CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

Critical Thinking of Psychology: Phillip Zimbardo

Margaret Hauser
Chesapeake College

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

Abstract
This paper discusses Dr. Philip Zimbardos Stanford Prison Study, the results and the
ethical violations that occurred during the experiment. Zimbardos life is also analyzed in
order to determine whether there was any influence on his later professional choices, due
to early life occurrences. Finally the paper presents evidence as to whether or not Dr.
Zimbardos study was ethical and determines the influence on modern day psychology
practices the experiments results had.

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

Explanation Of Issues
In 1971 on the campus of Stanford University, Dr. Philip Zimbardo launched an
experiment in order to discover the psychological effects when a person is assigned into a
position of either a guard or a prisoner. The experiment called for subjects, all pertained
from the male population of the student body of Stanford University, to go through two
weeks in their roles. The guards were told they were not to physically harm the prisoners
and both roles were told they were to behave how their respective parts were if it werent
an experiment. As the experiment progressed, Zimbardo observed that the subjects began
to fully embrace their roles, the guards becoming more abusive (mentally, physically
and verbally) and the prisoners becoming more submissive. After only six days, the
experiment was concluded because of the treatment the prisoners received from the
guards. Before the experiment was ended, Zimbardo concluded that even if the roles
are not real, people will conform easily to their assigned roles.
When Zimbardos experiment is critically researched, it can be found as unethical.
There are two main ethical laws that the study can be said to have broken, according to
the American Psychological Association. The first law, 3.04: Avoiding Harm (APA),
states that all subjects are required to be kept from any form of harm and the subjects
should not have any long- term negative effects either. This incudes mental, physical, and
emotional harm. The second law this paper will discuss is 3.06: Conflict of Interest,
requiring that the researcher not have any conflicting roles pertaining to their experiment
(APA).

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

Evidence
During the Stanford Prison Study, half of the men involved were subjected to multiple
forms of harm while in their roles of prisoners. These men were verbally abused (name
calling, insults) and were also punished using physical acts, such as push-ups, when they
rebelled. At one point, a prisoner was released due to mental breakdown, thus
providing a glimpse as to what could occur to these men if the treatment continued. The
action of allowing the guards to treat the prisoners as though they were real life
criminals, violates the ethical code 3.04: Avoiding Harm. This code insists that all
subjects must be kept from any form of unnecessary harm. Zimbardos study allowed
men to abuse each other because of their assigned roles and this led to not only the early
conclusion of the experiment, but also psychological effects to subjects, during and after
the study finished.
Along with being the head of the research team, Zimbardo also assigned himself a role
to play as he did with the subjects. In the role of the Prison Warden, he believed he
would be able to closely observe the subjects and their actions, as well as interfere if he
deemed it necessary. While Zimbardo believed his actions were ensuring the safety of his
participants, he was violating a second ethical code. Zimbardos decision to assign
himself a role he violates Code 3.06: Conflict of Interest. This code requires that the
researcher refrain from taking any role in their experiment that may create a personal
connection in a professional setting. Assigning himself the role of Prison Warden
allowed for potential relationships to be formed between the subjects and himself. The
idea that the experiment went on the way it did, for the amount of time it did, was

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

because Zimbardo allowed himself to be over immersed in his role of power. In

interviews since the original experiment, Zimbardo has never stated directly that he let
the power influence him, but he has in a way, grouped himself with the subjects,
particularly the guards, when discussing the procedures of the study (Zimbardo, 1989).

Assumptions
Zimbardo himself has admitted that his early life had influenced his views on
psychology greatly. He recalls the time he had both pneumonia and whooping cough as a
child and was a patient in a charity hospital (Zimbardo, 1999). He explains how the
chances of survival were based on genetics and how he had to charm his way into
certain nurses hearts for extra care. In the same interview, Zimbardo explains the kid
power hierarchy and how he had to learn to fight his way into the group and learn to
convince other children to play the games he wanted. His real, true introduction to social
psychology happened after WWII when there was a growing tension within not only the
races but the social classes, as well. During this time he wrote observations and
interviewed people in order to study the influence of the disparity. This time in his life
majorly impacted Zimbardos decision to become a psychologist, specifically a social
psychologist.
When connecting Zimbardos history with his Stanford Prison Study, it is apparent that
the ideas from his observations in post WWII Bronx could have unconsciously influenced
his idea to further investigate the power of role assignment on a persons behaviors and
psychology. When in the Bronx, Zimbardo began to notice how people who were friends,
began to hate each other because of the tension between their religions. This mimics the

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

actions of the subjects, who may or may not of known each other outside of the study,
when given roles to perform.
Another moment in Zimbardos childhood that impacted his ethical violations runs
further back than his decision to perform his study. During his experiment, Zimbardos
violation of Code 3.06: Conflict of Interest may have been fueled by his childhood
desires. He spent time as a child attempting to put himself into a position of kid power
over the children in his neighborhood (Zimbardo, 1999), and his assigning himself the
role of Prison Warden gave him the power without having to convince anyone that he
deserved it.

Students Position
When analyzing the Stanford Prison Study, on the surface, the procedures do not appear
extremely unethical but when it is further researched, there are multiple issues involved
in the studys ethics. Zimbardos involvement as not only the head of the research team,
but also the role of Prison Warden and the disregard of the prisoner subjects
treatment, violate two different ethical codes. While these violations were unethical, this
does not necessarily mean the experiment, as a whole was unethical. The reasoning
behind this conclusion comes from the fact that these issues could have been prevented if
the experiment had been recreated, as it had in The BBC Prison Study (Reicher 2006). In
their study, the BBC researchers performed multiple interventions in order to monitor the
behaviors and psychological states of the subjects. If these had been performed during the
Stanford Prison Study, along with removing Zimbardo as the Prison Warden, the study
itself could again be considered ethical.

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

The BBCs study that mimics Zimbardos, does not prove whether the original study is
completely unethical or not. The recreation does prove that the potential for harmful
incidents could be prevented. The Prison Study did not have any known forms of
prevention in case of any incidents. The BBCs experiment required there to be regular
pauses in order to ensure the safety of their subjects, thus explaining that the unethical
points within the original experiment could have been prevented.

Conclusions and Implications

Even almost fifty years after the original experiment took place, Zimbardos Stanford
Prison Study is still discussed in psychology classes today. Many use Zimbardos study as
an example of unethical studies, but the study itself and its original purpose, to discover
the effects of role assignment on the psychological state of person, are also a topic
discussed at length in the psychology world today as well. This experiment provides
proven data that when assigned to roles of different levels of power, it is likely that the
people assigned will take to their roles in a very intense way and the role can very
quickly become more than a role they are performing. Later studies, such as the BBCs
experiment, have shown that the findings in Zimbardos study are true. In the BBCs
recreation of the Stanford study, they found the same results of their subjects conforming
to their roles very deeply, but they also discovered that the after effects could be
prevented (Reicher 2006).
In modern times, Zimbardos findings have been used to understand why positions of
power can change the behaviors of people. The outcome of the study showed that it is
very easy for a person to immense themselves into an assigned role and to change their

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

behaviors and psychological state. Another, less intense form of this study that shows the
same results, is when schools used to have a day where students and teachers switched
their roles. In these situations, there is the potential for the students to take advantage of
their power, in the way that the guard subjects did in Zimbardos study. The effects of
this role reversal are a lot less severe than in Zimbardos study, but they have the same
conclusion. The conclusion found from role assignment/reversal studies show that people
can let the roles they are assigned, get to them and let them influence their behaviors.

CRITICAL THINKING OF PSYCHOLOGY: PHILLIP ZIMBARDO

References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct Adopted August 21, 2002 Effective June 1, 2003 with the 2010
Amendments Adopted February 20, 2010 Effective June 1, 2010. Retrieved
February 24, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf

Reicher, S. (2006). On Rethinking The Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 47-53. Retrieved from Academic
Search Complete database. (Accession No. 21118521)

Zimbardo, P. (1999). Recollections Of A Social Psychologist's Career: An Interview With

Dr. Philip Zimbardo. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 14(1), 1-22.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. (Accession No. 2142571)