.

I have to mention that there are incredible musicians playing on this score; without them, telling the story wouldn’t be possible. String instruments can convey so much emotion, especially when you have masterful players like Leah Zeger, Molly Rogers, and Louisa Byron on violin. We had the privilege of working with cellist Tina Guo; her gorgeous interpretation of the love theme appears all throughout the series, as well as the dark, brooding string effects she played for the darker moments in the series.

We also had the incredible Luanne Homzy and Alyssa Park play the violin duet over the Gypsy evacuation scene in episode 4, which was so heartbreakingly beautiful. That was a difficult scene to score, but again, being mindful to not be epic or excessive over the harrowing images, the duet seemed like a respectful way to underpin the emotion in the scene.

The collaboration we had with director Tali Shalom-Ezer, and producer Claire Mundell was like none other. We all formed a very quick bond, which I think is so important on a project like this one. From the very beginning we all talked about having a score that was abstract and emotional, and never illustrative. They were always reminding us that the actors need to lead the scene, never the music. The images in this show really speak for themselves, and the story itself is a powerful truth on its own, so we had to keep in mind that the music should subtly support, and never be too epic. It didn’t need to be.

I know I speak for the whole music team when I say we really admire Tali and Claire and the teams at Sky and Synchronicity. They took on a nearly impossible task, and everyone within every department of production put their heart and soul into this project. Our collaboration with Russell, our score producer, was truly special. He is our extra pair of (very great!) ears, on every single piece of music in this series, and he always brings fresh ideas to the score. He is always there to make sure we are fulfilling the vision of the client while still encouraging creative experimentation.

Without him, none of it would be possible!

A true highlight of this project was collaborating with the one and only Barbra Streisand. She sings “Love Will Survive”, over the end credits of episode 6. The song is written by Hans, Walter Afanasieff, and myself, with lyrics by Charlie Midnight. It is executive produced by Russell Emanuel and Jay Landers, and arranged by William Ross. The song’s melody is derived from Lali and Gita’s love theme. Hearing the London Symphony Orchestra play the song, along with Barbra’s gorgeous, iconic vocals, was a moment that only comes once in a lifetime. I still can’t listen to her sing it without crying!

Working on this series was an incredible challenge and once in a lifetime opportunity that I wouldn’t trade for anything. It’s our responsibility as artists and storytellers to keep telling stories like The Tattooist of Auschwitz . This series is about one of the most horrendous events in history, and it doesn’t shy away from these horrors because we must never forget them. However, it's also a beautiful story, of love, hope, and survival—an important reminder to humanity that love is the only thing that can overcome evil.

How to Break Into Voice Acting

What are the best war movies of all time, this oner from 'the longest day' has a permanent space in my brain, the ending of 'challengers' explained, look out sora: luma lab's dream machine ai model is here today, the benefits of being both the director and dp, francis ford coppola's 'megalopolis' secures u.s. distribution, editing the rhythm of comedy and tragedy in 'baby reindeer', it’s officially a half-frame summer with the new pentax 17 film camera, how they shot that sexy slo mo in 'challengers'.

Get Free high-resolution PDF of How to Write a Screenplay

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

By Maria Konnikova

A scene from “The Stanford Prison Experiment” a new movie inspired by the famous but widely misunderstood study.

On the morning of August 17, 1971, nine young men in the Palo Alto area received visits from local police officers. While their neighbors looked on, the men were arrested for violating Penal Codes 211 and 459 (armed robbery and burglary), searched, handcuffed, and led into the rear of a waiting police car. The cars took them to a Palo Alto police station, where the men were booked, fingerprinted, moved to a holding cell, and blindfolded. Finally, they were transported to the Stanford County Prison—also known as the Stanford University psychology department.

They were willing participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology. (It’s the subject of a new film of the same name—a drama, not a documentary—starring Billy Crudup, of “Almost Famous,” as the lead investigator, Philip Zimbardo. It opens July 17th.) The study subjects, middle-class college students, had answered a questionnaire about their family backgrounds, physical- and mental-health histories, and social behavior, and had been deemed “normal”; a coin flip divided them into prisoners and guards. According to the lore that’s grown up around the experiment, the guards, with little to no instruction, began humiliating and psychologically abusing the prisoners within twenty-four hours of the study’s start. The prisoners, in turn, became submissive and depersonalized, taking the abuse and saying little in protest. The behavior of all involved was so extreme that the experiment, which was meant to last two weeks, was terminated after six days.

Less than a decade earlier, the Milgram obedience study had shown that ordinary people, if encouraged by an authority figure, were willing to shock their fellow-citizens with what they believed to be painful and potentially lethal levels of electricity. To many, the Stanford experiment underscored those findings, revealing the ease with which regular people, if given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors. Today, more than forty-five years later, many look to the study to make sense of events like the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib and America’s epidemic of police brutality. The Stanford Prison Experiment is cited as evidence of the atavistic impulses that lurk within us all; it’s said to show that, with a little nudge, we could all become tyrants.

And yet the lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment aren’t so clear-cut. From the beginning, the study has been haunted by ambiguity. Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior. Was the study about our individual fallibility, or about broken institutions? Were its findings about prisons, specifically, or about life in general? What did the Stanford Prison Experiment really show?

The appeal of the experiment has a lot to do with its apparently simple setup: prisoners, guards, a fake jail, and some ground rules. But, in reality, the Stanford County Prison was a heavily manipulated environment, and the guards and prisoners acted in ways that were largely predetermined by how their roles were presented. To understand the meaning of the experiment, you have to understand that it wasn’t a blank slate; from the start, its goal was to evoke the experience of working and living in a brutal jail.

From the first, the guards’ priorities were set by Zimbardo. In a presentation to his Stanford colleagues shortly after the study’s conclusion, he described the procedures surrounding each prisoner’s arrival: each man was stripped and searched, “deloused,” and then given a uniform—a numbered gown, which Zimbardo called a “dress,” with a heavy bolted chain near the ankle, loose-fitting rubber sandals, and a cap made from a woman’s nylon stocking. “Real male prisoners don't wear dresses,” Zimbardo explained, “but real male prisoners, we have learned, do feel humiliated, do feel emasculated, and we thought we could produce the same effects very quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes.” The stocking caps were in lieu of shaving the prisoner’s heads. (The guards wore khaki uniforms and were given whistles, nightsticks, and mirrored sunglasses inspired by a prison guard in the movie “Cool Hand Luke.”)

Often, the guards operated without explicit, moment-to-moment instructions. But that didn’t mean that they were fully autonomous: Zimbardo himself took part in the experiment, playing the role of the prison superintendent. (The prison’s “warden” was also a researcher.) /Occasionally, disputes between prisoner and guards got out of hand, violating an explicit injunction against physical force that both prisoners and guards had read prior to enrolling in the study. When the “superintendent” and “warden” overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are. The participants knew that an audience was watching, and so a lack of feedback could be read as tacit approval. And the sense of being watched may also have encouraged them to perform. Dave Eshelman, one of the guards, recalled that he “consciously created” his guard persona. “I was in all kinds of drama productions in high school and college. It was something I was very familiar with: to take on another personality before you step out on the stage,” Eshelman said. In fact, he continued, “I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, ‘How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, ‘Knock it off?’ ”

Other, more subtle factors also shaped the experiment. It’s often said that the study participants were ordinary guys—and they were, indeed, determined to be “normal” and healthy by a battery of tests. But they were also a self-selected group who responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking volunteers for “a psychological study of prison life.” In a 2007 study, the psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland asked whether that wording itself may have stacked the odds. They recreated the original ad, and then ran a separate ad omitting the phrase “prison life.” They found that the people who responded to the two ads scored differently on a set of psychological tests. Those who thought that they would be participating in a prison study had significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.

Moreover, even within that self-selected sample, behavioral patterns were far from homogeneous. Much of the study’s cachet depends on the idea that the students responded en masse, giving up their individual identities to become submissive “prisoners” and tyrannical “guards.” But, in fact, the participants responded to the prison environment in all sorts of ways. While some guard shifts were especially cruel, others remained humane. Many of the supposedly passive prisoners rebelled. Richard Yacco, a prisoner, remembered “resisting what one guard was telling me to do and being willing to go into solitary confinement. As prisoners, we developed solidarity—we realized that we could join together and do passive resistance and cause some problems.”

What emerges from these details isn’t a perfectly lucid photograph but an ambiguous watercolor. While it’s true that some guards and prisoners behaved in alarming ways, it’s also the case that their environment was designed to encourage—and, in some cases, to require—those behaviors. Zimbardo himself has always been forthcoming about the details and the nature of his prison experiment: he thoroughly explained the setup in his original study and, in an early write-up , in which the experiment was described in broad strokes only, he pointed out that only “about a third of the guards became tyrannical in their arbitrary use of power.” (That’s about four people in total.) So how did the myth of the Stanford Prison Experiment—“Lord of the Flies” in the psych lab—come to diverge so profoundly from the reality?

In part, Zimbardo’s earliest statements about the experiment are to blame. In October, 1971, soon after the study’s completion—and before a single methodologically and analytically rigorous result had been published—Zimbardo was asked to testify before Congress about prison reform. His dramatic testimony , even as it clearly explained how the experiment worked, also allowed listeners to overlook how coercive the environment really was. He described the study as “an attempt to understand just what it means psychologically to be a prisoner or a prison guard.” But he also emphasized that the students in the study had been “the cream of the crop of this generation,” and said that the guards were given no specific instructions, and left free to make “up their own rules for maintaining law, order, and respect.” In explaining the results, he said that the “majority” of participants found themselves “no longer able to clearly differentiate between role-playing and self,” and that, in the six days the study took to unfold, “the experience of imprisonment undid, although temporarily, a lifetime of learning; human values were suspended, self-concepts were challenged, and the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced.” In describing another, related study and its implications for prison life, he said that “the mere act of assigning labels to people, calling some people prisoners and others guards, is sufficient to elicit pathological behavior.”

Zimbardo released video to NBC, which ran a feature on November 26, 1971. An article ran in the Times Magazine in April of 1973. In various ways, these accounts reiterated the claim that relatively small changes in circumstances could turn the best and brightest into monsters or depersonalized serfs. By the time Zimbardo published a formal paper about the study , in a 1973 issue of the International Journal of Crim__i__nology and Penology , a streamlined and unequivocal version of events had become entrenched in the national consciousness—so much so that a 1975 methodological critique fell largely on deaf ears.

Forty years later, Zimbardo still doesn’t shy away from popular attention. He served as a consultant on the new film, which follows his original study in detail, relying on direct transcripts from the experimental recordings and taking few dramatic liberties. In many ways, the film is critical of the study: Crudup plays Zimbardo as an overzealous researcher overstepping his bounds, trying to create a very specific outcome among the students he observes. The filmmakers even underscore the flimsiness of the experimental design, inserting characters who point out that Zimbardo is not a disinterested observer. They highlight a real-life conversation in which another psychologist asks Zimbardo whether he has an “independent variable.” In describing the study to his Stanford colleagues shortly after it ended, Zimbardo recalled that conversation: “To my surprise, I got really angry at him,” he said. “The security of my men and the stability of my prison was at stake, and I have to contend with this bleeding-heart, liberal, academic, effete dingdong whose only concern was for a ridiculous thing like an independent variable. The next thing he’d be asking me about was rehabilitation programs, the dummy! It wasn’t until sometime later that I realized how far into the experiment I was at that point.”

In a broad sense, the film reaffirms the opinion of John Mark, one of the guards, who, looking back, has said that Zimbardo’s interpretation of events was too shaped by his expectations to be meaningful: “He wanted to be able to say that college students, people from middle-class backgrounds ... will turn on each other just because they’re given a role and given power. Based on my experience, and what I saw and what I felt, I think that was a real stretch.”

If the Stanford Prison Experiment had simulated a less brutal environment, would the prisoners and guards have acted differently? In December, 2001 , two psychologists, Stephen Reicher and Alexander Haslam, tried to find out. They worked with the documentaries unit of the BBC to partially recreate Zimbardo’s setup over the course of an eight-day experiment. Their guards also had uniforms, and were given latitude to dole out rewards and punishments; their prisoners were placed in three-person cells that followed the layout of the Stanford County Jail almost exactly. The main difference was that, in this prison, the preset expectations were gone. The guards were asked to come up with rules prior to the prisoners’ arrival, and were told only to make the prison run smoothly. (The BBC Prison Study, as it came to be called, differed from the Stanford experiment in a few other ways, including prisoner dress; for a while, moreover, the prisoners were told that they could become guards through good behavior, although, on the third day, that offer was revoked, and the roles were made permanent.)

Within the first few days of the BBC study, it became clear that the guards weren’t cohering as a group. “Several guards were wary of assuming and exerting their authority,” the researchers wrote. The prisoners, on the other hand, developed a collective identity. In a change from the Stanford study, the psychologists asked each participant to complete a daily survey that measured the degree to which he felt solidarity with his group; it showed that, as the guards grew further apart, the prisoners were growing closer together. On the fourth day, three cellmates decided to test their luck. At lunchtime, one threw his plate down and demanded better food, another asked to smoke, and the third asked for medical attention for a blister on his foot. The guards became disorganized; one even offered the smoker a cigarette. Reicher and Haslam reported that, after the prisoners returned to their cells, they “literally danced with joy.” (“That was fucking sweet,” one prisoner remarked.) Soon, more prisoners began to challenge the guards. They acted out during roll call, complained about the food, and talked back. At the end of the sixth day, the three insubordinate cellmates broke out and occupied the guards’ quarters. “At this point,” the researchers wrote, “the guards’ regime was seen by all to be unworkable and at an end.”

Taken together, these two studies don’t suggest that we all have an innate capacity for tyranny or victimhood. Instead, they suggest that our behavior largely conforms to our preconceived expectations. All else being equal, we act as we think we’re expected to act—especially if that expectation comes from above. Suggest, as the Stanford setup did, that we should behave in stereotypical tough-guard fashion, and we strive to fit that role. Tell us, as the BBC experimenters did, that we shouldn’t give up hope of social mobility, and we act accordingly.

This understanding might seem to diminish the power of the Stanford Prison Experiment. But, in fact, it sharpens and clarifies the study’s meaning. Last weekend brought the tragic news of Kalief Browder’s suicide . At sixteen, Browder was arrested, in the Bronx, for allegedly stealing a backpack; after the arrest, he was imprisoned at Rikers for three years without trial . (Ultimately, the case against him was dismissed.) While at Rikers, Browder was the object of violence from both prisoners and guards, some of which was captured on video . It’s possible to think that prisons are the way they are because human nature tends toward the pathological. But the Stanford Prison Experiment suggests that extreme behavior flows from extreme institutions. Prisons aren’t blank slates. Guards do indeed self-select into their jobs, as Zimbardo’s students self-selected into a study of prison life. Like Zimbardo’s men, they are bombarded with expectations from the first and shaped by preëxisting norms and patterns of behavior. The lesson of Stanford isn’t that any random human being is capable of descending into sadism and tyranny. It’s that certain institutions and environments demand those behaviors—and, perhaps, can change them.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Nicholas Lemann

Trying to Cure Depression, but Inspiring Torture

By Charles Bethea

After Serving Decades in Prison for Murder, Two Men Fought to Clear Their Names

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

Social Science

Hard Determinism: Philosophy & Examples (Does Free Will Exist?)

Soft Determinism In Psychology

Branches of Psychology

Functions of Attitude Theory

Understanding Conformity: Normative vs. Informational Social Influence

Social Control Theory of Crime

Stanford Prison Experiment Viewing Guide

Internet Activities
Easel Activity

Also included in

Description

In order to deepen their understanding of Philip Zimbardo’s work on authority and the power of the situation, students will use this viewing guide before, during, and after watching The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015). This movie is based on the true story of the 1971 controversial psychology experiment in which college students pretended to be either prisoners or guards. It shows how the people in positions of authority quickly abused that authority in startlingly cruel ways, forcing an early stop to the experiment.

30-question viewing guide, including pre- and post-viewing questions
Key with answer timestamps

APA National Standards for High School Psychology Curricula:

Sociocultural context Domain - Social interactions - 2.1 Describe the power of the situation; 2.2 Describe effects of others’ presence on individuals’ behavior; 2.3 Describe how group dynamics influence behavior; 2.4 Discuss how an individual influences group behavior

Watching the Video:

The movie is about 2 hours long. Optionally, extend the activity by having students discuss with a partner, group, or the whole class.
At the time of creating this resource, this episode is available for streaming with a Netflix subscription.
WARNING: This movie is rated R for language, abusive behavior, and some sexual references. I encourage you to watch the film yourself before deciding to use the film in class. Refer to the IMDB Parental Guide for more details.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related Resources:

Social Psychology Fact or Myth
Experimenter Viewing Guide
Stanley Milgram's Research Report
Social Psychology Pregnancy & Obesity Simulation
Cults, Explained Viewing Guide
Attraction, Explained
Brain Games: Fact or Fiction Viewing Guide
Brain Games: Love and Attraction Viewing Guide
Social Psychology Bingo

Customer Tips:

How to get TPT credit to use on future purchases:

Go to your My Purchases page (you may need to login). Beside each purchase you'll see a Provide Feedback button. Simply click it and you will be taken to a page where you can give a quick rating and leave a short comment for the product. Each time you give feedback, TPT gives you feedback credits that you use to lower the cost of your future purchases. I value your feedback greatly as it helps me determine which products are most valuable for your classroom so I can create more for you.

Be the first to know about my new discounts, freebies and product launches:

Look for the green star next to my store logo and click it to become a follower . You will now receive email updates about this store.

Follow @theadventurousclassroom on Instagram for freebies, sales, and giveaways!

Questions & Answers

The adventurous classroom.

We're hiring
Help & FAQ
Privacy policy
Student privacy
Terms of service
Tell us what you think

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."

Real doctor behind ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ talks about dark side of power

Show more sharing options
Copy Link URL Copied!

What causes seemingly good, ordinary people to go bad? In 1971, psychology professor Philip Zimbardo took a crack at that question with his infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, enlisting two dozen student volunteers as prisoners and guards in a simulated jail to examine the dark side of power.

Four and a half decades after the study spun out of control, director Kyle Patrick Alvarez’s “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” a narrative film created with Zimbardo’s input, is bringing the story to the big screen with little poetic license taken — or required.

“Nothing in the movie is exaggerated,” Zimbardo said in a recent phone interview.

In order to get clearance to use the Stanford name in the title, Zimbardo said the university had to approve Tim Talbott’s script. Fortunately for the filmmakers, the actual events of the experiment offered plenty of drama.

With precise attention to detail and a documentary-like aesthetic, Alvarez’s film opening Friday recounts how the study’s subjects were selected for their mental and emotional stability, arbitrarily designated as guards or prisoners, dressed in rudimentary uniforms and led to a mock jail in the basement of the Stanford psychology department building.

Once there, the guards and prisoners quickly adapted to their roles, with the former displaying sadistic, violent tendencies and the latter becoming submissive and distraught. Punishments endured by the prisoners included being placed in solitary confinement, cleaning toilets with their bare hands, doing push-ups and being stripped naked.

Zimbardo, who participated as the prison’s superintendent, ended the planned two-week experiment after six chaotic days.

“We were all overstressed,” Zimbardo recalled of his small team, which included two graduate students, one undergrad and occasionally an ex-convict serving as a consultant. “It’s clear to me in retrospect we needed a bigger staff, for one. We needed an ombudsman. I slept in my office upstairs. For six days I never left ‘the set,’ if you will. I was overwhelmed by the constant decisions that had to be made, especially when the prisoners started to have breakdowns.”

Though he’s admittedly “not a big film buff,” Zimbardo said the claustrophobic air of the movie effectively conveys a sense of how “psychologically stuck” the prisoners felt.

Anchoring “Stanford” is a committed cast that includes Michael Angarano as a gung-ho guard, Ezra Miller as a rabble-rousing prisoner and Billy Crudup as Zimbardo.

Of his on-screen alter ego, Zimbardo had much praise and only minor quibbles.

“One critique I made of Billy: I come from a Sicilian background and use my hands extensively when I talk, and he didn’t,” Zimbardo said. “He’s too American. And he’s more handsome.”

Zimbardo admitted the film can be disturbing at times. “The question,” he said, “is will enough viewers turn that emotional distress into self-questioning? What kind of guard would I have been? What would I have done in a position of power?”

Zimbardo added, “Some viewers will say it’s overwhelming. I hope it’s socially redeeming.”

Follow @ogettell for movie news

Review: Coolly argued but driven by fury, ‘Power’ examines the history of American policing

May 10, 2024

NEW YORK - MAY 8, 2024: Yance Ford, director of the documentary expose on police brutality "Power" in New York on Wednesday, May 8, 2024. (Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)

Filmmaker Yance Ford presents the police as the ‘armies that they have become’ in ‘Power’

May 9, 2024

Synanon women shave their head as part of a liberation, February 27, 1975 Photo ran 2/28/1975, p. 1

‘The Synanon Fix’ shows how the California dream went awry for a rehab group turned cult

April 22, 2024

Only good movies

Get the Indie Focus newsletter, Mark Olsen's weekly guide to the world of cinema.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Oliver Gettell is a former film blogger for the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

A photographer with a camera crouches in the grass.

Sixty years ago, a photographer rolled with a biker gang. Now his life is a movie

June 19, 2024

FILE - French actress Anouk Aimee is seen prior to a media conference at the 53rd Berlinale Film Festival in Berlin Thursday, Feb. 13, 2003. Later this evening she will be honored with a Golden Bear award for her lifetime achievements. French actress Anouk Aimée, winner of a Golden Globe for her starring role in "A Man and a Woman" by legendary French director Claude Lelouch, has died, her agent said Tuesday. She was 92. (AP Photo/Sven Kaestner, File)

Anouk Aimée, French star of ‘A Man and a Woman’ and ‘La Dolce Vita,’ dies at 92

June 18, 2024

A man in white face paint consults with a director in a hoodie.

He usually makes movies about neurotic New Yorkers. Now he’s made one with Swedish metal band Ghost

Rafa Márquez and family pose for a photo.

Rafa Márquez, Mexico’s greatest soccer player, is the subject of a new Netflix documentary

Learn More Psychology

Zimbardo's stanford prison experiment, zimbardo's stanford prison experiment revealed how social roles can influence our behavior. we look at how it was conducted and what we can learn from it..

Permalink Print |

Behavioral Psychology
Biological Psychology
Body Language Interpretation
Cognitive Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Dream Interpretation
Freudian Psychology
Memory & Memory Techniques
Role Playing: Stanford Prison Experiment
Authoritarian Personality
Memory: Levels of Processing
Cold Reading: Psychology of Fortune Telling
Stages of Sleep
Personality Psychology
Why Do We Forget?
Psychology of Influence
Stress in Psychology
Body Language: How to Spot a Liar
Be a Better Communicator
Eye Reading: Body Language
Motivation: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
How to Interpret your Dreams Guide
How to Remember Your Dreams
Interpreting Your Dreams
Superstition in Pigeons
Altruism in Animals and Humans
Stimulus-Response Theory
Conditioned Behavior
Synesthesia: Mixing the Senses
Freudian Personality Type Test
... and much more
Unlimited access to analysis of groundbreaking research and studies
17+ psychology guides : develop your understanding of the mind
Self Help Audio : MP3 sessions to stream or download

Best Digital Psychology Magazine - UK

Best online psychology theory resource, continue reading.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Prison_Experiment

Which Archetype Are You?

Are You Angry?

Windows to the Soul

Are You Stressed?

Attachment & Relationships

Memory Like A Goldfish?

31 Defense Mechanisms

Slave To Your Role?

Are You Fixated?

Interpret Your Dreams

How to Read Body Language

How to Beat Stress and Succeed in Exams

Psychology Topics

Learn psychology.

Access 2,200+ insightful pages of psychology explanations & theories
Insights into the way we think and behave
Body Language & Dream Interpretation guides
Self hypnosis MP3 downloads and more
Behavioral Approach
Eye Reading
Stress Test
Cognitive Approach
Fight-or-Flight Response
Neuroticism Test

Best-Selling Books
Zimbardo Research Fields

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Heroic imagination project (hip).

The Shyness Clinic

The Lucifer Effect

Time perspective theory.

Psychology Definitions

Dr. Philip George Zimbardo – Biography

Dr. Philip George Zimbardo, a towering persona in the field of psychology, is widely recognized for his pioneering and controversial 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment . This overview will explore the life journey and illustrious career of Zimbardo, from his humble beginnings in New York City to his eventual rise to prominence as a leading American psychologist.

Zimbardo was born on March 23, 1933, in New York City, to Sicilian immigrants. His early life in a South Bronx neighborhood shaped his interest in understanding human behavior and the influence of social situations. He later attended Brooklyn College and Yale University, where he excelled academically and laid the foundation for his future contributions to psychology.

Zimbardo’s extensive research interests span across social psychology, time perspective (TP) , shyness , terrorism, and hypnosis. His pedagogical endeavors include teaching at Yale, New York University, Columbia University, and Stanford University, where he conducted the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment . This experiment , which studied the psychological effects of perceived power and the interaction between prison guards and prisoners, has had a profound impact on the field of social psychology, sparking debates on ethical standards in experimental studies.

Dr. Zimbardo’s numerous accolades and awards bear testimony to his groundbreaking work, including his presidency of the American Psychological Association. His enduring impact on contemporary psychology continues to be felt today, with his theories and research influencing both academic discourse and practical applications in the field.

Table of Contents

Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo’s infancy was characterized by the harsh realities of the Great Depression, having been born in this challenging epoch. His birthplace, the economically strained South Bronx area of New York City, was marked by widespread poverty and adversity.

The dynamics of his family unit, coupled with their financial struggles, played a significant role in molding his life path. This economic deprivation not only compelled Zimbardo to take on an assortment of jobs at an early age but potentially had a significant role in shaping his health and overall well-being during these pivotal years.

Born into a rich cultural lineage, Dr. Philip Zimbardo holds his Sicilian heritage close to his heart, a tribute to his immigrant grandfather from whom he got his name. His grandfather, Philip, hailed from Palermo, the capital of Sicily, and was a barber by profession, known for his regal persona. His grandmother, Vera, despite her petite stature, was renowned for her passionate love and care.

Dr. Zimbardo’s father, George Sr., was initially a barber like his father, carrying forward the family tradition. However, the times of World War II called for a career shift, and he adapted by becoming an electrician. Even though he faced frequent periods of unemployment, his mechanical proficiency and musical abilities added a unique flavor to the Zimbardo household.

Margaret, Dr. Zimbardo’s mother, despite not having a formal education, was the pillar of the family, steering them through life’s adversities with her innate wisdom. Their resilience was further embodied by his younger brothers George Jr. and Donald, as well as his sister Vera. Together, they painted a picture of a family standing strong in the face of trials, deeply rooted in their cultural heritage.

The impoverished upbringing of young Dr. Zimbardo, colored by both family unity and cultural vibrancy, was a stark contrast to his relentless battle with poverty. The monetary uncertainty of his family led to an unstable lifestyle characterized by regular relocations due to their inability to make consistent rent payments and a persistent, gnawing hunger.

His early intellectual growth was hindered due to the scarcity of literary resources in his home environment . Poverty had a profound impact on his physical well-being, often leading to bouts of illness during his childhood. It also influenced his perspective, compelling him to concentrate on immediate necessities over long-term aspirations.

Dr. Zimbardo’s experiences within the constraints of poverty were not solely marked by a lack of material resources. He also suffered from the degrading treatment he received at the hands of welfare workers, clinic doctors, and dentists. Even the individuals in charge of distributing welfare clothing treated him with disrespect and insensitivity.

This early exposure to the brutal aspects of poverty played a significant role in shaping Dr. Zimbardo’s later career. It fueled his quest to understand the complexities of human behavior and ignited his passion for addressing social injustices, a commitment that would remain with him for the rest of his life.

Throughout these hardships, Dr. Zimbardo was able to find solace in his relationship with his bachelor uncle, George. Despite being illiterate, Uncle George provided much-needed support in the form of food and entertainment. He would ingeniously read the Sunday comic strips, crafting inventive tales from the images, despite his inability to actually read the text. Uncle George’s creative storytelling provided a source of joy amidst the family’s struggles. His mother’s unfaltering optimism and wisdom also played a pivotal role in imparting a sense of hope for a brighter future.

Navigating the difficult socio-economic circumstances, young Zimbardo, took upon himself the responsibility of contributing to his family’s livelihood.

One of his initial endeavors was as a door-to-door magazine salesman, a role that demanded tenacity and the ability to persuade potential buyers. This experience helped shape his understanding of human psychology and decision-making behavior.

He also held a position as a laundry delivery person in the bustling neighborhood of Harlem, where he balanced hefty piles of clothing and ensured they were delivered promptly to clients, further enhancing his skills in time management and customer service.

His most notable job, however, was as a shoe shiner. His Uncle George, a shoe shiner himself, gifted him a shoeshine box that became the cornerstone of his shoe-shining venture. The location of his business, strategically positioned in front of a busy local bank on Southern Boulevard, ensured a steady stream of customers and the business thrived.

Unfortunately, this venture was short-lived as his Uncle Norman, feeling embarrassed by the public nature of the job, coerced him into quitting. Despite the setbacks, these diverse job experiences during his formative years played a crucial role in shaping Dr. Zimbardo’s professional trajectory. They exposed him to a myriad of skill sets and taught him invaluable life lessons that influenced his future career path.

From his early years, Dr. Zimbardo’s life was characterized by a profound tenacity and resolve to conquer physical hardship. His health was continually undermined by the repercussions of an inadequate diet, exposure to second-hand smoke, and recurrent illnesses due to a compromised immune system. His formative years were punctuated by recurrent episodes of pneumonia, asthma flare-ups, and prolonged periods in hospital care.

A defining phase in his life took place when he was merely five and a half years old, marked by a six-month stay at the Willard Parker Hospital, recognized for treating contagious diseases. This demanding ordeal played a significant role in shaping his emerging character, ethical beliefs, and subsequent professional decisions.

Zimbardo found his inspiration in the life of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, who was known for his vigor and resilience. This motivated Zimbardo to set out on a transformative journey towards better health and fitness. During his adolescent years, from 12 to 15, he regularly engaged in hiking and camping activities, which contributed to his health improvement and physical strength. By shouldering heavy backpacks and involving himself in various outdoor sports like softball, baseball, and track events, he gradually built up his strength, enabling him to overcome his health adversities.

Dr. Zimbardo’s initial schooling was in New York City, where he attended two public schools – P.S. 25 for his elementary education and P.S. 52 for his junior high studies. His educational voyage was marked by a series of transitions through different high schools. This experience highlighted the trials he encountered during his developmental years. Despite these hurdles, Dr. Zimbardo held fast to his academic aspirations, demonstrating resilience and tenacity in his pursuit of higher education.

His unwavering commitment led him to the portals of an esteemed college and subsequently a prestigious graduate school. It was here, immersed in academia, that he polished his scholarly abilities and discovered a burning interest in the study of psychology. This field would later see him as a key contributor.

High School

In his high school days, Philip Zimbardo, attended a variety of educational institutions. He began his high school journey at JHS located in New York during his freshman year. His sophomore year was a combination of experiences at Stuyvesant High School in New York, a prestigious school known for its academic rigor, and James Monroe High School in the northern region of Bronx, an ethnically diverse area.

In 1947, Zimbardo relocated to California, where he attended North Hollywood High School for his junior year. Unfortunately, he faced severe social exclusion here, which led to the development of psychosomatic asthma, a condition where psychological distress manifests as physical symptoms.

However, Zimbardo overcame these challenges and returned to James Monroe H.S. for his senior year. It is here that he displayed his leadership potential, a perfect combination of academic prowess and street intelligence. His peers recognized his skills and elected him as the team captain and class president. Furthermore, he was voted as the most popular boy and was awarded the nickname ‘Jimmie Monroe’. Zimbardo’s academic excellence also led him to be named Valedictorian of his graduating class.

An important friendship Zimbardo fostered during high school was with Stanley Milgram, who would later earn recognition as a significant psychological researcher. Intriguingly, Zimbardo found himself interacting more with female students and minority students over his white male peers, finding these groups less rivalrous and more attuned to interpersonal dynamics.

This transformative high school journey equipped Dr. Zimbardo with the foundational skills, resilience, and experience that propelled him to excel in his college years and beyond in his illustrious career in psychology.

Dr. Zimbardo encountered significant pressure during his college years. Particularly from his father who had envisioned him embarking on a full-time job immediately after high school. Nevertheless, he struck a balance by enrolling in Brooklyn College, a four-year institution that offered tuition-free education.

Dr. Zimbardo, displayed exceptional determination in navigating the challenging landscape of higher education, a journey deeply influenced by his father’s staunch belief in self-reliance. Coming from an Italian immigrant family, Zimbardo worked hard to balance his job, scholarly pursuits, and preparations for his future in graduate school.

His daily journey entailed a taxing three-hour commute to Brooklyn College. Despite the extensive travel time to and from college and his participation in numerous extracurricular activities, he devoted his evenings and the entirety of his Saturdays to work. In doing so, he was able to maintain financial self-sufficiency and reduce his reliance on his father’s financial support.

Zimbardo’s college life was not merely limited to academia. He was also active in sports and assumed leadership roles in his fraternity, Pi Beta Gamma. This involvement hints at a balanced and comprehensive approach to college life that would lay the foundation for his future achievements.

Expectations

As a young, eager student at Brooklyn College in the late 1950s, Zimbardo was thrilled about enrolling in an introductory course to psychology for his first year. However, contrary to his initial enthusiasm, he discovered the course to be a letdown, characterizing it as the most unsatisfactory course he had ever undertaken. After the disappointing psychology course, Dr. Zimbardo switched his major to Sociology.

The influence of several of his professors was instrumental in shaping Dr. Zimbardo’s academic pursuits.

Dr. Zimbardo was introduced to the NAACP by Professor Charles Radford Lawrence.
Professor Felix Gross influenced Dr. Zimbardo’s understanding of European social movements and revolutions.
Dr. Zimbardo contributed to Professor Felix Gross’s book, resulting in his first citation in print.

Zimbardo also undertook three pioneering research projects that were significantly advanced for their time. In his senior year, he reintroduced psychology into his academic portfolio, choosing it as a second major. He simultaneously held the position of a paid research assistant, gaining practical experience in the field.

His practical research experience further enriched his knowledge, ultimately allowing him to excel in his chosen fields of Sociology and Psychology.

Dr. Zimbardo earned his B.A. degree from Brooklyn College in 1954, where he majored in three distinct fields: psychology, sociology, and anthropology.

While attending Brooklyn college, Dr. Zimbrado took up a position at the St. James Theater in New York. This experience came his way through a recommendation from his close friend, Gene Wolkoff, and offered him a modest remuneration of $3.00 per show.

His job responsibilities included selling a range of items including candy and drinks, as well as programs, and also involved in the checking of hats and coats. This role offered him an extraordinary opportunity to witness a multitude of Broadway performances and participate in after-show parties with the cast members. It also led him to establish connections with many illustrious figures in the entertainment industry such as Richard Rogers, Oscar Hammerstein, Ray Bolger, Mary Martin, Gertrude Lawrence, and Yul Brynner.

This show biz job also exposed him to the underhanded business practices prevalent in the industry, and these experiences significantly influenced his later doctoral work as a social psychologist.

Preparing for Grad School

Fueled by an inherent love for knowledge, Dr. Zimbardo, chose to extend his academic journey beyond his undergraduate studies, with a firm focus on pursuing a graduate degree.

His inspiration for this decision was Raef Haddad, a noteworthy personality in his life, who had a significant influence on his parents, thus leading them to support Dr. Zimbardo’s academic aspirations.

His academic prowess facilitated a full-tuition assistantship along with a stipend at the prestigious Yale University, an Ivy League institution known for its rigorous academic programs. Zimbardo successfully completed his Master’s degree in an impressive span of one year (1955). This achievement was not without its challenges, as he encountered issues related to racial identity during the application process, a reflection of the societal hurdles of his time.

Graduate School

During his tenure at Yale University for graduate studies between 1954 and 1960, Dr. Philip Zimbardo underwent a transformational journey that greatly influenced his career in the discipline of psychology.

Initially, he found himself grappling with the intense academic competition, feeling somewhat inadequate in his first term and even contemplated withdrawing. However, heeding his mother’s wise counsel, he persevered for another term, and gradually adjusted to the rigorous academic culture at Yale and received his Ph.D in 1959.

His collaboration with scholars like Neal Miller and Carl Hovland had considerable impact on his research direction. Simultaneously, Dr. Zimbardo took his first steps towards his teaching career, co-directing a project focused on test anxiety . This research was met with international interest, leading him to present his findings on a global stage.

Dr. Zimbardo also engaged in research focused on the exploratory behavior of male albino rats, a project he worked on under the supervision of Prof. K.C. Montgomery. Tragically, Montgomery later succumbed to depression and took his own life, leaving a void in Dr. Zimbardo’s academic journey. Nevertheless, Dr. Zimbardo continued his research pursuits, publishing several studies under the mentorship of Fred Sheffield.

His fascination with psychology also led him to explore the study of animal sexual behavior, under the guidance of Frank Beach. Together, they co-authored an enlightening study on the impact of chlorpromazine and caffeine on the sexual behavior of male rats.

Dr. Zimbardo also collaborated with Hovland on a project investigating judgment in ambiguous situations. His dissertation research was an interesting comparison of predictions from contrast-assimilation theory and dissonance theory.

In addition to his research endeavors, Dr. Zimbardo taught an introductory psychology class, fostering the next generation of psychologists. He also presented a study at an International Congress of Psychology, a prestigious global platform for experts in the field.

Dr. Zimbardo’s time at Yale was marked by an exposure to a trove of knowledge and the opportunity to learn from eminent psychologists. It was a time that undoubtedly shaped his future career and contributions to the field of psychology.

Throughout his illustrious career as an educator, Dr. Philip Zimbardo has left a significant mark on the world of academia.

Starting in 1960, he began his teaching journey at New York University, a private research institution founded in 1831. His innovative pedagogical methods made a significant impact, and in 1967, he moved to Columbia University, an Ivy League institution known for its rigorous academic standards. This move further underscored his reputation as a leading educator.

In 1968, Dr. Zimbardo took his unique teaching approaches to Stanford University, an institution famous for its entrepreneurial character located in California’s Silicon Valley. Here, he continued to shape minds, contributing to the university’s reputation for world-class education.

Dr. Zimbardo also taught at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He taught a course titled “Exploring Human Nature” at the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology (PGSP).

Each of these esteemed institutions has been both influenced by and influential to Dr. Zimbardo’s teaching methods, making his career in academia a significant aspect of his professional life. His lasting influence across these decades and prestigious institutions is a testament to his dedication to education and innovative teaching practices.

NYU (1960-67)

While serving as a professor at New York University from 1960 to 1967, Dr. Zimbardo developed a profound passion for imparting knowledge in the field of psychology, even in the midst of a demanding teaching schedule. His course offerings spanned a wide array of topics, including but not limited to comprehensive introductory courses and more specialized social psychology classes.

It was during this time at NYU that he initiated his groundbreaking research in several areas of psychology. These included the study of affiliation and the psychological mechanisms that underpin it, cognitive dissonance and its impact on human behavior and decision-making, the concept and implications of conjugate reinforcement , the art and science of persuasion and attitude change, and the phenomenon of deindividuation and its correlation with anti-social behavior.

Despite some personal and professional obstacles he encountered, Zimbardo’s unwavering commitment to the advancement of academia and the bolstering of psychological research remained resilient.

His tenure at NYU played a significant role in shaping his career and contributing to the field of psychology.

In the crucial historical era from 1960 to 1967, Philip Zimbardo, was deeply motivated towards activism. This commitment was triggered by two key geopolitical events of the time: the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, a 13-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union over the deployment of nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba; and the escalating Vietnam War, a long, costly armed conflict that pitted the communist regime of North Vietnam against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States.

Zimbardo’s activism took various forms, including the organization of academic forums known as teach-ins and the staging of protests. He also leveraged his academic skills for public good by creating effective initiatives for the Harlem Summer Project, a program aimed at addressing the socio-economic disparities in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City. This exemplified how his academic prowess was coupled with a profound sense of social responsibility.

In 1965, he spearheaded one of the earliest all-night teach-ins in the country. These teach-ins originated as a form of protest during the Vietnam War, where people would gather to engage in lectures and discussions about the war and related issues. Through this, Zimbardo emphasized the role of education in addressing critical social and political issues, thus raising public awareness.

Dr. Zimbardo also led a walk-out at an NYU graduation ceremony in protest of the decision to award an honorary degree to Robert McNamara, the then US Secretary of Defense, who was a controversial figure due to his role in escalating the Vietnam War.

His activism was not confined to the academic sphere. Dr. Zimbardo was also involved in protest movements in major U.S. cities, including New York City, the birthplace of many social and political movements, and Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital and a hub for political activism.

His commitment to activism did not wane when he moved to Stanford University. Instead, he continued his advocacy work throughout his illustrious career. His legacy in activism serves as a testament to his dedication to social change and justice.

Life-changing Experiences

Philip Zimbardo’s teaching stint at the prestigious New York University (NYU), which spanned from 1960 to 1967, served as a pivotal period in his professional journey, rich with transformative experiences that shaped his life.

Adding to his rich academic journey, he attended research symposiums steered by the esteemed social psychologist Leon Festinger, a pioneer in the field and the originator of social comparison theory as well as cognitive dissonance theory.

Zimbardo’s pedagogical journey wasn’t confined to the United States; his academic pursuits carried him overseas to Leuven, Belgium in 1966. There, he instructed at a summer school, exposing him to a diverse spectrum of advanced European graduate students and fellow social psychologists.

In addition to his work at NYU, Dr. Zimbardo also had the opportunity to disseminate his knowledge globally, delivering lectures at the prestigious Sorbonne in Paris, a hub of intellectual and scholarly pursuit. This international exposure broadened his horizons and his understanding of psychology’s global context.

Nationwide Recognition

Driven by a desire to increase his income and establish a stronger academic reputation, Zimbardo pursued an early promotion. However, he encountered opposition from more senior faculty members, perhaps reflecting the academic culture at the time. Undeterred, Zimbardo launched a strategic campaign to raise his national profile.

Heeding their advice, Dr. Zimbardo redoubled his endeavors to increase his publication output and was often asked to deliver lectures at scholarly gatherings around the country. As a result, he gained significant nationwide recognition which undeniably broadened his impact within the academic sphere.

This increased visibility was instrumental in advancing his career and enabled him to surmount the initial challenges he faced at NYU. His efforts also underscored the importance of national recognition in academia.

Columbia University (1967-68)

In the academic period spanning from 1967 to 1968, Dr. Philip Zimbardo held a bi-weekly teaching position at Barnard College, a liberal arts women’s college affiliated with Columbia University. Simultaneously, he was a key contributor to the Columbia Social Psychology program. In this period, Zimbardo stepped into the shoes of Bill McGuire for a year, a move that underscored his burgeoning reputation in the sphere of social psychology.

Zimbardo’s stint at Columbia was marked by a high degree of productivity and collaboration. He worked in close association with two promising graduate students, Lee Ross and Judy Rodin, playing a pivotal role in shaping their academic trajectories and paving the way for their future careers. His mentorship was instrumental in Ross landing a coveted position at Stanford University, a leading research institution in California. Similarly, Rodin went on to succeed Zimbardo at New York University, another prestigious institution known for its strong program in social psychology.

These instances from Zimbardo’s tenure at Columbia University serve as a testament to his dedication to teaching and his knack for grooming the next generation of psychologists. They also highlight his substantial impact in the realm of social psychology, a discipline that explores how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others.

Stanford University (1968-current)

At the prestigious Stanford University, where he has been a faculty member since 1968, Dr. Philip Zimbardo has been a cornerstone of the Stanford University psychology department and academic community, dedicating his career to educating students in both classroom settings and seminar formats.

Throughout his tenure, he has imparted knowledge in a myriad of subjects, one of the most notable being the well-attended Introductory Psychology course, which consistently attracted hundreds of eager students.

Dr. Zimbardo is credited with the development of an innovative seminar, Practicum in Teaching. This program was designed to equip both graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants with the necessary skills and mentorship to excel in their future teaching careers.

Dr. Zimbardo also gained significant recognition for spearheading the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in 1971. This psychological study sought to explore the mental implications of perceived power dynamics, with an emphasis on the tension between professional obligations and leisure activities.

The experiment has left a profound impact on the field of psychology, although it has encountered a variety of criticisms and opposing viewpoints throughout the years.

Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

In 1971, Stanford University was the site of a seminal social psychology experiment presided over by Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, known as the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). This study, financially supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, involved undergraduate students from Stanford imitating the roles of both prisoners and guards in a mock prison setup.

The experiment was initially intended to last for two weeks, but it was prematurely terminated after just six days due to the unexpectedly severe and disturbing behavior that emerged.

The participants, male college students, particularly those playing the role of guards, rapidly assimilated into their roles to a troubling extent, showcasing a stark demonstration of the influence of situational factors and power dynamics on human behavior.

Zimbardo’s controversial findings from the SPE remain a matter of academic and ethical debate, offering a profound insight into the darker aspects of human nature when placed in positions of absolute power and subjugation.

Dr. Zimbardo was intrigued by the impact of situational forces and social roles on individual behavior and personal identities. His interest was primarily rooted in the concept of deindividuation, a psychological state where individuals lose self-awareness in groups, leading to anonymity and often, antisocial behavior.

His curiosity was further piqued by the Milgram Experiment’s findings, which indicated a high level of obedience towards authority figures, even in ethically questionable situations. These foundational theories and ideas provided the underpinning for Zimbardo’s seminal experiment, aimed at investigating the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers in a simulated environment.

Although the Stanford Prison Experiment was fundamentally a role-playing exercise, it was meticulously designed to replicate, as closely as possible, the conditions and atmosphere of a real prison, in order to scrutinize the psychological effects of power dynamics between prisoners and prison guards.

Participants were randomly assigned roles and subjected to a simulated environment, including a mock arrest by actual police and confinement in a makeshift prison in Stanford’s psychology building.

Guards, equipped with uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, and wooden batons, were instructed to foster a sense of submissiveness and helplessness among prisoners, while avoiding physical abuse.

The experiment was closely monitored and recorded, with Zimbardo himself taking on the role of Superintendent, further blurring the lines between simulation and actuality.

The experiment’s outcome, marked by escalating cruelty and psychological trauma, sparked worldwide attention and intense debates about the ethics of such research. As the guards imposed a tyrannical regime, the prisoners responded with rebellion, depression, and disorientation. Three prisoners were so traumatized they had to be released within four days.

The sixth day saw termination of the experiment, prompted by external shock at the conditions. Furthermore, revelations of the guards’ admitted role-playing raised questions about the experiment’s authenticity.

The results, which underwent peer review, were published in several notable journals and books. Zimbardo himself drew parallels between the experiment’s findings and real-world prison atrocities, suggesting the profound implications of the observed behaviors in controlled settings.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Despite the profound implications drawn from the experiment, numerous criticisms and counterarguments have since emerged, challenging the validity and ethical conduct of Zimbardo’s study.

Critics argue that the study lacked ecological validity due to its artificial environment, and thus, conclusions drawn may not be universally applicable. The selection bias in choosing emotionally stable individuals also undermines the study’s generalizability.

Ethical concerns revolve around the extreme psychological distress inflicted on participants, deemed unacceptable in modern research guidelines. Zimbardo’s dual role as prison superintendent and primary researcher is also criticized, suggesting possible bias in data interpretation.

Furthermore, the presence of demand characteristics, where participants acted in perceived expected ways, challenges the authenticity of observed behaviors.

In response to these criticisms, Dr. Zimbardo defended his experiment by citing the profound influence of social forces and the impact of environmental contingencies on human behavior. His defense was rooted in his belief that these factors play a significant role in shaping human actions and reactions.

Dr. Zimbardo further argued that the pressure exerted on the guards, who were participants in the study, was actually less intense than what is experienced in real-world prison settings. This argument aimed to highlight the authenticity of the participants’ actions during the study.

Despite these criticisms and Dr. Zimbardo’s subsequent defenses, the Stanford Prison Experiment continues to hold a significant place in psychological research. It has not only influenced a plethora of films and studies but has also contributed to our understanding of human behavior under imposed roles and authority settings.

Honors & Awards

Throughout his distinguished career as a psychologist, Dr. Philip Zimbardo has repeatedly been acknowledged with esteemed awards and honors, reflecting his significant impact in the realm of psychological science. Among these illustrious recognitions, the Vaclav Havel Foundation Prize stands out, showcasing his lifetime of intense research into human psychology. This global honor underlines his exhaustive work in deciphering the intricate patterns of human behavior.

Dr. Zimbardo’s roles in leading positions within key organizations emphasize his dedication to the field of psychology. His tenure as the former president of the American Psychological Association— a pivotal professional body— allowed him to shape the future and policies of the association. Similarly, his period of service as the past president of the Western Psychological Association highlights his consistent engagement with the scholarly community. He also served as the Chair of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP), representing 63 scientific, math, and technical associations with 1.5 million members

Dr. Zimbardo’s sphere of influence, which spans education, research, writing, and professional service, has been acknowledged through a variety of accolades. These honors not only highlight his personal achievements but also his unwavering commitment to pushing the boundaries of psychological science.

Moreover, Dr. Zimbardo’s position as the Chair of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, representing a vast network of associations across the scientific, mathematical, and technical sectors, showcased his interdisciplinary reach. His stewardship of the Western Psychological Foundation further emphasized his commitment to fostering the development of psychology.

Research Interests

Dr. Philip Zimbardo, has a broad spectrum of research interests. His research topics have included prejudice , affiliation, dissonance, persuasion, motivation , deindividuation, aggression , vandalism, cults, mind control, memory , shyness, pro-social and anti-social behavior, time perspective , madness, evil, prisons, political psychology, torture, ethics, heroism, and the teaching of psychology.

He is perhaps best known for his work on the Stanford Prison Experiment, which explored the psychological transformation of individuals when they are given complete control over others. This experiment formed the basis for his extensive research into the psychological factors that lead individuals towards evil actions.

Beyond this, he has also been involved in the study of madness, examining the different ways in which it manifests in individuals and how it affects societal perceptions.

His research on ‘time perspective’ is another significant contribution to the field of psychology. He has extensively studied how different individuals perceive time and its implications on their decision-making process and overall life trajectory.

Dr. Zimbardo led groundbreaking research on the phenomenon of shyness, particularly its impact on interpersonal relationships and self-esteem . His work on this subject has been instrumental in understanding the psychological causes and effects of shyness, and in developing strategies to manage it.

He has studied the dynamics of heroic action, to understand what motivates individuals to act heroically in certain situations. His research in this area has helped to shed light on the psychological aspects of heroism and altruism .

Dr. Zimbardo has also studied interrogation procedures used by the military and by Greek and Brazilian police torturers.

Zimbardo’s contributions extend beyond the academic world. He served as an expert witness in the infamous Abu Ghraib Prison abuses case, providing his professional opinion based on his extensive knowledge and research. His studies on the military’s interrogation procedures have offered a deeper understanding of the psychological tactics used in such situations.

According to Zimbardo, “If you want to change a person, you’ve got to change the situation.”

Through his thorough and meticulous examinations of these topics, Dr. Zimbardo has significantly enriched our understanding of human behavior. His research contributions have been instrumental in unraveling the complexities of the human mind and the myriad factors that shape our actions and behaviors.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo has dedicated a large portion of his professional life to studying Time Perspective Theory, a concept that delves deep into the mental processes individuals use to assign their experiences to specific time categories. His research encompasses the analysis of how people perceive and classify their past, present, and future experiences, as well as those beyond the human lifespan, known as the Transcendental Future.

Zimbardo’s work also casts light on the phenomenon of temporal biases, which refers to the irregularities in the cognitive assignment of experiences to time categories based on differing circumstances and requirements. As an instrument to measure these variances in individual perceptions of time, Zimbardo, along with his research team, created the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). This tool has proven instrumental in understanding the nuances of subjective time perspectives, thereby setting a new standard in the niche field of temporal psychology.

Philip Zimbardo made a significant contribution to the field of psychology with his extensive research on the Time Perspective Theory.

Alongside his colleague John Boyd, Zimbardo not only proposed this theory but also established it as a fundamental process in the field of psychology. They have developed a reliable index for measuring time perspective profiles, further expanding the theory’s scope. Their collective insights and findings are detailed in their collaborative book, The Time Paradox (2008). Simon and Schuster.

This groundbreaking theory investigates the unique ways in which individuals compartmentalize their experiences into temporal categories: the past, present, and future. Drawing on his rich academic background and his penchant for using a combination of various research methods, Zimbardo’s work underscores how these divisions of time shape and influence human cognition , behavior, and decision-making processes.

His significant findings, underpinning Time Perspective Theory, have broad implications across a variety of fields, not limited to psychology alone. They contribute valuable insights into educational strategies, family relationship dynamics, and social issues, emphasizing the importance of understanding and managing one’s time perspective.

This comprehension of how we perceive time can lead to better decision making, improved mental health, and a more balanced lifestyle.

Dr. Zimbardo along with clinicians Richard & Rosemary Sword also authored the book “The Time Cure” (2012). Jossey-Bass. The Time Cure presents a comprehensive guide to Time Perspective Therapy, a method demonstrated to be successful for various individuals including veterans, and those who have experienced abuse, accidents, assault, or neglect. Based on sound psychological research, the book is enriched with powerful and motivational anecdotes from individuals who have lived with PTSD, making it a valuable resource for those pursuing self-improvement, their family and friends, as well as therapists, counselors, and anyone aspiring to a more hopeful and positive future.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo’s research influences also extend into the realm of mental health disorders, specifically focusing on how normal individuals develop psychopathology, a study of mental illnesses. His theory, named the Discontinuity Theory, investigates how substantial personal disturbances can trigger symptoms associated with madness.

To study this, Zimbardo applies a model of experimental psychopathology, a field that researches the causes and processes of mental disorders through controlled experiments. His innovative approach involves creating these disruptions using post-hypnotic suggestions, a technique where hypnotized individuals are given instructions to be carried out when they’re awake.

Zimbardo’s goal is to shed light on the cognitive, emotional, and social processes that happen during this, and how these processes might be misunderstood or misattributed. His work has significantly contributed to the understanding of how personal disruptions can lead to mental health issues, bridging the gap between normality and mental disorder.

The Discontinuity Theory of the Origins of Madness

The Discontinuity Theory of the Origins of Madness, a significant sphere of investigation for Phillip Zimbardo, strives to decipher the mechanisms by which generally stable individuals can spiral into pathological cognitive, emotional, and behavioral patterns. This transition is initiated by the individual’s awareness of personal discontinuity, a sensation of a break in one’s normal continuity of experiences and self-perception.

As per the theory, cognitive biases, which are systematic errors in thinking that influence the decisions and judgments that people make, can subsequently manipulate the individual’s pursuit of understanding this discontinuity, culminating in irrational, symptomatic interpretations. These cognitive biases, deeply rooted in human cognition, can include biases like confirmation bias, where individuals favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs, or the availability heuristic , where individuals rely on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a specific topic, concept, method or decision.

Each of these skewed biases can pave the way to distinct forms of mental illness, for instance, phobias, which are type of anxiety disorder defined by a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation, or paranoia, a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.

This theory thus offers a comprehensive framework to understand the genesis and progression of mental illnesses.

Known for his extensive research on human behavior, Dr. Philip Zimbardo has profoundly explored the concept of evil, a topic that has fascinated him throughout his academic career. His most recognized work, the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971, was a psychological study of the human response to captivity, in which the subjects, all Stanford University students, were randomly assigned roles of prisoners or guards. The six-day experiment was intended to observe the psychological effects of perceived power and the interaction between prisoners and prison officers. This experiment and its alarming results led Dr. Zimbardo to develop ‘ The Lucifer Effect ‘, a study that investigates how ordinary people can transform into the perpetrators of evil under certain circumstances.

Dr. Zimbardo’s exploration continues to seek a deeper understanding of the factors that drive average individuals to commit heinous acts under specific social and situational variables. His work is a further investigation into the ‘banality of evil’, a term coined by political theorist Hannah Arendt, which is used to describe the capacity of ordinary people to commit atrocities under the influence of authoritative figures or oppressive systems.

Dr. Zimbardo also investigated the nature of training young men to become torturers for the State in Brazil during the military junta, collaborating with Martha Huggins and Mika Haritos-Fatouros. The results of this research are documented in “Violence Workers” published by U.C. Berkeley Press in 2002.

Dr. Zimbardo’s studies have provided significant insights into the dark side of human nature and the situational and systemic forces that can influence individuals to act against their moral compass. These insights have greatly contributed to the field of social psychology and our understanding of human behavior in extreme circumstances.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo, has dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to studying the psychological underpinnings of evil. These interests are thoroughly examined in his New York Times best-selling book, ‘The Lucifer Effect : Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.’ (2007). Random House Publishing Group.

In this seminal work, Zimbardo applies his extensive knowledge of social psychology to delve into the complex psychosocial processes that can lead ordinary people to commit extraordinarily heinous acts.

These insights are particularly applied to the shocking incidents of torture and abuse that occurred at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib Prison in 2003. Drawing from his research, Zimbardo proposes a novel approach to understanding evil, focusing on situational influences and societal pressures rather than traditional trait-based theories.

‘The Lucifer Effect’ was recognized by the American Psychological Association with the prestigious William James Book Award in 2008. It features extensive research on a range of psychological phenomena, such as conformity , moral disengagement, and the bystander effect – all of which contribute to our understanding of how ordinary people can engage in extraordinary acts of evil.

The book offers valuable guidance on how to stand up against negative influences, empowering readers with tools to maintain their integrity in adverse circumstances. This groundbreaking work is a testament to Zimbardo’s commitment to unraveling the complexities of human nature and moral choices.

His theories suggest that external circumstances can be powerful enough to seduce or manipulate otherwise average individuals into becoming perpetrators of evil.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo, has made significant strides in the field of shyness research. His studies have influenced both social and personality psychology, as well as clinical psychology, deepening our understanding of introverted behaviors.

Zimbardo established the Shyness Clinic , which is now part of Pacific Graduate School of Psychology’s (PGSP) Gronowski Center, named after Andrew Gronowski, a strong advocate for community mental health. The center provides therapeutic services to those grappling with severe shyness. This practical work has allowed Zimbardo to advance his theoretical knowledge on the subject.

Currently, his research is focused on an interesting hypothesis that heavy use of electronic technology could be contributing to increased levels of shyness. He suggests that the rise in technology usage, particularly among younger generations, is creating an ‘A-Social’ environment. This term refers to an atmosphere where face-to-face social interactions are replaced by virtual ones, possibly leading to an increase in shy behaviors.

Shyness Clinic & Research

Philip Zimbardo founded The Shyness Clinic at Stanford University in the late 1970s. This innovative endeavor was one of the first of its kind, aiming to delve into the mental processes of shy individuals and create customized therapeutic interventions.

Applying the principles of his research in social psychology, Zimbardo’s clinic uses a unique ‘social fitness model’. This model emphasizes the importance of challenging dysfunctional thought patterns, cultivating new behavioral strategies, and promoting social engagement as if it were a form of exercise.

The fundamental goal of the Shyness Clinic extends beyond merely treating symptoms. It aims to alleviate the emotional distress associated with shyness and to prevent it from becoming a barrier in career advancement or the development of personal relationships. By doing so, the clinic embodies Zimbardo’s broader vision of psychology as a discipline that can transform lives by enabling individuals to overcome personal obstacles.

The services of the Shyness Clinic are accessible in various formats, in-person (Palo Alto), over the telephone, and via email, making the clinic readily available to individuals throughout the expansive San Francisco Bay Area. This wide range of service delivery options aligns with Stanford University’s commitment to community outreach and accessibility.

Heroic Action

Dr. Philip Zimbardo, has extended his research into the realm of ‘heroic action’. This area of study forms an integral part of his extensive research portfolio. His fascination with understanding what drives people to defy authority or engage in whistleblowing activities forms the backbone of his research.

A crucial aspect of his work in this field is the Heroic Imagination Project (HIP) , a theoretical framework he devised to explore deeper into the understanding of how ordinary people can manifest extraordinary acts of heroism in their everyday lives. With HIP, Zimbardo seeks to shed light on the intricate psychological mechanisms that enable individuals to defy dominant authority figures, a phenomenon often linked to his earlier work on authority and power.

He also examines the personal sacrifices and potential repercussions that individuals may face in their pursuit of such heroic deeds. This exploration is a further extension of his lifelong commitment to understanding human behavior under challenging circumstances.

The concept of ‘banality of evil,’ a term coined by political theorist Hannah Arendt, is central to Zimbardo’s research. He examines how seemingly ordinary people can be led to perform evil acts under certain conditions, but also how ordinary people have the potential to perform extraordinarily heroic acts under the right circumstances. By doing so, Zimbardo’s work highlights the convoluted facets of heroism and underscores the value of preparing individuals to act selflessly for the welfare of others.

This research thus provides a comprehensive understanding of the complexities behind our actions and the potential we all harbor for heroic deeds.

As a pioneer in the field of psychology, HIP is another testament to Zimbardo’s commitment to societal improvement. With the aim to make heroism a universal concept, HIP employs a combination of educational programs and online materials.

The project’s ultimate goal is to cultivate Heroes-in-Waiting, individuals who are primed to respond heroically when the situation demands. This initiative serves as a powerful counterforce to societal wrongdoings, further reinforcing Zimbardo’s long-standing dedication to battling negative social influences.

Zimbardo’s focus is not just on adults, but also on instilling this ‘heroic imagination’ in younger generations, such as children. He believes that empowering children to step up in challenging situations can help shape a more compassionate and courageous society.

Believing that the antidote to societal evil lies in the promotion of heroism, Dr. Zimbardo has a vision of nurturing this concept in the global consciousness . To this end, he has embarked on an innovative educational initiative to create a curriculum that fosters the heroic imagination.

This curriculum utilizes various mediums such as web-based materials, interactive games, engaging videos, and thought-provoking movies to disseminate the ethos of heroism far and wide. Dr. Zimbardo’s influential lecture at the prestigious TED conference, a global platform for spreading ideas, has garnered wide recognition, both nationally and internationally.

His work has been instrumental in sparking a dialogue about the potential for heroism that lies within each of us. To learn more about this fascinating subject, visit HeroicImagination.org , a repository of information about the Heroic Imagination Project and its mission.

Dr. Philip Zimbardo is renowned for his extensive research into the psychological impacts of military life. His main focus lies on the exploration of Social Intensity Syndrome (SIS). This psychological occurrence is commonly observed in high-intensity group settings, with the military being a prime example.

In the armed forces, units often operate in extreme conditions and are heavily reliant on teamwork and camaraderie. This intense socialization can lead to SIS, which can significantly alter a soldier’s mental state and behavior, especially in combat situations.

Dr. Zimbardo’s work involves an in-depth analysis of this syndrome. Through rigorous research and studies, he aims to uncover the profound effects that SIS can have on military personnel. His examination of SIS within the specific context of military life not only provides valuable insights into the psychological transformations of soldiers but also contributes to a broader understanding of the human psyche under severe stress and pressure.

Social Intensity Syndrome (SIS)

Dr. Zimbardo’s studies on the military have primarily focused on the Social Intensity Syndrome (SIS), a condition characterized by the intense socialization that soldiers experience in combat zones. His work has illuminated the profound and long-lasting effects of this syndrome on the mindset and mental health of military personnel.

This syndrome, often triggered by the extreme conditions and close-knit relationships formed in combat, can significantly impact a soldier’s post-combat life.

This led to the development and validation of SIS through stringent experimentation and scrutiny, establishing it as a trusted framework for investigating the process of military socialization.

SIS, which is characterized by the strong masculine social bonds in groups like the military, is measured through a comprehensive model and an accompanying questionnaire. These tools not only offer a deep understanding of the impact of military culture on individuals but also encapsulate a spectrum of values, attitudes, and behaviors prevalent in these male-dominated setups.

Through Zimbardo’s pioneering work, SIS serves as a lens to study the psychological dimensions of military socialization and the potential implications on the involved individuals.

Enduring Legacy of Dr. Philip Zimbardo

Philip Zimbardo’s illustrious career in psychology spans over five decades, leaving a lasting impression on the field that continues to shape both academic and public perceptions of the discipline. His enduring influence is particularly evident in his diverse roles as an educator, a researcher, and an advocate for social change.

Zimbardo is a tireless proponent for the spread of psychological knowledge. His fervor for teaching is palpable in his career as an educator, which has lasted for over half a century. Demonstrating his commitment to ‘give psychology away,’ Zimbardo has undertaken numerous efforts to make the field more accessible to the general public. His PBS-TV series, ‘Discovering Psychology,’ and his textbook, ‘Psychology and Life,’ have played a crucial role in demystifying psychology for the layperson.

In the realm of research, Zimbardo’s contributions to social psychology are impressive. His studies on police interrogation tactics, vandalism, and the prison system have provoked substantial changes to governmental policies. His groundbreaking 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, remains a foundational aspect of social psychology, providing invaluable insights into the extent of human conformity and obedience to authority.

Zimbardo’s role as an advocate for social change is embodied in initiatives like the Harlem Summer Project, a program that offered educational opportunities to disadvantaged children. His patriotic dissent against various U.S. government policies, such as the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, further underscores his commitment to use psychology as a tool for social improvement.

In addition to his retirement plans, Dr. Philip Zimbardo has taken on a new role as executive director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Policy, Education, and Research on Terrorism (CIPERT) at Stanford University. CIPERT is a Stanford center focused on the study of terrorism. By becoming CIPERT’s executive director, Zimbardo adds leadership of the terrorism research center to his list of activities in retirement.

Beyond his academic achievements, Zimbardo’s legacy is also marked by his philanthropic endeavors. His charitable foundation supports student education in his ancestral towns in Sicily. Altogether, Zimbardo’s significant legacy in psychology is a testament to his steadfast dedication to advancing the field and enhancing human well-being.

stanford prison experiment movie guide (zimbardo)

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Philip Zimbardo reflects on ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ movie

Login or create an account

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Email not verified

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Movies / TV

The Stanford Prison Experiment

What to Know

Critics Reviews

More Like This

Movie Reviews

Odie Henderson

Now playing

Christy Lemire

Back to Black

The Beach Boys

The Garfield Movie

Nothing Can't Be Undone by a HotPot

Monica Castillo

The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015)

Director of Photography

Latest blog posts

GTA San Andreas and the Legacy of Playing as a Black Guy in Video Games

Hollywood Continues to Fail Its Black Final Girls

58th KVIFF Welcomes Viggo Mortensen, Steven Soderbergh, Clive Owen, And More

Juneteenth Film Festival Returns For A Powerful Second Year

What the Creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment Thinks of the New Film About It

The Cut Shop

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

Sign In To Continue Reading

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Contribute to this page

More from this title

Dr. Zimbardo Says His Role in the Stanford Prison Experiment Was Like Being a Movie Director

Love in the Darkest Place: Composer Kara Talve on Scoring 'The Tattooist of Auschwitz'

How to Break Into Voice Acting

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo’s Famous Study

Asserting Authority

Physical Punishment

Asserting Independence

Putting Down the Rebellion

Special Privileges

Consequences of the Rebellion

Prisoner #8612

A Visit from Parents

Catholic Priest

Prisoner #819

Back to Reality

An End to the Experiment

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

Critical Evaluation

Demand characteristics

Sample bias

Zimbardo’s conclusion may be wrong

Contributions to psychology

Contribution to prison policy

Evidence for situational factors

Evidence for an interactionist approach

Ethical Issues

Protection of Participants

Withdrawal

Discussion Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Zimbardo not stop the experiment?

What happened to the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

What did Zimbardo want to find out?

What were the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

Further Information

Stanford Prison Experiment Viewing Guide

Also included in

Description

Questions & Answers

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment

Setting and Procedures

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Impact of the Zimbardo Prison Experiment