Introduction: An Experiment that Transformed Perception
Have you ever wondered how long it takes for an ordinary person to turn into a “demon”? A year, six months, or three weeks? Psychologists tell us: it only takes 6 days! In 1971, an experiment carried out in the basement of Stanford University, like a boulder thrown into a calm lake, set off huge waves and completely subverted people’s understanding of human nature. This is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, which, like a mirror, reflects the dark corners of human nature that we ourselves are afraid to look at directly.
Experimental Background: Why Conduct This Experiment
In the 1970s, the world was in a period of intense change and turmoil. Anti – war movements and civil rights movements were on the rise, and people’s doubts about social systems and authority structures were growing louder. Against this backdrop, the crime problem in American society became more prominent, prisons were overcrowded, and issues of prison management and prisoner rehabilitation became the focus of social attention.
Philip Zimbardo, a renowned American psychologist and professor at Stanford University, was deeply interested in how human nature changes in different environments. He grew up in the poor Jewish neighborhood of the Bronx in New York. The complex environment there taught him early on how to distinguish different people on the street, providing a unique perspective for his future psychological research. Once, he was arrested by the police for playing hockey on the street and hit his head on the car door frame. This experience made him question authority and also prompted him to think about how human nature changes under power and in certain situations.
At that time, psychological research was gradually shifting from simply focusing on individual traits to exploring the influence of situations on human behavior. Inspired by this research trend, Zimbardo kept thinking: What exactly drives human behavior? To what extent will people’s behavior be affected under specific situational pressures? Is evil deeply rooted in human nature, or is it only triggered in certain environments? In order to find answers to these questions, he was determined to conduct an unprecedented experiment, which is how the Stanford Prison Experiment came about.
Experimental Preparation: A Meticulously Created “Prison”
To make the experiment as realistic and persuasive as possible, Zimbardo’s team went to great lengths during the preparation stage. The first task they faced was to recruit suitable volunteers. In the summer of 1971, the research team placed a striking advertisement in local American newspapers, offering a payment of $15 per day (equivalent to over $100 today) to publicly recruit college students to participate in a two – week study of prison life. This news, like a pebble thrown into a calm lake, quickly attracted the attention of a large number of students. More than 70 college students from different backgrounds eagerly signed up.
Subsequently, Zimbardo’s team carried out a series of strict screenings of these applicants. They conducted comprehensive physical examinations to ensure that the volunteers were in good health and had no potential health risks. At the same time, they used professional psychological tests to carefully assess the psychological state of the volunteers, eliminating those who might have psychological problems, overly extreme personalities, or violent tendencies. In addition, the researchers also deeply investigated the social backgrounds of the volunteers, including their family environments, growth experiences, and educational levels, in order to select the most representative and “ordinary” college students.
After layers of strict screening, 24 physically and mentally healthy and psychologically stable college students finally stood out. They came from different majors and had different personality traits, but before the experiment started, they were all considered typical and kind – hearted young people. These volunteers were randomly divided into two groups of 12 people each. One group would play the role of “prisoners” and the other group would play the role of “guards”.
To create a realistic prison environment for the experiment, Zimbardo’s team transformed the basement of the psychology department building at Stanford University into a simulated prison. This “prison”, though small, had all the necessary facilities, including cells, corridors, guard rooms, and solitary confinement rooms, almost replicating the layout of a real prison. In the cells, there were simple beds, toilets, and sinks, and the narrow space gave a sense of oppression. The corridors were dim and narrow, and the walls were painted with cold gray paint, further enhancing the gloomy atmosphere.
To help the “prisoners” better integrate into their roles, the experimental team also carefully designed a series of realistic admission procedures. The night before the experiment, local police suddenly appeared at the homes of the “prisoner” volunteers and arrested them on suspicion of “committing crimes”. The volunteers were handcuffed, blindfolded, taken to the police station for registration, photographing, fingerprint collection, and other procedures, and then sent to the simulated prison. After entering the prison, they were required to undress, be sprayed with disinfectant all over their bodies, and change into unified prison uniforms with numbers printed on them. From then on, they no longer had names but were just cold number codes. In addition, they were put in leg irons to restrict their freedom of movement. These measures were aimed at making the “prisoners” feel psychologically that they had truly become prisoners who had lost their freedom.
For the volunteers playing the “guards”, the research team equipped them with unified police uniforms, batons, and sunglasses, giving them the power to manage the “prisoners”. The design of the police uniforms referred to the uniforms of real prison guards, being neat and imposing. The batons were symbols of power, and the sunglasses were used to prevent the “prisoners” from seeing the guards’ eyes, adding a sense of mystery and deterrence. Before the experiment started, the “guards” were told to maintain the order and discipline of the prison but did not receive any specific training on how to exercise their power, which laid the groundwork for the subsequent abuse of power.
The Beginning of the Experiment: Underlying Turbulence beneath the Calm
On August 14, 1971, the experiment officially began. On this day, the college students selected to play the “prisoners” experienced an arrest – like experience. The local police assisted in the experiment, taking them away from their homes in the name of “suspects”, and then carried out a series of regular prison admission procedures, including registration, photographing, fingerprint collection, etc., and finally took them to the simulated prison in the basement of Stanford University.
At the beginning of entering the prison, both the “prisoners” and the “guards” were in a state of novelty and exploration. The “prisoners” didn’t seem to fully realize what was about to happen. They talked and joked with each other, as if this was just a special game. They were full of curiosity about the “prison life” in the next two weeks, but also a bit casual.
However, as time passed, the “prisoners” gradually began to feel the oppression brought by the prison environment. The narrow and dim cells, the cold beds, and the various restrictions on their freedom slowly changed their mood. They could no longer act as they pleased, and every move was monitored by the “guards”. The unified prison uniforms with numbers printed on them made them feel that they had lost their individuality as individuals and had become just a number in the prison system. This change in identity quietly planted the seeds of unease in their hearts.
On the first day of the experiment, the “guards” also showed a bit of restraint. Although they were dressed in imposing police uniforms and held batons symbolizing power, they didn’t seem to know exactly how to exercise this power. They paced in the corridors and occasionally gave the “prisoners” some simple orders, such as making their beds and keeping quiet, but their tone still carried a hint of self – doubt. After all, they were just ordinary college students who, suddenly given such great power, didn’t know what to do for a while.
But beneath this seemingly calm surface, an undercurrent was quietly surging. The dissatisfaction in the hearts of the “prisoners” was gradually accumulating, and they began to question the authority of the “guards”. The “guards” were also constantly adapting to their roles, and the desire for power in their hearts was quietly sprouting. This subtle change indicated that the experiment would develop in an unexpected direction.
Escalation of Conflict: The Collapse of Order
On the second day of the experiment, the calm situation was completely broken. The “prisoners’” dissatisfaction with the harsh environment and the loss of freedom erupted like a volcano, and they began to rebel collectively. They tore off the numbers on their clothes one after another to protest against “depersonalization”, took off the silk stockings symbolizing humiliation, blocked the cell doors with their beds, and refused to let the “prison guards” enter. The prisoners in Cell 1 were particularly radical. While blocking the door, they loudly laughed at and insulted the “prison guards”, trying to challenge their authority.
Facing the “prisoners’” rebellion, the “prison guards” initially seemed a bit panicked, but soon, under the hint of “Warden” Zimbardo, they began to take tough suppression measures. In order to force their way into the cells, they found fire extinguishers and sprayed them at the “prisoners”. The cold extinguishing agent made the “prisoners” feel extremely cold. Then, they rushed into the cells, forcibly dragged out the ringleader “Prisoner 8612”, stripped off his clothes, and locked him in a small, dark solitary confinement room.
During this process, the “prison guards” gradually realized the power they held, and the latent tyrannical factors in their hearts began to be activated. They were no longer satisfied with simple control but intensified their punishment of the “prisoners”. They made the “prisoners” take off their clothes and do push – ups in front of everyone. Some even sat on the “prisoners’” backs to increase the difficulty of the push – ups, humiliating them. Some “prison guards” also deprived the “prisoners” of their right to sleep, waking them up in the middle of the night and asking them to carry out various meaningless activities, such as counting numbers for a long time and running back and forth in the corridor.
The rapid intensification of the conflict between the two sides was due to multiple factors. From the “prisoners’” perspective, they were originally free and equal college students, but were suddenly placed in an extremely repressive prison environment where they lost their freedom. The psychological gap was huge. Moreover, their dignity was trampled, and they were treated as emotionless numbers, which greatly hurt their self – esteem. The long – accumulated negative emotions finally found an outlet on the second day.
For the “prison guards”, they were suddenly given absolute power overnight, and this sudden power left them at a loss. Stimulated by the “prisoners’” rebellion, in order to maintain their authority and the so – called “prison order”, they began to abuse their power. At the same time, the group effect also played a role in fueling the fire. When some “prison guards” started to use violent means, other “prison guards” followed suit in order to fit into the group and not be seen as outsiders, causing the violent behavior to escalate continuously.
Runaway Power: The Revelation of the Darkness of Human Nature
As the experiment entered the third day, the “prison guards’” tyrannical behavior became even more extreme. They seemed to have completely immersed themselves in their roles, exerted their power to the fullest, and continuously upgraded their punishment methods for the “prisoners”. The dark side of human nature grew wantonly under the nourishment of power.
On this day, the “prison guards” came up with various ways to torture the “prisoners”. They required the “prisoners” to clean the toilets with their hands. In their eyes, the “prisoners” were no longer college students like themselves but objects that could be bullied at will. To further humiliate the “prisoners”, the “prison guards” also made them crawl on the ground imitating animals and make animal sounds, completely disregarding the “prisoners’” dignity.
By the fourth day, the “prison guards’” management became even more high – pressure and autocratic. As long as the “prisoners” showed the slightest disobedience, they would be beaten or locked up in solitary confinement. Once, a “prisoner” was dragged into the corridor and whipped with a baton by the “prison guards” because he was a bit slow. Under the deterrence of violence, the “prisoners’” resistance gradually decreased, but this did not mean that their inner dissatisfaction disappeared. On the contrary, fear and despair were spreading in their hearts.
On the fifth day, the “prison guards’” behavior completely crossed the moral bottom line. They began to force the “prisoners” to carry out some extremely perverted behaviors, such as simulating pornographic scenes, to satisfy their distorted psychology. Under long – term torture, the mental state of the “prisoners” also changed greatly. Some “prisoners” began to have hallucinations and muttered to themselves all day long; some became numb and obediently followed the “prison guards’” orders, like walking corpses.
Sadly, Professor Zimbardo, the designer and leader of the experiment, also gradually became immersed in the situation he had created. He began to regard himself as the “warden”, turning a blind eye to the “prison guards’” behavior and even, to some extent, tacitly approving of their atrocities. His girlfriend, graduate student Christina Maslach, visited the experimental site on the fifth day. After seeing the inhumane treatment the “prisoners” were receiving, she broke down and cried. She strongly accused Zimbardo, believing that the experiment had completely gotten out of control and turned into a human disaster. Only then did Zimbardo wake up and realize his mistake.
Termination of the Experiment: Shock and Reflection
On August 19, 1971, on the sixth day of the experiment, Zimbardo’s girlfriend, Christina Maslach, came to the experimental site. The scene in front of her shocked her. The “prison guards” were brutally abusing the “prisoners”, and the double torture of spirit and body made the “prisoners’” eyes full of fear and despair. Christina couldn’t believe that all this was happening among a group of originally kind – hearted college students. It was like a living hell.
She angrily accused Zimbardo, saying that the experiment had turned into a terrible disaster and completely violated moral and ethical principles. Her words were like a heavy blow, waking Zimbardo up from his role as the “warden”. He suddenly realized that the experiment, which was originally intended to explore human nature, had completely gotten out of control and had seriously damaged the physical and mental health of the participants.
Zimbardo made a decisive decision to terminate the experiment ahead of schedule. At this time, there was still a full week left in the original two – week experimental plan. This experiment, which lasted only 6 days, made everyone fall into deep reflection.
The results of the experiment, like a blockbuster, caused a huge stir in the psychological community and among the general public. It shattered people’s long – held beautiful illusions about human nature, forcing them to face the dark side hidden in human nature. Before this, people generally believed that a person’s behavior mainly depends on their inner character and values, and the influence of the environment is relatively small. However, the Stanford Prison Experiment powerfully demonstrated that the power of the environment is so strong that it can fundamentally change the behavior of a normal person in a very short time, even making them do things that violate morals and ethics.
The impact of this experimental result on the psychological community is profound. It has prompted psychologists to re – examine the influence of situational factors on human behavior and promoted the further development of the field of social psychology. Many subsequent studies have revolved around this topic, trying to deeply explore how human nature is shaped and changed in different situations. At the same time, this experiment has also triggered people’s profound thinking about morality, ethics, and the essence of human behavior. It makes us understand that in real life, we must always be vigilant against the influence of the environment, stick to our moral bottom line, and not be easily influenced by power and situations.
Controversy over the Experiment: Debates on Truth and Significance
The Stanford Prison Experiment, like a boulder thrown into a calm lake, set off ripples and triggered widespread controversy from all walks of life. In 2018, French journalist Thibault Le Texier launched a fierce questioning of the experiment. Through in – depth interviews with many participants and careful study of relevant materials, he put forward six points of doubt.
Le Texier believed that Professor Zimbardo’s team had instructed the guards to be more tough, which undoubtedly interfered with the natural process of the experiment, making the experimental results possibly not entirely derived from real situational reactions. Some guards deliberately behaved extremely cruelly to meet Zimbardo’s expectations, seriously undermining the authenticity of the experimental data. The breakdown of a prisoner in the experiment, such as Douglas Korpi, was suspected to be faked, not a real psychological reaction, perhaps with the aim of achieving some personal demands.
In addition, some staff members publicly condemned the experiment as flawed and dishonest, further weakening the credibility of the experiment. In terms of replication experiments, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) also carried out a similar prison experiment, but because this experiment was accused of being a “reality show” and lacking the rigor of a scientific experiment, it could not effectively verify the conclusions of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
In the face of these doubts, Professor Zimbardo quickly responded. He firmly stated that the experimental team had never given any specific instructions to the guards to require them to take violent actions. The design of the experiment was based on the simulation of a real prison environment, aiming to observe as realistically as possible how people’s behavior changes in a specific situation. Regarding the claim of “false performance” by some participants, Zimbardo believed that this was just the one – sided opinion of a few people and could not represent the entire situation of the experiment. He emphasized that the large amount of data, video materials, and the real feelings of the participants recorded during the experiment strongly proved the authenticity and reliability of the experimental results.
Although the Stanford Prison Experiment has been highly controversial, its significance cannot be underestimated. It is like a warning light, making us deeply aware of the huge influence of the environment on human nature. In real life, we often face various complex situations, which may, like the “prison environment” in the experiment, quietly change our behavior and values. As the experiment reveals, even kind and ordinary people may do things that violate morals and ethics in a specific environment. Therefore, we must always be vigilant, stick to our moral bottom line, and not be easily influenced by the external environment.
Conclusion: Confronting Human Nature and Staying True to Oneself
Although more than half a century has passed since the Stanford Prison Experiment, the shock and reflection it has brought to us have never faded. It makes us understand that human nature is not as indestructible as we think. Under specific environmental and power temptations, kind – hearted people may also be consumed by darkness.
However, this does not mean that we should despair of human nature. On the contrary, precisely through such an experiment, we should more deeply realize the importance of maintaining self – awareness and sticking to moral bottom lines. In real life, we may not be in an extreme environment like a simulated prison, but similar situational pressures are everywhere. Power struggles in the workplace, online public opinion violence, blind following in groups… These are all tests of our human nature.
We should always remind ourselves not to be easily influenced by the environment, not to blindly submit to authority, and always maintain the ability to think independently and make judgments. When facing situations that may affect our moral principles, we should bravely say “no” and stick to the kindness and justice in our hearts. Only in this way can we not lose ourselves in a complex and changing world and let the glory of human nature shine. May we all draw lessons from this experiment and become better versions of ourselves.
