In 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment began as a two-week study designed to explore what happens when ordinary people are placed into the roles of prisoners and guards. Within just six days, the experiment was brought to an end. But the story of the Stanford Prison Experiment didn’t end when the participants left the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. In Part 2 of our Stanford Prison Experiment series, Dae and Spencer continue digging into what happened after the experiment ended, how the study became one of the most famous experiments in psychology, and how its findings were interpreted and repeated for decades. We’ll take a closer look at the criticism surrounding the experiment, including questions about the researchers’ involvement, participant behavior, the conditions of the study, and whether the results actually supported the conclusions that made the experiment so famous. We’ll also talk about the researchers who revisited the original records and challenged the story that had become so widely accepted. From psychology textbooks to documentaries, movies, and classrooms, the Stanford Prison Experiment became a powerful example of how situations and authority can influence human behavior. But as more information came to light, that story became much more complicated. In this episode, we’ll continue separating what actually happened from what we’ve been told happened, and look at why the Stanford Prison Experiment is still debated more than fifty years later. And because this is Coffins & Confessions, we’ll keep the conversation going along the way. Because sometimes the most interesting part of history is realizing that the version we’ve always heard isn’t necessarily the whole story. Listener discretion is advised. This episode discusses psychological distress, abuse, coercion, and unethical research practices. Sources APA Ethics Code
https://www.apa.org/ethics/code Ben Blum, “The Stanford Prison Experiment Was Massively Influential. We Just Learned It Was a Fraud.”
https://medium.com/@benjaminblum/the-stanford-prison-experiment-was-massively-influential-we-just-learned-it-was-a-fraud-8c8c5e8c9e1 Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007), “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could Participant Self-Selection Have Led to the Situational Effect?”
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292689 Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973), “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison.”
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-21653-001 Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2006), “Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study.”
https://doi.org/10.1080/13534650600689595 Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2014), “Nothing by Mere Obedience: The Case of the Stanford Prison Experiment.”
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214558680 Le Texier, T. (2019), “Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment.”
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X17713199 Stanford Prison Experiment Archives
https://exhibits.stanford.edu/spe U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Belmont Report
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect
https://www.lucifereffect.com/
