Russell T. Warne ๐บ๐ธ๐จ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฑ on X
๐งต
I finished reading Thibault Le Texier's book, Investigating the Stanford
Prison Experiment: History of a Lie. This is the most thorough
treatment of the real history behind the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Buckle up for a doozy of a thread! ⬇️๐
After reading the book, it's hard to deny that Zimbardo lied
about almost every aspect of the study at some point in the 53 years he
lived after conducting it. Some of the most inexcusable lies include:
➡️Saying that 5 "prisoners" left the experiment early for mental health reasons. In reality, only 2-3 did. In fact, one left because the dry air and denial of access to his medication was causing problems with his eczema.
➡️Zimbardo's then-girlfriend (later wife) was NOT the cause of the study ending. In Zimbardo's telling, she visits on Day 6 and is horrified about what's happening and convinces him to stop the study. In reality, she had visited earlier, participated in a fake parole board, and was aware of what was happening in the study before it ended.
➡️No, the "guards" did not all turn sadistic. In fact, most were reluctant about embracing their role, and the day shift guards were actually pretty lenient about rules.
➡️The experiment did not get increasingly intense with each passing day.
➡️The guards' behavior was not spontaneous. They were coached, multiple times, about how to behave. They were given suggestions for punishments, and they did not invent the prison rules.
➡️Saying that 5 "prisoners" left the experiment early for mental health reasons. In reality, only 2-3 did. In fact, one left because the dry air and denial of access to his medication was causing problems with his eczema.
➡️Zimbardo's then-girlfriend (later wife) was NOT the cause of the study ending. In Zimbardo's telling, she visits on Day 6 and is horrified about what's happening and convinces him to stop the study. In reality, she had visited earlier, participated in a fake parole board, and was aware of what was happening in the study before it ended.
➡️No, the "guards" did not all turn sadistic. In fact, most were reluctant about embracing their role, and the day shift guards were actually pretty lenient about rules.
➡️The experiment did not get increasingly intense with each passing day.
➡️The guards' behavior was not spontaneous. They were coached, multiple times, about how to behave. They were given suggestions for punishments, and they did not invent the prison rules.
There are also lies of omissions, in which Zimbardo never or
rarely mentions important aspects of the study which undermined his
narrative:
➡️Zimbardo did not come up with the experiment himself. Some of his undergraduate students did a smaller version of it a few months early as a class project. He almost never credited them.
➡️The guards were misled into believing that they were part of the experimental team. They thought the study was only about prisoner behavior. As a result, the guards did not "lose themselves" in a role by being placed in a fake prison. They never thought of themselves as real guards.
➡️The participants were not all "good" or "normal" young men with no history of misconduct. Some had a history of a petty crime, drug use, social dysfunction, etc.
➡️Contrary to claims that participants treated the experiment as if it were real, both prisoners and guards were constantly aware that they were in an experiment and that they were not REALLY prisoners and guards. No one consistently "lost himself" in his "role."
➡️Variability was the rule in the SPE, not the exception. For decades, Zimbardo portrayed all the prisoners as becoming rebellious and then broken as the guards become authoritarian and cruel. In reality, some prisoners had good relationships with some guards. The day shift was "businesslike," and some prisoners or guards were saw the situation as a weird temporary job, whereas others desperately wanted out.
➡️Zimbardo did not come up with the experiment himself. Some of his undergraduate students did a smaller version of it a few months early as a class project. He almost never credited them.
➡️The guards were misled into believing that they were part of the experimental team. They thought the study was only about prisoner behavior. As a result, the guards did not "lose themselves" in a role by being placed in a fake prison. They never thought of themselves as real guards.
➡️The participants were not all "good" or "normal" young men with no history of misconduct. Some had a history of a petty crime, drug use, social dysfunction, etc.
➡️Contrary to claims that participants treated the experiment as if it were real, both prisoners and guards were constantly aware that they were in an experiment and that they were not REALLY prisoners and guards. No one consistently "lost himself" in his "role."
➡️Variability was the rule in the SPE, not the exception. For decades, Zimbardo portrayed all the prisoners as becoming rebellious and then broken as the guards become authoritarian and cruel. In reality, some prisoners had good relationships with some guards. The day shift was "businesslike," and some prisoners or guards were saw the situation as a weird temporary job, whereas others desperately wanted out.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was simply bad science. There are
so many flaws that it cannot reveal anything about human behavior. In
the past I called it "performance art." Reading Le Texier's book
reinforced that view.
➡️The protocols were erratic, changed often (and haphazardly). Almost nothing in the Stanford Prison Experiment was systematic.
➡️Data collection was irregular, resulting in sloppy data. In the months and years after the experiment, Zimbardo's assistants and students warned him that the data were hard to interpret. He ignored them all.
➡️Zimbardo started the study with a predetermined goal in mind. He published a press release on the second day of the study, touting its results(!). He testified to Congress and gave dozens of interviews before he had even analyzed his data.
➡️The demand characteristics must have been overwhelming--especially for the guards, who were coached in their behavior. Everyone knew (or had a pretty good idea) of the purpose of the study and what Zimbardo wanted to see. There was almost constant supervision from Zimbardo and his assistants.
➡️The protocols were erratic, changed often (and haphazardly). Almost nothing in the Stanford Prison Experiment was systematic.
➡️Data collection was irregular, resulting in sloppy data. In the months and years after the experiment, Zimbardo's assistants and students warned him that the data were hard to interpret. He ignored them all.
➡️Zimbardo started the study with a predetermined goal in mind. He published a press release on the second day of the study, touting its results(!). He testified to Congress and gave dozens of interviews before he had even analyzed his data.
➡️The demand characteristics must have been overwhelming--especially for the guards, who were coached in their behavior. Everyone knew (or had a pretty good idea) of the purpose of the study and what Zimbardo wanted to see. There was almost constant supervision from Zimbardo and his assistants.
The conditions only superficially resembled a real prison. This has two consequences:
1⃣Running this experiment was sometimes cruel and definitely unethical (even by the standards of the time)
2⃣The Stanford Prison Experiment does not tell us anything about the effects of real imprisonment.
Among the conditions that were worse than those of a real American prison were:
➡️Prisoner uniforms were gowns worn without underwear, which sometimes exposed prisoners' genitals
➡️Conditions were unsanitary. Bathroom access was severely limited. At night, prisoners had to urinate and defecate in a bucket. Sometimes prisoners even had to clean out the buckets with their bare hands. The prisoners were worried about disease.
➡️The prisoners could not shower and were only allowed to shave or have a sponge bath if outside visitors were expected.
➡️The prisoners had no access to fresh air or exercise
➡️Access to recreation was almost zero. Books were taken away, and prisoners were not allowed to have any personal effects or mementos.
➡️The "parole board" was a total sham that had no power to release prisoners early.
➡️Prisoners wore chains almost constantly, which caused discomfort and injury.
For Zimbardo, the lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment was that potential for cruelty and evil lurks inside everyone, and the right (or wrong) situation could let out that inner monster. I think Zimbardo thought this message resonated because he actually did do cruel things to other people. The conclusion that everyone had evil inside them probably greatly assuaged Zimbardo's guilt. Sorry, Phil. You and I are not the same.
1⃣Running this experiment was sometimes cruel and definitely unethical (even by the standards of the time)
2⃣The Stanford Prison Experiment does not tell us anything about the effects of real imprisonment.
Among the conditions that were worse than those of a real American prison were:
➡️Prisoner uniforms were gowns worn without underwear, which sometimes exposed prisoners' genitals
➡️Conditions were unsanitary. Bathroom access was severely limited. At night, prisoners had to urinate and defecate in a bucket. Sometimes prisoners even had to clean out the buckets with their bare hands. The prisoners were worried about disease.
➡️The prisoners could not shower and were only allowed to shave or have a sponge bath if outside visitors were expected.
➡️The prisoners had no access to fresh air or exercise
➡️Access to recreation was almost zero. Books were taken away, and prisoners were not allowed to have any personal effects or mementos.
➡️The "parole board" was a total sham that had no power to release prisoners early.
➡️Prisoners wore chains almost constantly, which caused discomfort and injury.
For Zimbardo, the lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment was that potential for cruelty and evil lurks inside everyone, and the right (or wrong) situation could let out that inner monster. I think Zimbardo thought this message resonated because he actually did do cruel things to other people. The conclusion that everyone had evil inside them probably greatly assuaged Zimbardo's guilt. Sorry, Phil. You and I are not the same.
The book joins other recent works that question Zimbardo's
narrative about the Stanford Prison Experiment. For example, last fall,
Disney+ and Hulu released a documentary about it that took a
distinctively skeptical tone about the study and Zimbardo's conclusions.
The skepticism about the Stanford Prison Experiment started when Le
Texier published the French edition of his book, and an American
journalist summed up the conclusions in an article in Medium in 2018.
Zimbardo spent the last 8 years of his life defending the study, and I
understand why: Nothing else Zimbardo did in his career was as
impactful, memorable, or infamous as the SPE. If the SPE is debunked,
then Zimbardo is no longer a luminary... he's another run-of-the-mill
researcher who published some articles.
The SPE really does overshadow everything else in Zimbardo's career, and
he had a good run for 53 years, riding its wave of popularity. But,
fundamentally, Zimbardo was a one-hit wonder. That's why I got a kick
out of this quote in the book: "And Zimbardo's Twitter feed sometimes
reminds one of those rock stars who released a cult song in their youth
and continue to tour 40 years later, simply because the public still
enjoys listening to that song."
The only deficiency in Le Texier's book is that it doesn't fully explain
why the study was ended on Day 6. Clearly, Zimbardo's story of his
then-girlfriend persuading him to end it isn't true. Nor is the claim
that the study was growing increasingly dangerous.
Le Texier states, "My hypothesis is rather that Zimbardo interrupted the experiment because he was exhausted, had obtained the results he wanted and Clay Ramsay's hunger strike was challenging the authority of the guards. He probably also feared the legal complications that the lawyer could create . . ." (p. 102). But he doesn't know for sure.
Le Texier states, "My hypothesis is rather that Zimbardo interrupted the experiment because he was exhausted, had obtained the results he wanted and Clay Ramsay's hunger strike was challenging the authority of the guards. He probably also feared the legal complications that the lawyer could create . . ." (p. 102). But he doesn't know for sure.
I
think the lawyer's visit is a stronger reason than Le Texier implies.
On Day 4, a Catholic priest visits the "prison." He contacts the mother
of a prison and urges her to call her nephew (the prisoner's cousin),
who is a lawyer. On Day 5, the lawyer makes an appointment to visit the
following day. After the visit, the study suddenly ends.
Le Texier never states what happened during the lawyer's visit, and there is no record of explicit legal threats. But Zimbardo had denied access to a lawyer to a different prisoner. He could have been sued and possibly criminally charged with false imprisonment for his behavior (which would have been deliciously ironic).
Le Texier never states what happened during the lawyer's visit, and there is no record of explicit legal threats. But Zimbardo had denied access to a lawyer to a different prisoner. He could have been sued and possibly criminally charged with false imprisonment for his behavior (which would have been deliciously ironic).
So, I highly recommend the book. There are a lot of details
about Zimbardo, the study, and its aftermath that I didn't know before.
Zimbardo thought that his study revealed disturbing universal truths
about the human condition. Instead, it teaches the most about him.
