By Prashant Iyer

Today, the name Stanford identifies one of the most prestigious universities standing that has been around for over a century. From former presidents of the United States like Herbert Hoover, to technological entrepreneurs like Bill Hewlett and David Packard, it has seen a colorful assortment of influential personalities that have gone on to do great things. But behind this veil of achievement lies a series of dark and disturbing events few would believe to have been possible in the almighty Stanford University. Among these, the story of a social-psychological experiment gone wrong in a prison is a particularly interesting one.

In August 1971, Philip Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, wanted to investigate the psychology behind power by simulating a prison with a handful of prisoners and guards played by students from his psychology class, with an undergraduate research assistant of his playing the role of a warden, and himself playing the role of superintendent. The official website of this experiment stated that “we wanted to see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard.” Few at the time could have seen the infamy that would today be associated with the phrase: the Stanford Prison Experiment.

A group of twenty-four male volunteers who were determined to be psychologically stable and healthy were offered the modern equivalent of $95 a day to participate in what they were told would be a psychology experiment for a period of one to two weeks. The basement of the psychology building at the university was chosen as the location of the experiment. It was fitted with a number of cells for each prisoner, containing only a cot, where prisoners were kept twenty-four hours a day. Guards were supplied with batons, military clothing and mirrored sunglasses (to prevent eye contact with the prisoners), while prisoners were assigned a number to identify by, and were given uncomfortable and ill-fitting clothing, with a compulsory chain around their ankles.

On the second day of the experiment, prisoners in one of the cells blockaded their cell door with their beds and took off parts of their clothing, refusing to leave their cells when ordered by the guards. In order to deal with this revolt, guards from other shifts had to be brought in, and began physically attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers. In order to prevent further such occurrences, the guards set up a ‘privilege cell’ in which prisoners would be treated with rewards such as better meals than what the others were given. This cell was only gifted to those prisoners that did not take part in the revolt.

At the end of the second day, one of the prisoners began to act, as Zimbardo himself described it, “crazy”. Identified as number 8612, the prisoner began to scream, shout profanities and display fits of anger that suggested that he was losing his mind. After the guards were convinced that this wasn’t a pretence, but a sign of genuine suffering, the prisoner was released from the experiment.

More crude punishments employed by the guards to exert their authority involved the prisoners’ sanitation and comfort. They were given a bucket to urinate and defecate in their cells, but if the prisoners did not comply with the guards, this bucket was taken away from them. The prisoners were given mattresses to sleep on, but these were taken away, leaving the prisoners concrete to sleep on if they did not do as the guards ordered. Some were even forced to forfeit their clothes as punishment.

…it had exemplified that a very minor proportion of the human population is capable of fairly treating the power it is granted, with an overwhelming majority falling susceptible to the temptations created by it…

After six days since its commencement, the experiment was halted. While Zimbardo argued that it had demonstrated that both the prisoners and the guards had internalized their roles, with over a third of the guards expressing genuine sadistic behaviour, others disagree with whether the experiment had any positive turnouts at all. For one, it highlighted the desire that exists in humans for power, since while the guards were well aware that the experiment was only just an experiment involving ‘prisoners’ who were really just college students, they continued to make full use of their positions under the pretext of bettering the experiment’s results for Zimbardo. For another, it had exemplified that a very minor proportion of the human population is capable of fairly treating the power it is granted, with an overwhelming majority falling susceptible to the temptations created by it, becoming abusive, and in the case of this experiment, ruthlessly cruel. Whether these conclusions justify the horrors that the prisoners were forced to undergo, we may never know, but the Stanford Prison Experiment lives in our memories as a constant reminder of what power can do to those who hold it, as well as to those subjected to it.