Available online at:
https://cc.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/cc%3Apsycjournal

J Camosun Psyc Res. (2025). Vol. 7(1), pp. 50-54.
Submitted Fall 2024; accepted May 2025.

Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Authors: Joee Munn*
Supervising Instructor: Randal Tonks, Psyc 210 (“History of Psychology”)
Department of Psychology, Camosun College, 3100 Foul Bay Road, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5J2
*Corresponding author email: joeedaisy1999@outlook.com

ABSTRACT
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is one of the most infamous psychology experiments
and is frequently mentioned in textbooks. Conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, the SPE aimed
to explore and understand how individuals conform when given orders by an authority figure, as
well as to demonstrate how being given power can lead to abuse. However, the experiment was
riddled with methodological flaws and has been debunked by many modern researchers and
psychologists. Despite this, the SPE continues to captivate the public and is often cited as
evidence that ordinary, good people can commit harmful and violent acts when placed in
positions of power. Nevertheless, due to its deeply flawed methodology and numerous ethical
violations, it can be argued that the primary lesson of the SPE is not about human behavior but
about what not to do in psychological research.
1. Methodology
When doing a deep dive into the SPE, the
true purpose of its design can be questioned.
The stated goal was to replicate a prison
environment and observe how participants
behaved based on their assigned roles. While
the experiment does address this, there are
striking parallels between the prisoners'
arrival in the SPE and the treatment of
Jewish people upon arriving at Nazi
concentration camps. In The Lucifer Effect
(TLE), Zimbardo frequently references some
of history's darkest events, including the
Holocaust (Zimbardo, 2007). In the mock
prison, participants were stripped, hosed
down, made to wear nylon caps to simulate
shaved heads, given clogs, and identified
only by numbers sewn onto their smocks
(Zimbardo, 2007). Similarly, Jewish
prisoners arriving at Nazi concentration

camps were stripped, shaved, assigned
identification numbers, and given clogs (The
Wiener Holocaust Library, n.d.). Additional
similarities between the two include the use
of buckets for human waste, mandatory roll
calls that happened multiple times a day, and
abusive treatment. This raises the question:
Was Zimbardo consciously or unconsciously
attempting to replicate a concentration camp
environment in addition to a prison? Given
that Zimbardo was an educated social
psychologist whose primary interest was
darker human behavior, it seems unlikely he
was unaware of these similarities.
Not many people know TSPE wasn’t
entirely Zimbardo’s original idea.
Researcher Thibault Le Texier uncovered
that a smaller-scale version of the SPE,
known as the Toyon Hall Experiment, was
conducted just four months earlier by David
Jaffe, an undergraduate student of
50

Munn - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2025). Vol. 7(1), pp. 50-54.

Zimbardo’s. As part of a class assignment
for Zimbardo, Jaffe and the other students
were given several topics to choose from,
one of which was about prison life. He chose
this topic and carried out the experiment in
his dormitory over a weekend with six
guards and six prisoners. The results showed
that, after some mild resistance, the
prisoners became submissive to the guard’s
authority except for one female prisoner
who fought the orders. It could be argued
that since she was female, she felt safe from
experiencing the same level of abuse that the
rest of the prisoners were experiencing.
Zimbardo was reportedly intrigued by
Jaffe’s findings and decided to expand on to
Jaffe’s idea, which lead to the SPE. Since
Zimbardo was a well-respected professor
and psychologist, he would have access to
funding and could create a more realistic
mock prison. Interestingly, Jaffe also
participated in the SPE, playing the role of
the warden (Le Texier, 2019). This is
relevant to issues with the methodology
because assigning Jaffe as the warden raises
significant concerns about the credibility of
the experiment. Jaffe had prior knowledge
and expectations about the experiment,
having conducted a similar study
beforehand. This prior involvement may
suggest that the abusive actions of the
guards were not only situational, as the
study claimed to demonstrate, but were
potentially influenced by Jaffe’s presence
and input. His prior understanding of the
dynamics and potential outcomes may have
shaped or reinforced the behavior of the
guards, especially since he was warden.
While reading TLE, it becomes clear that
Zimbardo was too involved in the
experiment. He was frequently consulting
with the guards and even making them
believe they were not part of the study.
Zimbardo recounts praising a guard after he
was particularly harsh toward the prisoners,

saying, “Right on. Way to go!” (Zimbardo,
2007, p. 45). This is troubling as it’s clear
positive reinforcement for the behavior
Zimbardo seemed to encourage. Although
it's unclear how often reinforcement was
used in the experiment, it's possible that
even a single instance could have
significantly influenced the results, as it may
have made the guards more aware of the
expectations and the behavior Zimbardo was
seeking. Another example of Zimbardo's
excessive involvement is his decision to give
himself the title of superintendent. This not
only made it clear to participants where
which side he was on, but it also placed him
in the highest level of authority (Zimbardo,
2007). In Milgram’s obedience experiment,
the results showed that people tend to
conform and obey requests from perceived
authority figures (McLeod, 2024). Given
that Zimbardo was both the experimenter
and perceived as the highest authority, it’s
likely that participants were more likely to
conform to his expectations, especially if
reinforcement was being applied.
Another problem with the methodology
of the SPE is how participants were selected,
as well as the participants themselves. It can
be known from reading TLE that the SPE
did not use a random sample that would
accurately represent a prison population.
The only thing that was random was the coin
toss used to determine whether participants
would be assigned the roles of guards or
prisoners. Except for one Asian participant,
all the participants were white college
students The lack of diversity is unrealistic
because a real prison would have individuals
of all races. Since they were all college
students, they were also likely close in age,
which is another flaw. Prisons have
individuals of all ages, so this is not a
realistic representation. In terms of age, the
participants were likely between 19-25 years
old, as most were college students. A study
51

Munn - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2025). Vol. 7(1), pp. 50-54.

found that men aged 15-25 have the highest
levels of aggression, with aggression
peaking around age 25 (Kim et al., 2008).
While the exact ages of the participants are
not known, it can be assumed that most were
within this age range. Keeping in mind the
study by Kim et al., we know that this age
group typically has the most aggression,
which could explain some of the aggressive
behavior seen in the experiment.
Participants being paid $15 per day (Le
Texier, 2019) can be seen as another issue
with the methodology, especially when
considering the time period. In the 1970s,
$15 was a decent amount of money, and for
college students, it may have been especially
appealing. Students are less financially
stable and the money being offered to
participate could help them buy groceries,
textbooks or aid in paying bills. This
payment could have made participants more
likely to stay in the experiment, even if they
wanted to leave. It’s been revealed that
participants believed they would only
receive payment at the end of the
experiment, which could have led them to
think that dropping out would mean
forfeiting their compensation (Le Texier,
2019). This financial aspect of TSPE could
have encouraged the participants to stay,
even if they were feeling distressed.
2. Ethics
This section of the essay will discuss the
horrendous events that transpired during the
SPE to support the argument that the
experiment was fundamentally unethical.
Morals were nearly non-existent throughout
the study and its questionable how the
experiment was not rejected by the ethics
committee. From the very beginning, there
was a lack of preparation and care. For
instance, Zimbardo writes in TLE about the
first day of the study, where prisoners were

not given lunch simply because he forgot
(Zimbardo, 2007). This reflects his
irresponsibility and unpreparedness at the
very beginning of the experiment.
Additionally, in order to participate, the
students assigned as prisoners had to agree
to inhumane terms, such as not having
access to their medications or eyeglasses
(Zimbardo,2007) It’s possible that these
terms were only agreed to because of the
financial compensation being offered,
highlighting another ethical issue regarding
informed consent. Participants may have
prioritized money over their personal wellbeing, which could have pressured them into
agreeing to conditions they might not have
otherwise accepted. In TLE, Zimbardo
recounts how one prisoner had to leave the
experiment after developing a severe rash
that required medical treatment. This raises
the question of whether this participant was
supposed to be taking daily medication and
if his health was compromised due to the
lack of access to it.
The mock cells where prisoners were
kept lacked basic human necessities. The
cells did not include essential facilities such
as toilets, and only one cell had a sink to
access to water. This sink, was under the
control of the guards, allowing them to
restrict access at will (Zimbardo, 2007).
Denying participants access to drinking
water violates a basic human right and
shows the unethical nature of the
experiment. The limited accesses to water is
even more troubling when considering the
excessive physical exercises forced on the
prisoners as punishments. These exercises
likely increased the need for hydration, and
the lack of available water could have put
the participants at severe risk of dehydration.
Punishments in the SPE varied
significantly in severity, with physical
exercise surprisingly being the least extreme
method. One of the most degrading incidents
52

Munn - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2025). Vol. 7(1), pp. 50-54.

mentioned in TLE involved a guard, named
"Hellman," who ordered prisoners to play a
degrading game of leapfrog. The prisoners
that were only dressed in smocks without
underwear, were ordered to leap over each
other, exposing their genitals during the
process The dehumanization escalated when
Hellmann ordered only two prisoners to
continue the game and mocked them by
saying, "That’s the way dogs do it. Isn’t it?...
Why don’t you make like a dog?"
(Zimbardo, 2007, p.120). This incident is
deeply troubling as it enters the realm of
sexual abuse. Sexual abuse can be defined as
“when a person knowingly causes another
person to engage in a sex act by threatening
or placing the other person in fear” (National
Sexual Violence Resource Center, n.d.). The
guards ordering of the prisoners to engage in
this degrading act, combined with their
position of authority and the prisoners fear
of further punishments, aligns with this
definition. The experience of sexual abuse
often leaves long-lasting psychological
scars, contributing to conditions such as
depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD). Zimbardo’s decision
to allow events in TSPE to escalate to a level
that could be classified as sexual abuse
represents a severe breach of trust and
ethical responsibility. By failing to intervene
and prevent such dehumanizing acts,
Zimbardo not only compromised the wellbeing of the participants but also violated
ethical standards that guide psychological
research.
3. Conclusion
The Stanford Prison Experiment received
too much praise from the psychological field
after its publication. The widespread
response to its findings made the experiment
infamous, and it continues to be widely
discussed today. However, given its deeply

flawed methodology and severe ethical
violations, it can be argued that this
experiment should no longer be taught to
students or included in textbooks, except as
an example of what not to do. Zimbardo’s
active involvement in the study went well
beyond simply overseeing it. His significant
bias of what he believed would happen
directly influenced the behaviors of both
guards and prisoners. The main guard (Jaffe)
already had expectations of the experiment's
outcome, and the lack of diversity in the
participant selection further undermines the
study's scientific validity, as it failed to
reflect a realistic prison population.
Furthermore, Zimbardo’s neglected the oath
to do no harm, by allowing excessive abuse
to escalate unchecked, highlights his failure
to respect basic ethical standards. The
prisoners were deprived of basic human
rights, including access to toilets and water,
and were subjected to severe psychological
harm, including sexual abuse. The disregard
for ethical guidelines, alongside a
questionable methodology, means the
Stanford Prison Experiment should no
longer be revered in the field of psychology,
and its involvement in academic textbooks
should be reconsidered.
References
Arrival at camp – The Holocaust Explained:
Designed for schools. (1923, November
9).
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/th
e-camps/ss-concentration-campsystem/arrival-at-camp
Kim, H. K., Laurent, H. K., Capaldi, D. M.,
& Feingold, A. (2008). Men’s Aggression
Toward Women: A 10‐Year panel study.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5),
1169–1187.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17413737.2008.00558.x
53

Munn - J Camosun Psyc Res. (2025). Vol. 7(1), pp. 50-54.

McLeod, S. (2024). Stanley Milgram Shock
Experiment. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgr
am.html
National Sexual Violence Resource Center.
(n.d.). Let’s Talk: Definitions of terms.
Retrieved from
https://www.nsvrc.org/lets-talkcampus/definitions-of-terms

Le Texier, T. & Université de Nice Sophia
Antipolis. (2019). Debunking the
Stanford prison experiment. American
Psychologist, 1.
https://www.letexier.org/IMG/pdf/LeTexi
er_Debunking-the-SPE_AmericanPsychologist_2019.pdf
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The lucifer effect.
Random House.

54