4

PSYCHOLOGY Y1
Worksheet:
r
Stanford Prison Experiment

Name: Breanna Liao Score:

Level: Year 1 Date: September 3, 2021

Instruction: Create an outline of this study (using AMPRCE) and answer the given
questions.

OUTLINE OF THE STUDY: (10 pts)

Aim: The aim of the research was to understand the development of the established
societal perceptions of a prison, and the roles, behaviors, and effects of the people
within the secluded environment.

Method + Participants:
RESEARCH: Qualitative research was done as the experiences and reflection of the
prisoners and guards were quantified.
SAMPLING: Purposive sampling is utilized in this research, as the researchers have set
the following characteristics to determine their participants: no psychological problems,
no medical disabilities, no history of crime or drug abuse. Diagnostic and personality
tests were conducted in order to eliminate unnecessary characteristics of the
participants.
ALLOCATION: Random allocation was done by coin flipping to determine the two
groups in the experiment: the prisoners and the guards.
GENERALIZABILITY: Theoretical generalization was attempted in this research, with
the reason that the movements of the prisoners and guards create a high construct
validity. At the end, generalizability was greatly matching to the experiences of real-life
situations in a prison setting.
METHOD: A naturalistic observation was present in the research. Although it was
originally a basement of Stanford’s Psychology Department building, it was constructed
1
to a natural prison environment by changing the doors into steel bars, making the
corridor the yard, and placing solitary confinement for “bad prisoners.” Additionally, the
participants were aware of being part of an experiment as it was the primary reason of
the participant in the exchange of money. They were provided a consent form as the
experiment shall be filmed, therefore, it was an overt observation. An unstructured
observation was utilized as the researchers went with the flow of how the participants
will interact.
PARTICIPANTS: The participants were recruited by placing newspaper advertisements
in the Palo Alto Times and The Stanford Daily offering $15 per day to male college
students who will be joining the psychological study of imprisonment. These students
were informed of the assignment of the roles of prisoner and guard, the expected
participation of the students, and documentation of the whole duration of the study. The
time period set for the participants to play the role will vary due to the “sentence” of the
prisoners or the work effectiveness of the guards. Participants must agree to the
contract provided by the researchers. More than 70 applicants were narrowed down to
24 mostly white (one was Asian-American) college students from U.S. and Canada. The
participants were healthy, intelligent, and middle-class males.

Procedure:
After the construction of the mock prison, the researchers advertised in newspapers for
volunteer participants in their psychological study of imprisonment. Out of 70+
applicants who answered diagnostic and personality tests and after eliminating
applicants with unnecessary characteristics, 24 boys were participants of the
experiment. Once these participants were arrested and taken from their homes by the
police, they enter the Palo Alto Police Department for registration of personal
information. They were blindfolded as they were sent to the psychology department
building of Stanford University, stripped naked, deloused, referenced by numbers by the
time they arrived. As they can only identify themselves as these numbers, they clothed
with smocks but no underclothes, a tight cap to cover their hair (as to replace the bald
hair of real prisoners), and a locked chain was wrapped on their ankle. Some rules of
the prisoners were the following:
1. No prisoner can leave once jailed, except for established procedures.
2. Food and accommodations were of minimal requirements.
3. Cell blocks, meals, and bedding are provided to the prisoners.
4. Medical and psychiatric facilities are also available.
5. They are prohibited to leave the cell, except for exercising and using the toilet.

2
 On the other hand, the guards were dressed in khaki uniforms and sunglasses as
they carried a whistle and baton. Three guards worked for each 8-hour shift a day,
while three (3) prisoners stayed in each prison cell. Some rules of the guards were
the following:
1. Guards are free.
2. They can do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in
the prison.
3. They can command the respect of the prisoners.
4. They ought to report from their shifts promptly.
By 2:30 in the morning, the prisoners were awakened by the whistles of the guards to
make “counts” of the inmates. Suddenly (unsure of time), the prisoners were asked to
do a form of “punishment” that was never part of the plan, push-ups. When the second
day came in, a rebellion broke out wherein the prisoners “removed their stocking caps,
ripped off their number, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds
against the door.” The guards were furious as they shot a fire extinguisher at the
prisoners. Ringleaders of the rebellion were sent into solitary confinement. Meanwhile,
prisoners who were least involved in the rebellion were granted special privileges and a
“privilege cell.” Afterward, the guards switched the prisoners between the solitary and
the privileged, confusing the prisoners in terms of alliance and trust and producing
control of the guards over the prisoners.
Visitation hours came, the prisoners and environment were cleaned to cover up the true
state of the prison. Later on, an escape plan rumor came about but never occurred. This
made the guards force the prisoners to clean toilets with their bare hands. Some
prisoners were straying away from the procedure of the experiment. Prisoner #8612 had
to leave due to being “out of control,” while prisoner #819 was labeled as a “bad”
prisoner and was encouraged by the researchers to leave, however, he decided to stay
to prove himself as a prisoner. This was a hit of reality that the whole situation was just
an experiment and not a prison. Before the prisoner #819 incident, a Catholic priest a
sent into the scene to inform them that a way to get out of prison is through the help of a
lawyer.
After the experiment duration, interviews were conducted to both the guards and the
prisoners.

Results:
The experiment had to shut down after six (6) days instead of the planned 2-week
duration due to the following:

3
 1. The guards were extremely abusive to the prisoners;
2. The breakdowns of prisoners due to the terror from the prison; and,
3. The experiment was immoral and unethical in many ways.

Conclusion:
As the guards were placed in a position of authority, they were more than ready to
conform to such a role in society. They did not act the ways they expected to as the
prison created the brutal behavior and likeness of the guards to play the role. Although
some guards were good, tough but fair, and cruel, they were dominating the prisoners,
in a way that a prison is not a place of rehabilitation, but suffering. The stimulation
became way too realistic. The prisoners felt the need to be helpless as one mentioned
that “there is no way out,” although they were given the opportunity to back out from the
experiment. In less than 6 days, their identities were lost due to the immersion into their
roles within the environment. The power of social situations changes the behavior of
people.

Evaluation:
METHOD: The research, I would say, was a mess. Generalizability was not effective
due to the behavior of the participants that differ from real life. The study has low
ecological validity. Demanding the participants to play a role they have never done
before made them claim that they were simply “acting.” It lacks population validity due to
the fact that the participants were from the U.S. or Canada, which makes the study very
much not relevant and applicable to other countries or prisons of the other sex. 
ETHICS: Overall, the research was not ethical to the participants and to the target
population. Through this study, the APA has opened their eyes to review their standards
and ethical guidelines.

GUIDE QUESTIONS (5 points each)

1. In what ways did the police procedures cause the participants to feel confused
and dehumanized?
The police simply arriving at the house of the person to be arrested as if he committed a
crime was confusing for the boys and the people around the situation. The policeman
on sunglasses blindfolding the suspects was undoubtedly a terrifying process for the,
now, prisoners. The sunglasses signify pride and the blindfold may represent inferiority
and the state of risk for the prisoner. As I recall, arrestees are not often blindfolded

4
when they are sent to prison. The guards were far more different and brutal than the
police that sent the prisoners to their “jail cells.” One of the dehumanizing events was
when the prisoners were stripped naked by the guards and their bodies were sprayed to
eliminate any lice or germs as if they were stray animals off the streets. The chains on
their feet and the identification numbers of their smocks pulled them out of their
humanity.
2. What are the ethical points of this study? (Explain)
A consent form was provided before conducting the experiment for the participants to
be informed of the events that may possibly occur within the prison. Although some of
these events were harassment, violation of privacy and civil rights, and a minimally
adequate diet, these were part of the consent form. Providing information to the
participants beforehand is ethical, as along as all information is provided.

3. What are the unethical practices of this study? (Explain)

A. Not all occurrences within the actual experiment were mentioned in the consent form.
Due to this, the prisoners were not expecting some punishments and activities within
the prison, such as push-ups, privilege cells, not allowing them to go to the toilet,
threats, utilization of the fire extinguisher for another purpose, cleaning toilets with their
bare hands, etc. Even the researchers themselves were not prepared as to what may
happen within the experiment. The consent form should contain all information the
participants ought to know, I guess the researchers did not prepared enough for this
research.
B. The prisoners did not consent to be jailed at home. As mentioned above, they were
confused as this came as a surprise. As their family and neighbors watch them get
arrested, confusion aroused as the perception that they truly did a crime stuck into
these people’s minds.

C. The prisoners were not protected from psychological harm. Some examples of these
are the events of prisoners #8612 and #819. The researchers should have considered
that other than their behavior and physical health, their mental health may also be
damaged, with was something the participants did not sign up for.

D. When the parents and visitors of the participants came, the true state of the jail was
covered up. The researchers manipulated the experiment as it was not an experiment
anymore, rather a true prison environment. This removes the authenticity and accuracy
of the experiment, as it removes the true purpose of the study. It is unethical to present
oneself as ethical, trying to cover up the damages that have been done.

5
E. The consent form provided liberty to the guards, but lots of limitations for the
prisoners. The guards were provided no training in their roles. They can do whatever
they wanted to the prisoners. No specific and concrete set of rules were provided to the
guards, which means they can do anything, good or harmful, to the prisoners.

F. The rumored attempt of the prisoners to escape made the atmosphere dark and the
researchers worrying about them leaving, rather than evaluating the reason behind the
rumor.

4. If you are an experimenter, would you conduct this kind of study? Why or Why
not?
If I am an experimenter, I would never conduct this kind of study. The research lacked
ecological validity and was very unethical. Needless to say the characteristics of the
participant were far from accurate to the real life prison. They did not hold any criminal
records, unlike most of the real prisoners (due to the injustices of society, prisoners are
not generalized to being criminals). To conduct a research for this study, one can
overview the occurrences of a real prison environment, rather than harming innocent
students physically, mentally, and psychologically. Although, findings were develop
through this, the experiment was a lesson learned for everyone involved. The
experiment’s flaws outweigh its benefits and assets. To juggle between ethics and
accuracy, however, resulting to lack of generalizability, removes the purpose of the
study.

Other References

Mcleod, S. (n.d.). Stanford Prison Experiment | Simply Psychology.

Https://Www.Simplypsychology.Org/Zimbardo.Html. Retrieved September 2,

2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

6
7