Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment has been criticized for him being too involved
Stanley Milgram had shown that people would continue to shock someone who missed an answer to a question to deadly levels if ordered to by authority. And Philip Zimbardo showed in Stanford Prison Experiment that those designated position as guard would comply to commands to commit cruelties toward prisoners. Between Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies, the Stanford Prison Experiment has arguably attracted the most controversy.
The biggest lightning rod was the role of Zimbardo himself. Rather than being a detached observer, he served as the prison’s “superintendent.” He set the ground rules (e.g., telling guards that they could make the prisoners feel afraid and helpless) and met regularly with the guards throughout. He was clearly excited as hell to see what was happening in the study. Zimbardo is a larger-than-life force of nature, someone whom you’d very much wish to please. Thus guards were subject to pressure not only to conform with their cohort but also to obey and please Zimbardo; his role, consciously or otherwise, almost certainly prompted the guards to more extreme behavior. Zimbardo, a humane, decent man who is a friend and colleague, has written at length about this distortive impact that he had on the study.
References
- Sapolsky, Robert. (2017). Behave Chapter 12. Hierarchy, Obedience, and Resistance (p. 530). New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
Metadata
Type:🔴 Tags: Psychology / Social Psychology Status:☀️