Philip Zimbardo’s legendary 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most well-known, and notorious, research experiments in recent history.
It has been the subject of countless books, TV episodes and podcasts – and now Netflix is turning it into a reality TV series.
But what was the Stanford Prison Experiment, really? A dive into psychology and cruelty? Or a flawed power trip? And is transforming this infamous event into a reality show tempting fate?
A rundown of Stanford University’s most well-known study
Zimbardo was a psychologist at Stanford University who specialised in environmental psychology, social influences and personality traits.
In 1971, Zimbardo and his team transformed the Stanford University Psychology Building basement into a makeshift prison. He sought to study how prison environments, labels and dehumanisation can impact how regular people treat each other.
The study recruited 24 college-aged men, assigning each participant to be either a “prisoner” or a “guard” via a coin flip.
The guards were given matching uniforms meant to symbolise power, anonymity and identity. The guards also sat down with the researchers for an orientation into how they needed to behave. They were informed to maintain an environment of law and order, to create a sense of powerlessness, but not to be cruel.
Meanwhile, the prisoners were unexpectedly arrested by Palo Alto police. They were booked, fingerprinted and strip-searched. They were assigned their own uniforms which symbolised dehumanisation, humiliation and helplessness.
In Zimbardo’s own narrative of the event, he consistently presents himself as the leader of the guards, the “super-intendent”, not an impartial researcher.
The study was designed to last 14 days. But after multiple emotional and psychotic breakdowns, cruel and collective punishment by the guards, expressions of concern by parents, and multiple critical and appalling reviews by other professors within the department over how the environment had changed everyone – Zimbardo included – the study was terminated after just six days.
A legacy
The experiment has become well-known when discussing environmental impact on human interaction.
Zimbardo’s findings and reflections suggested situational and environmental causes can drive people to adopt criminal, cruel or just vastly different personas from their everyday lives.
Yet, to other researchers, it has become controversial and many have fully dismissed it as unscientific and unethical due to the researcher’s influencing of the guards’ behaviours and biases, a phenomena referred to in experiments as “demand characteristics”.
Subsequent studies have expressed how the experiment cannot be used to discuss how the environment shapes human interaction. Instead, researchers suggest the initial orientation and the role of the researcher’s leadership played a role in influencing the guards’ behaviour, not the environment.
In Zimbardo’s 1973 ethical reflection of the study, he discusses the philosophical implications of the experiment and justified it based on its outcomes, findings and potential impact.
Yet, Zimbardo’s study was one of many in the 1960s and ‘70s that led to a push for greater protection for participants in research. While there had been some progress in the years before the experiment, the American National Research Act of 1974 set forth the expectations for protection of research participants. This mandated what we understand and refer to as ethics approval today.
Stanford University accepts this experiment would never be allowed to happen today.
Legal responsibility and duty of care
Law enforcement and prison guards are expected, by nature of their jobs, to be tough. But these jobs require more than just muscle and bravado. These careers require observational skills, delicate decision making, legal knowledge, self-control, and yes, physical confrontation.
But these individuals are specially trained for these positions. They require extensive preparation and education, have a system of oversight and transparency, can be openly investigated, and are accountable for their actions. They have to maintain the lawful authority placed upon them and control and maintain those under their supervision, but also while providing care.
By balancing lawful authority and the power of their position, they must prioritise the health, wellbeing and support of the individuals for which they are responsible.
While law enforcement and corrections officers do commit violations, they have to answer for them.
Netflix’s shady new show
Netflix is billing its new series as a “modern reimagining” of the 1971 experiment, where 30 people will enter a “real prison” for two weeks.
There are many questions we need to be asking about the ethics of recreating this experiment in a reality show format. How are contestants and producers going to be held responsible? What oversight are they going to have? What authority? And more importantly, who are they?
And given the expectation of this experiment, the publicity and pressure accompanying reality TV, and the nature of people who participate in reality shows, often referred to as self-selection bias, what should we expect from the participants? Will the new “guards” and “wardens” fare any better than Zimbardo?
This show will be copying one of the most notorious breaches of duty of care in research.
With one of the world’s largest streaming services producing this show, it raises important questions about what exactly we remember about the study and what we expect from our media.
Equally important, we should question our willingness to consume it.
By Noah D. Cohen, Associate Lecturer, Associate Degree in Applied Policing, Western Sydney University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Featured image Duke Downey/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images, provided by The Conversation. 
from ScienceBlogs - Where the world discusses science https://ift.tt/23zeSXL
Philip Zimbardo’s legendary 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most well-known, and notorious, research experiments in recent history.
It has been the subject of countless books, TV episodes and podcasts – and now Netflix is turning it into a reality TV series.
But what was the Stanford Prison Experiment, really? A dive into psychology and cruelty? Or a flawed power trip? And is transforming this infamous event into a reality show tempting fate?
A rundown of Stanford University’s most well-known study
Zimbardo was a psychologist at Stanford University who specialised in environmental psychology, social influences and personality traits.
In 1971, Zimbardo and his team transformed the Stanford University Psychology Building basement into a makeshift prison. He sought to study how prison environments, labels and dehumanisation can impact how regular people treat each other.
The study recruited 24 college-aged men, assigning each participant to be either a “prisoner” or a “guard” via a coin flip.
The guards were given matching uniforms meant to symbolise power, anonymity and identity. The guards also sat down with the researchers for an orientation into how they needed to behave. They were informed to maintain an environment of law and order, to create a sense of powerlessness, but not to be cruel.
Meanwhile, the prisoners were unexpectedly arrested by Palo Alto police. They were booked, fingerprinted and strip-searched. They were assigned their own uniforms which symbolised dehumanisation, humiliation and helplessness.
In Zimbardo’s own narrative of the event, he consistently presents himself as the leader of the guards, the “super-intendent”, not an impartial researcher.
The study was designed to last 14 days. But after multiple emotional and psychotic breakdowns, cruel and collective punishment by the guards, expressions of concern by parents, and multiple critical and appalling reviews by other professors within the department over how the environment had changed everyone – Zimbardo included – the study was terminated after just six days.
A legacy
The experiment has become well-known when discussing environmental impact on human interaction.
Zimbardo’s findings and reflections suggested situational and environmental causes can drive people to adopt criminal, cruel or just vastly different personas from their everyday lives.
Yet, to other researchers, it has become controversial and many have fully dismissed it as unscientific and unethical due to the researcher’s influencing of the guards’ behaviours and biases, a phenomena referred to in experiments as “demand characteristics”.
Subsequent studies have expressed how the experiment cannot be used to discuss how the environment shapes human interaction. Instead, researchers suggest the initial orientation and the role of the researcher’s leadership played a role in influencing the guards’ behaviour, not the environment.
In Zimbardo’s 1973 ethical reflection of the study, he discusses the philosophical implications of the experiment and justified it based on its outcomes, findings and potential impact.
Yet, Zimbardo’s study was one of many in the 1960s and ‘70s that led to a push for greater protection for participants in research. While there had been some progress in the years before the experiment, the American National Research Act of 1974 set forth the expectations for protection of research participants. This mandated what we understand and refer to as ethics approval today.
Stanford University accepts this experiment would never be allowed to happen today.
Legal responsibility and duty of care
Law enforcement and prison guards are expected, by nature of their jobs, to be tough. But these jobs require more than just muscle and bravado. These careers require observational skills, delicate decision making, legal knowledge, self-control, and yes, physical confrontation.
But these individuals are specially trained for these positions. They require extensive preparation and education, have a system of oversight and transparency, can be openly investigated, and are accountable for their actions. They have to maintain the lawful authority placed upon them and control and maintain those under their supervision, but also while providing care.
By balancing lawful authority and the power of their position, they must prioritise the health, wellbeing and support of the individuals for which they are responsible.
While law enforcement and corrections officers do commit violations, they have to answer for them.
Netflix’s shady new show
Netflix is billing its new series as a “modern reimagining” of the 1971 experiment, where 30 people will enter a “real prison” for two weeks.
There are many questions we need to be asking about the ethics of recreating this experiment in a reality show format. How are contestants and producers going to be held responsible? What oversight are they going to have? What authority? And more importantly, who are they?
And given the expectation of this experiment, the publicity and pressure accompanying reality TV, and the nature of people who participate in reality shows, often referred to as self-selection bias, what should we expect from the participants? Will the new “guards” and “wardens” fare any better than Zimbardo?
This show will be copying one of the most notorious breaches of duty of care in research.
With one of the world’s largest streaming services producing this show, it raises important questions about what exactly we remember about the study and what we expect from our media.
Equally important, we should question our willingness to consume it.
By Noah D. Cohen, Associate Lecturer, Associate Degree in Applied Policing, Western Sydney University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Featured image Duke Downey/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images, provided by The Conversation.
from ScienceBlogs - Where the world discusses science https://ift.tt/23zeSXL
