Another look at the Stanford Prison Experiment
With a recent interest in kindness at work, two recent scholarly articles about cruelty caught my attention. These articles claim that power does not necessarily dramatically corrupt people as much as some earlier research indicated.
Recent discussions about a classic research study – the Stanford Prison Experiment – suggest that situations might not cause cruelty as easily as once believed.
What was the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)?
Every student in Psychology 101 studied the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). In 1971, Philip Zimbardo created a prison scenario in a basement of a Stanford University building. 24 male student volunteers were assigned to be either prisoners or prison guards.
The results were shocking. The student guards quickly turned to repressive and cruel tactics against the student prisoners. Violence escalated so quickly that the two-week study was stopped after six days.
Can a situation cause cruelty?
Researchers hailed the study as proof that humans turn to cruelty when they have power over others. Zimbardo claimed that the randomly chosen guards took on the cruel, power hungry mantle without any prompting or interference from the researchers.
This implied a terrifying proposition that a situation, like being assigned as a guard instead of a prisoner, could cause cruel and violent behavior in anyone.
Issues with the study
Although widely taught and discussed, serious issues have been raised concerning the study. Later research has not been able to replicate the results – which suggests issues with the study design. The study also raises some serious ethical issues and would not likely be approved today.
Some psychologists question both the methodology and the findings. The October 2019 issue of American Psychologist contained two articles that provided alternative interpretations of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE).
Identity Leadership and cruelty
In their article ‘Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership n the Stanford Prison Experiment‘, Alexander Haslam, Stephen Reicher and Jay Van Bavel revisited the data from the study and questioned the findings.
In addition to poking holes in the scientific method, they also pointed to identity leadership as the cause for the cruel behavior rather than the situation.
Reviewing the archival data, they found that the guards did not take on the cruel mentality on their own. Actually, the researchers strongly steered the guards into taking on a cruel and repressive approach.
The researchers created an identity of cruel guards
Haslam, Reicher and Bavel concluded that the guards responded to the directions from the researchers instead of the situation. This invoked a form of identity leadership.
The student guards took on a role of guard. The researchers gave directions that they should act as cruel guards and created an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ identity. The researchers set cruel expectations and goals for the ‘us-group’ of guards and put identity leadership into play.
The researchers coerced the student guards into the cruel behavior instead of the situation creating it.
Demand characteristics and cruelty
A second paper shared similar criticism with a focus on demand characteristics. Thibault Le Texier called ‘Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment‘ criticized the method and the findings after diving deep into the archives and interviewing participants.
He focused on the belief that the student guards knew the intent of the study and worked to meet the goal. The researchers trained them to respond in certain ways and gave clear instructions.
Typically, researchers try to stay out of study scenario, because they can bias results (Hawthorne Effect). When study participants change their behavior to meet the expectations of the study, they are responding to demand characteristics.
Take-aways
Good research requires rigor and guidelines in order to produce valid results.
Although the results of this study remain controversial, these alternative explanations offer some hope and direction.
Leaders set the culture for the group or organization – and that culture can be cruel or kind.
What type of culture have you created?
Research Information
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 809-822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000443
- S. Alexander Haslam, The University of Queensland
- Stephen D. Reicher, University of St Andrews
- Jay J. Van Bavel, New York University
Le Texier, Thibault (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, Vol 74(7), 823-83.
- Thibault Le Texier, Universite de Nice Sophia Antipolis
