1

Jenelle Magbutay

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

CED 350X: Research for Human Services Professionals

Dr. Heather Dahl

June 28th, 2020

Abstract
 2

In this paper, we will discuss the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip G.

Zimbardo at Stanford University in August 1971 and how it breached ethical standards 3, 4, 5, 7,

16, 27, and 35 from the NOHS Ethical Standards Handbook. The initial findings of the study will

be compared and contrasted to the findings from The New Yorker article The Real Lesson of the

Stanford Prison Experiment by Maria Konnikova. We will also briefly explore how, despite the

unethical practices used during the research, the study was not made in vain and is still useful

and applicable in today’s society.

Stanford Prison Experiment: An Unethical Foresight

 3

The Stanford Prison Experiment was initially meant to run its course over two weeks, but

it was terminated after 6 days due to the mistreatment of its test subjects by other subjects,

escalating at an alarming rate. The initial purpose behind the study was to observe whether the

guard brutality in the American prison system were due to the guard’s sadistic personalities or

the environment of the prison itself (McLeod, 2020). “The study was funded by the U.S. Office

of Naval Research and was intended to measure the effect of role-playing, labeling, and social

expectations on behavior over a period of two weeks” (Britannica, 2020). It was presumed to be

a case study on whether abuse of power was situation or dispositional, but it quickly transformed

into something far more encompassing and far more grotesque and telling about the abuse of

power both in the experiment and outside of the experiment. These findings still apply to today,

as society is slowly unravelling the systemic oppression ever-present within the very foundations

of our country.

The study observed 24 seemingly normal middle-class college students selected through

answering a questionnaire that covered factors such as past social behavior, physical history,

mental health history, and family background. After being chosen, they were divided into roles

prisoners and guards through the flip of a coin. During the experiment, they were paid $15 a day

and all participants were observed and videotaped by the researchers themselves. Prisoners were

“taken in” by real officers and upon their arrival were stripped, frisked, cleaned, and then given a

uniform resembling a dress with an ankle padlock to simulate feeling humiliated and

emasculated (Konnikova, 2015). Within hours of the experiment, guards started to harass,

humiliate, and psychologically abuse the prisoners, such as how prisoners were awaken at 2:30

AM by blasting whistles for the first of many “counts”, which served as a way to familiarize the

prisoners with their numbers, providing a way for guards to demonstrate their power over the
 4

prisoners (McLeod, 2020). In contrast, the prisoners became submissive and aimed to please the

guards by telling on each other. A rebellion occurred the second day of the experiment, but it

was quickly dissolved by the guards themselves, and the prisoners were back to their submission.

It is reported that “as the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive

and assertive” (McLeod, 2020). Two prisoners, known as #8612 and #819, experienced a

psychological break and were subsequently released. It wasn’t until the sixth and final day that

Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. interviewing the test subjects was outraged and

objected the study to go any further. Being the only one to object the experiment thus far and

bringing light to the outright abuse that was occurring, Zimbardo concluded the experiment.

(McLeod, 2020).

According to NOHS’ Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals, many of the

standards listed were breached during the course of this experiment. Firstly, standard 3, 4, 16

were breached because of the harm the clients were imposing upon other clients. These standards

can be summarized to state the priority of the safety of clients and the elimination of oppression

and advocacy of social justice. Standard 5, 27, and 35 were breached because of Zimbardo’s

presence and role as the prison superintendent and how that affected the experiment itself. The

standards can be summarized to state the acknowledgment that relationships with clients may

increase risk of harm and exploitation, and that human services professionals should not offer

services outside of their scope of practice and should offer alternative services when they find

themselves inadequate. Lastly, Standard 7 was also breached because the experiment was

skewed into the biased sense of authoritarian-ship. As stated in The New Yorker article, “it

wasn’t a blank slate; from the start, its goal was to evoke the experience of working and living in

a brutal jail” (Konnikova, 2015). Even the way the newspaper advertisement was skewed to
 5

favor authoritarianism. In 2007, a study was conducted to show that the term “prison life” that

was present in the ad recruiting test subjects for the Stanford Prison Experiment attracted people

with significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism,

narcissism, and social dominance” (Konnikova, 2015) while also scoring lower on empathy and

altruism compared to an ad without the term.

If I were to personally conduct a study similar to this, I would remove any and all factors

that present bias towards the guards and the oppressive environment. I would present the

experiment as close to real life by making prisoners wear normal jumpsuits and make sure to

recruit more people of color to accurately represent the demographics currently in the prison

system and to not make the same mistake of implementing myself into the study just as

Zimbardo did. I would not, as former Stanford Prison test subject John Mark stated, “shape the

experiment and interpretation to my own expectations such as Zimbardo did when 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.” (Konnikava, 2015) As Konnikova’s

article states, a much more ethical study inspired by the Stanford Prison Experiment was already

conducted in 2002, called the BBC Prison Study, and findings showed that those in the position

of power were divided and had trouble operating as a group while the oppressed prisoners

showed solidarity and often tested their luck. In the end, the guards were not able to work

together and the experiment was concluded.

Through these case studies, one can conclude that humans act upon the role they are

expected to play. These roles are given to us by other people who, although through society may

be of different “class” are fundamentally and scientifically the same. Those that are in power

wish to continue to benefit from the system that they created, so they continue to perpetuate roles
 6

of oppression to others in order to continue their dominance. This is reflective upon the systemic

oppressiveness and racism that is plaguing society today. Although the Stanford Prison

Experiment was unethical, it showed a reflection of society and how easily humans can conform

to expectations brought upon by others benefitting from said system and how through erasing

those biases, the uneven playing field can be fixed.

References

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020, May 05). Stanford Prison Experiment.
Retrieved June 28, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Stanford-Prison-
Experiment

Burke, A. (2015). Ethical Standards for HS Professionals. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from
https://www.nationalhumanservices.org/ethical-standards-for-hs-professionals
 7

Konnikova, M., & Lemann, N. (2015). The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Retrieved June 28, 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-
konnikova/the-real-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment

McLeod, S. (2020). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html