Talk:Stanford prison experiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ethics

Should there be more discussion of the reasons it was considered unethical? I learned about this in a weekend course, and the instructor quoted some arguments I hadn't thought about. Rachel 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

0.5 nom

This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of 416

What exactly does the picture of Prisoner 416 show? I can't make it out at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spe-deloused.jpg

A person with a bag (box?) over his head, holding both hands against a wall (he's facing right); the picture title would indicate he is being deloused. Raul654 10:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Abuse

Reading the article implies, somewhat indirectly but without any real clarification, that the abusive tactics of the guards arose from the guards, and argues that they thus came from the "situation" that the guards and prisoners were put into. Much of the analysis of the experiment comes directly with the description of facts, in the form of "the experimenters argued..." However, if you take a look at the articles crossreferenced at the bottom (specifically, the "Lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment" and "Stuationist Ethics" articles), you get a very different view of the entire experiment, in which the organizers of the experiment are blamed much more for bringing the abusive ideas to the guards' minds. In this case, the prison feels much more like the [Milgram Experiment] than some novel "descent into brutality" experiment that it is frequently seen as.

So the question: is the article NPOV? Is saying "they argued that..." good enough to imply that there are significant (and well researched, the Slate article referenced extensively) criticisms of the experiment's conclusions? I think the article needs a good bit of re-writing and some inclusion of point by point argumentation in the experiment results section. In this case, the objective facts of the experiment do not seem clear and should not be presented as such.

Apologies for any Wiki mistakes, I don't edit here often.

--192.35.35.35 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Alex Baxter

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: I would also work on converting the "Popular culture" reference into a prose format, instead of bullet points. Agne 23:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Contract/etc.

Were the volunteers contractually obliged/etc. to stay for the entire two weeks? I'm assuming so, based on the 'parole' offer, but I'm not sure. Zetetic Apparatchik 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they weren't. According to Zimbardo's report, they could have left at any time, and would simply not recieve the $15.00 per day compensation. Several of the "prisoners" did this after a few days, because of the psychological stress, before the "parole" factor was introduced.~e.o.t.d~ 08:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Novelization?

Does anyone else remember a book about a high school classroom situation/experiment in which some were made to wear arm bands and hall passes were strictly controlled (or something) and it was all related to Nazis (or something)? There was a book in my childhood library that, knowing what I know now, seems to be very much based on the Stanford Prison Experiment. jengod 01:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I saw the movie based on the book - I believe it was called "The Wave." Not sure if the book had the same title but a google search should tell you pretty quickly. Very good movie and really makes one think!

It was "The Third Wave". There was a TV movie based on it, and a condensed version appeared in The Whole Earth Catalog, circa 1980.

I recently (within the last year or so) read an article on CNN.com about a school that actually did that. You should be able to do a search and find it. ONUnicorn 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the book was also just called *The Wave* (or they changed the name). I found it at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Wave-Laurel-Leaf-Books/dp/0440993717/sr=8-1/qid=1169694733/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8861222-8165501?ie=UTF8&s=books), and according to that site it's based on actual events in 1969 at a Palo Alto High School. KathL 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

"It was a variation of the Milgram experiment" - while both are often used in psychological discussion as examples of poor ethics and questionable risk/benefit ratio experiements, the two are not similar in many ways beyond the obvious ethical problems present in both and the acquiantanship of the two researchers. The Stanford Prison Experiment was not meant to be a continuation or follow-up to Milgram's work, and this line should be removed. 69.118.247.101 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling

it may not have the best 'style' but i wonder of the subject matter allows for a 'better style.' is this tag still needed? the article is certainly easy to follow and i've seen worse articles without this tag. El hombre de haha 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

hypothesis of experiment

So, the article says: "Zimbardo and his team intended to test the hypothesis that prison guards and convicts were self-selecting of a certain disposition that would naturally lead to poor conditions". What the heck does the guards and prisoners were self selecting of a certain disposition etc. mean? The parcipitants were certainly not self selecting. They were assigned roles by the experimenter. Is this really a clumsy way of saying that the hypothesis was that the subjects would pick up attitudes that would lead to poor conditions? Pdarley

I believe that the hypothesis is meant to refer to prison guards and convicts in real life being self-selecting and so that the experiment should have produced a less violent outcome. People have to choose to be criminals and prison guards in real life as opposed to the experiment. The study is purported to have found the opposite, that in a high pressure situation there will always be conflict between those in control and those not in control. Knightw 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where this would go on the talk page, but two things:

1. "The Third Wave" is a phenomenon that occurred in a Palo Alto high school when teaching them about World War 2. The SPE was an experiment held in the basement of Stanford's psychology building. The two are utterly unrelated.
2. There is a new book out by the SPE's PI, Zimbardo. It's called The Lucifer Effect and goes into a day-by-day recounting of the entire experiment, and should be looked at. I'm not enough of a Wikipedian to actually mess with the article itself.

Saraid 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

at the start of veronica mars (season 3) the had a episode which was similar to this, shoulfit be mentioned like the big brother episode/task 59.167.214.31 03:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) / peachey88(sorry im not logged in)

This isn't a trivia section, it's a references section. Why is it marked as a trivia section? --Perryar 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 39 for "stanford prison" "" "kid nation" "". (0.12 seconds)

< http://google.as/search?q=%22stanford+prison%22+%22%22+%22kid+nation%22+%22%22 >.

Thirty-nine results comparing Stanford prison to Kid Nation.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming - capitals?

Shouldn't the article title be capitalized? Strikes me it's the proper name of an event, or at least has come to be regarded as such. Deiz talk 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the term "sadism"

This article repeatedly misuses the term "sadism" to refer to what might be more correctly termed cruelty. Sadism is a sexual paraphilia. 195.33.105.17 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly "sadism" was the word used by the experimenter, Philip Zimbardo? Subdolous (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people misuse the term "sadism" in that way. So the question is, did Zimbardo really suggest that the guard's progressive cruelty was sexual in nature - or did he use the term sadism in its nonsexual sense? I agree that cruelty and sexual sadism are separate phenomena - a military drill instructor or prison ward may enjoy exercising power and cruelty in an emotional but nonsexual way. Such a person is often wrongly called a sadist - wrongly, because he is not a sadist in any sexual, paraphilic sense. If Zimbardo did not mean sexual sadism, we should change the wording and not link to articles such as sadism and masochism. If he meant sexual sadism, what led him to this conclusion? --84.155.225.124 11:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the Stanford Prison Experiment the prisoners were sexually abused, so I would say sadism is appropriate, along with the use of the word by Zimbardo himself. It's probably better to unlink the words to the sadism article, which I will do now, but I don't think the wording itself is inappropriate. Subdolous 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While the prison experiment is over, Stanford's apparently employing a similar method on other subjects, often without their consent and INDEFINITELY. A fake conservator is assigned and the patient gets no money, though the program can have devastating effects socially, emotionally, physically, and financially. Leave me AlOnE, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.24.139 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

now who let you out to use the computer?? GET BACK IN THE CAGE. nothing to see here...

Long Term Effects

I studied this particular experiment in a psych class at university. We watched "Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment", and I noticed that there is no mention of any long term effect on the experiment on the participants, yet the movie claims that any trauma was short term, the participants, both prisoners and gaurds, both reverted back to normal behaviour afterwards and regarded the experiment as an overall positive and educating experiment in regards to learning about themselves. I noticed this article is somewhat ambiguous or down right lacking in this regard. (129.97.253.181 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

Questions of Legality

Just looking at what went on, was there any police investigation into the experiment to see if any laws had been broken. By the sound of it, quite a number by the prison guards?

Did anyone ever get sued over this experiment?

Stickings90 (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the appropriate section in Philip Zimbardo's book the Lucifer effect and the answer was that there was no law suit. in 1973 the experiment was referred to the ethic committe of Stanford University and it was cleared.

Stickings90 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

how many on each side.

there's one very significant piece of information lacking i'm really curious about. 24 people...does that mean 12 guards and 12 prisoners or, say, 8 guards and 16 prisoners... anyone know?· Lygophile has spoken 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"graduate student Zimbardo was dating"

This untrue statement was improperly inserted so I had to remove it. Zimbardo was not "dating" the student.DHCpepper (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Prisoner #819 was not the student Zimbardo was dating. The incident with prisoner #819 is detailed on Zimbardo's own site, but it does not make clear that that was the moment when he decided to stop the experiment. Other document make clear that what prompted Zimbardo to stop the experiment was being confronted by Christina Maslach (NOT prisoner #819) who he was dating at the time. Zimbardo is completely truthful in the account on his website, but he also slants things to make himself appear as less of a villain. I've included a reference on the page. Astarf (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes 1998 episode

Didn't 60 Minutes interview several of the particpants of the experiment in 1998? If I remember correctly, the guards that were interviewed admitted several things that pokes holes in the results of the experiment. First, they all admitted that they were not given any rules. Second, many of the guards admitted that they saw Cool Hand Luke and intentionally mimicked the guards in the movie. The idea of the mirrored sunglasses actually came from "John Wayne" because he thought it looked cool in the movie Cool Hand Luke and it helped him get into the role of the warden in the movie. Also, I believe they also admitted that if they had not seen the movie Cool Hand Luke, the experiment probably would have turned out differently. Does anyone else remember this episode of 60 Minutes from 1998? LegitReality

There may well be info on this on the CBS news website, though I'm not sure how long they keep things around. Anyway, it's worth taking a look, try http://www.cbsnews.com Cgingold 22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the film anywhere would love to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.61.242 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Androcentrism

There was a line that read, "Also, the sample selection only contained males, meaning that the sample was androcentric and thus exhibited a marked lack of representativeness." Considering prison inmates are divided based upon gender, and guards are typically male, this statement is worthless. While it would be fair to say that the normative sampling limits the external reliability regarding female prisons, it is representative of the majority of prison populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.190.134 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

"Finally, the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Lacking peer-review, it is difficult to interpret the meaningfulness of the results."

Hello? I don't get this. If Erich Fromm isn't a peer-level psychologist who is reviewing the experiment then who is? How could this study be said to be lacking in peer-review simply because it wasn't published in a peer-review journal? --99.23.76.63 (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review refers to a particular formal process —EqualRights (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What were the consequences of leaving experiment?

Could participants leave prison whenever they wanted? If so, did they have to suffer consequences of their resignation? For example in reality shows participants sign contracts and they have to pay fortune for leaving. (excuse my English)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

They in theory could, but one of the earlier prisoners managed to convinve the others they could not leave.

Stickings90 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How did he do that? 78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Results section: Lack of citations

Why does the results section not cite any sources?--Anthonzi (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Question: Does this article by Carlos Prescott have any relevance? http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=17075&repository=0001_article

Are the additions by MK (questioning Zimbardo's methodology, starting with "It can be argued...") appropriate for the article, or are they an example of the kind of editorializing that should generally be avoided? It struck me as rather tangential to the main article body. --141.20.103.68 10:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

There are obviously different interpretations possible. One interpretation was already included in the article before I edited it. As there are other possible interpretations, I think they should be presented. All of the facts I used in what I wrote came directly from Professor Zimbardo's own reports. MK 21:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's more NPOV to say "Some have argued that" or "critics contend that" followed by criticism from actual relevant authorities. There's no shortage of criticism of the experiment from relevant authorities, so there's no excuse not to use it and cite where it's coming from.

This site is about reporting specific facts, not hypothetical conjectures like "It can be argued"

--Taak 00:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Note: This article contains a few misguided facts. A few of them I list here:

• The abuse was not initiated by Zimbardo himself, as the article suggested. It was initiated by the guards. Zimbardo, also played no part in the abuse. Although there were many times he overlooked the activities undertaken within the prison.

• Zimbardo did not take an overly active role in the experiment. He had both roles of psychologist, and Prision Superintendant. Although he admits he should not have taken on this dual role, because he did indeed become absorbed into it.

• It is also worth noting that the participants underwent "Normality Screening" to establish their stability. It is written that they were checked for normality, but this was the phrase used.

• It should also be noted that everyone was paid for the whole 14 days, despite the experiment being called off after the 6th day.

---

Should we be linking to Abu Ghraib? Is it at all relevant to this article? →Raul654 23:40, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was similar... a bunch of soldiers were made prison guards with no training in that area, left to their own devices with no guidelines and no supervision, and ended up humiliating the prisoners to absurdity. Seemed like a pretty clear-cut example of what happened in the SPE to me. --Taak 03:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but put that instead of "see also" and letting the reader guess what the relevance is. Btw - just so you know, 'see also' is depricated. →Raul654 03:27, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

where does it say that? --Taak 14:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm also curious, Raul. "See also" is of course second-best to working the applicable reference into the article text, but are you saying that in situations where that's not appropriate, there's something other than "See also" which should be used? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's entirely applicable.

It applies to any situation where one human is strongly screwed up in control of another, or groups respectively thereof. Examples abound, particularly in situations where force or significant coersion can be applied by the party in charge without reasonable fear or assumption of punishment for their actions. Usual examples are: Police vs. Suspect (police generally are given immense powers, such as to recommend charges be filed, have the authority to legally use deadly force with less justification than the layman, act without asking questions, and let a prosecutor sort out the issues), Prison Guard vs. Convict.

Less extreme examples would be Judge vs. Defendant in a criminal trial (Judge has full jurisdiction to act in his courtroom, relief may only be found after a punishment immediately begins), Large corporation with (pragmatically) unlimited assets suing an individual (the normal kind, not a rich one), or a Professor vs. Student (the professor can deny reasonable grades, good job references, other opportunities), and Boss vs. Worker (the boss can fire a worker for any reason, particularly in an "Employment at will" area).

--JD 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is applicable because in Zimbardo's most recent publication about the Stanford prison experiment he devotes several chapters to comparing the experiment to other similar atrocities. It helps make the subject matter more understandable. Furthermore, in the Abu Ghraib trials, Zimbardo was called upon as an expert witness to explain the psychology that goes into exploiting ones power and abusing prisoners when a person is put in a position to do so. --Stephanienox (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

---

just a short question. am i allowed to use this images in the german wiki? thank you --84.168.195.244 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Representativeness

Also on the representativeness question, I don't see how picking subjects with no "psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities" makes the sample representative. It seems to me that the general population, let alone the behind-bars population, are not entirely free of psychologycal/medical issues. As for crime history, I hope that people who go to prison DO have a crime history, otherwise the case for putting them in jail is not that solid. So I would argue that chosing subjects with no "psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities" is actually what makes the sample NOT representative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.186.241 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

→ The purpose of the experiment was "to understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations" (per http://www.prisonexp.org/faq.htm), and thus any underlying factors in the participants' mental history-- including having the experience of being in jail-- would have introduced either sample bias, or confounded results. I do agree, however, that the article could be more clear on this point. 152.13.207.243 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Multimedia Section: Das Experiment

German movie Das Experiment is made on this experiment. Can someone add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.220.138 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the "Goals and Methods" section, it is said that those who played the guards were chosen for this role, while those who were in the role of prisoners did not:

The participants who had been chosen to play the part of prisoners were told simply to wait in their homes to be "called" on the day the experiment began. Without any other warning, they were "charged" with armed robbery and arrested by the actual Palo Alto police department, who cooperated in this part of the experiment.

The prisoners were put through a full booking procedure by the police, including fingerprinting, having their mug shots taken, and information regarding their Miranda rights. They were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched, deloused, and given their new identities.

As far as I can see, the above information means that the "prisoners" thought they actually had been arrested. They may not have connected being told they would "be "called"", with their arrest, if it was done convincingly as above. However, in the "Results" section, we see the following:

Zimbardo argued that the prisoner participants had internalized their roles, based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even with the attached condition of forfeiting all of their experiment-participation pay. Yet, when their parole applications were all denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment.

This implies that the "prisoners" were there by choice.

Which was it? Were these people there by choice, or did they think it was real? I find the former hard to believe, otherwise WHY THE F**K didn't they just walk out?

WikiReaderer 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's another contradiction. The opening paragraph of the article reads:

"Twenty four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The students who were assigned to be the prisoners were paid $15 dollars a day as an incentive."

However, the "Goals and Methods" section states that:

"Participants were recruited via a newspaper ad and offered $15 a day ($77 adjusted for inflation in 2008) to participate in a two-week "prison simulation." Of the 75 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class."

Which one was it? --Lareine (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Zimbardo's book just says "about a hundred men" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89Jane (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Prison Experiment starring Jesse Eisenberg

The 'In multimedia' section states that a movie is in production based on this, starring, amongst others, Jesse Eisenberg and Keiran Culkin. It's not sourced, and it's not mentioned on his Wikipedia page. It is on IMDb, but one of this information-less IMDb-Pro movies. Is there any evidence or sources for this? All I can find is some not very trustworthy sites mentioning it as an upcoming project for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishHobo (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

General Principles

It is a grave error to think that an experiment will reveal a 'general principle'. A truly 'general principle' can be revealed by any activity or event in life - real life. The truth of any explanation of an event should be judged against a general series of events rather than one individual isolated event.

Too often isolated explanations are given for events which only explain that particular event rather than trying to get to the fundamental understanding which caused that event. In most cases the explanation of human behaviour is the simple one - HUMAN NATURE and not any isolated EXCUSE - ie the usual explanation is that the person is acting UNUSUALLY - brought on by some outside force rather than the simple explanation - it is natural.

Or to put it another way: why conduct an experiment to discover an explanation of human behaviour when we have a few thousand years of actual real life? General principles controlling human behaviour do not change over time.

See http://homepage.eircom.net/~utinstinct1/index.htm

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Alexroller (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancies?

Perticipants: This section seems mostly redundant; the only new information was the period of time they were signed on for and the pay per day. which appears uncited.

Same for the last paragraph of "Results". Entirely redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.214.169 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't any good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.173.40 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed quite redundant. I went ahead and copy-edited it, and I'll try and delete the repeated points of information. -Anagogist (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Significant changes needed

Hi. I have just made some quick factual corrections to the article. Giving it a quick read through, I do notice that there are some significant problems with the article, which should probably be addressed. I'm new to Wikipedia, so as soon as I figure out how to add references, I'll go through the article and try to clean it up a bit. TheAwesomeHat (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Underwear

The article states "Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming prisoners, not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. " I don't know what policies are generally true for prisons but some jails do forbid prisoners to wear the underwear they have on at the time of entry if it is any color but white. They aren't given a replacement and are hence forced to not wear underwear during their stay in jail. Chuck Baggett (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Study, not experiment

I studied psychology for a year and suggest calling it -- like some text books -- The Stanford prison study , as it was not really an "experiment" in the scientific sense, e.g. there was no control group. (I know most call it The Stanford prison experiment, including its homepage.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.19.187.20 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point! However, if this is known as experiment and even called so on its homepage, we should keep the name as it is - even though it may very well be incorrect. WP:TITLES states: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think a reasonably strong argument could be made that the random allocation of participants to either ‘guards’ or ‘prisoners’ was an experimental manipulation. This is not to say that the subsequent analysis always stayed faithful to that comparison. Just that the study design sufficiently resembles an experiment to grant it that title (or at least not stress out about people calling it an experiment). Cheers all Andrew (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone is interested, a new Wikiproject concerning prisons, jails and detantion areas has been proposed here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP is already that project... Basket _Feudalist 20:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Biases

I believe that part of the "Biases" section should focus on the fact that Zimbardo only picked adult white males for his "prison guards". How do we know how this experiment applies to women, or even different race men? This also means that the experiment was not double-blind, which is one of the best measures of validity in psychology. Anyone who is reading this article and is not well-versed in psychology should not accept this experiment at face value, and putting out some of the more obvious problems with it will help with that. --Alwayssearching2012 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Textbooks

This edit removed material from the article regarding textbook coverage of the study which leaves the current version in a WP:SYNTH status. One source is not enough to make a blanket statement, nor is there any reason for removing the accurate paraphrasing of that source.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Two kinds of pork. I definitely don't see the synthesis that you suggest is present here, but there are certainly other issues. My reverts were an effort to not let this coverage of a single, somewhat tangential, study distract from the rest of the section. Really, my preference at this stage is to see that sentence removed completely. At first glance it looks like a nice contextualizing statement for the section, but unfortunately it also implies a foregone conclusion that the criticism of the SPE's methodology is equally, or even more important, than the SPE itself. This subtext can't be justified on the basis of the source given, and to my knowledge there isn't strong consensus on that point among social psychologists. What do other editors think? Is there some sympathy for removal here? Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not this "textbook" issue is used is a besides the point. In the current form the use of the source is drawing conclusions in Wikipedia's voice that is poorly supported. The SPE is a classic study in psych 101, and it certainly bears mentions somewhere in the article. Do we need to mention that the textbooks adequately (or not) criticise the methodology?. I don't know.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Two kinds of pork. It seems like there are two issues here. One is the accurate use of the reference in the article. The other is the value of the content full stop. I am mainly concerned about the latter, but I think I can see where you are coming from on the former. Am I correct to think that you would be happy if we simply add a prefix along the lines of... "In a 2014 sample of introductory psychology text books it was found that..."? Or is there something else that you think needs to be added? I will leave the topic of deleting the sentence until other editors have had a chance to comment. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess there are two issues. However just because you fail to see the value of the content, IMO, does not justify the reversions when the content added by myself and others made which accurately toned down the bold statement being made that most textbooks failed to address the criticism of the SPE. Your suggested wording is akin to what we already made. Is the content helpful? I'd be happier if we addressed the fact that the SPE is often used as a notable subject in psychology education. Perhaps a better source can be found which mentions this and can be moved to a different section of the article, as it probably doesn't belong in criticism. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Two kinds of pork. My revision was in an effort to keep the content in question appropriately concise. My concern was that the more lengthy summary created too much of a distraction from the actual section topic: the criticisms of the SPE. Does that make sense? Although now it seems like we are on the same page. Are you happy for me to insert a more pithy qualification?

As for the omnipresence of the SPE in psychological education more generally, that is probably a third issue. If you want to talk about improving the coverage in the article of that reality then I would suggest we start a new conversation. Here I think it is better to stick to the accurate portrayal of the source, as well as the appropriateness of that framing sentence. In terms of the latter, do you have anything more to add there? Or should we wait to see if other editors chime in on that topic? Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of being bold and removed the text from the criticism section, but used the source (and an addition) to a new sentence in the beginning of the lead. Hope that works for you. Thanks.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that certainly resolves my concern about unjustified framing of the criticism section. It does, of course, almost reverse the message of the content, which might start a whole other discussion with the anon user who introduced it originally. Probably not though based on his or her contribution history. Overall, thanks for the edit and also for talking it through over here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Block quotes in criticism section

The block quotes in the criticism section added here seem very WP:UNDUE to me. Compared to the rest of the article, they make the criticism section massive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I restored one of the quotes. My restoration is much shorter than the original. However, I disagree that it is undue. This experiment has attracted a great deal of criticism for its poor ethics and experimental design. In fact, it's quite rare (and notable) to find an experiment that is so widely criticized by the participants themselves. At this point one could easily make the case that, within the psychology community, the criticism of the experiment is far more significant than the experiment itself. It is quite straightforward to find articles representing this criticism. I suggest that, if it's felt that this draws attention from the article itself, then it's possible the criticism itself deserves a separate article (linked here), rather than outright deletion. Ian Henty Holmes (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ian. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Graduate Student Researcher Craig Haney

Dr. Craig Haney, now an expert on prison reform, was the graduate student who approached Zimbardo with a lot of the groundwork ideas for the experiment. I feel like he should be noted somewhere within the article for his part in the experiment as well as the continued research and writing about prison psychology (Death Penalty morality, criminal justice system reforms, the effects of solitary confinement, and more...) that he has continued on in the 40 years since (he's authored Reforming Punishment and Death by Design). Why Dr. Haney doesn't have his own wikipedia page is a little bit of a travesty within itself, but to really give credit to a great mind who played a huge part in the experiment, Craig Haney and Curtis Banks both deserve to be mentioned as more than just "members of Zimbardo's team.

http://psychology.ucsc.edu/faculty/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=psylaw http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20141017/ucsc-professor-honored-for-prison-research http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/health/solitary-confinement-mental-illness.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.138.22 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stanford prison experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150120225935/http://www.zimbardo.com:80/downloads/ to http://www.zimbardo.com/downloads

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Copying of text wholesale

The introductory paragraphs of this page are an almost verbatim copy of the description on the Stanford Prison Experiment Documentary website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PM Primula (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, then someone should figure out who copied whom using History tab and the Internet Archive to see who had it first. If the website had it first, then see instructions at WP:COPYVIO. In the meantime, the article is tagged with {{copypaste}}. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Question reguarding the Stanford Prison Expirement

Does UCSC do or is planning on repeating the Stanford prison study?

Probably not because it's based off a lie! https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/14/17464516/stanford-prison-experiment-audio

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.208.192 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC) 

critical article

https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62

This makes a bunch of interesting criticisms of the experiment, and claims various inconsistencies in later descriptions. I haven't read it all yet but am posting the link in case it's useful. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this subject, however I just came across this article which contains views that may be relevant for this page.

Resnick, Brian. “The Stanford Prison Experiment Was Massively Influential. We Just Learned It Was a Fraud” Vox, 13 June 2018.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added a "Controversy" section to document this and also incorporated past claims. Please feel free to expand or elaborate on this. Barbarossa139 (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Zimbardo rebuttal: [1]. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that this is RS if one can verify that the author is effectively Zimbardo, based on the notion that an author is RS even if the venue is not RS. Hence it should be linked to in the text as "Zimbardo's rebuttal".Limit-theorem (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Motivation/purpose of the experiment?

Re. the motivation/purpose of the experiment, the article only says, without citation, Goals and methods Zimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior in prison.

I conjecture that they may have been motivated to demonstrate and gather empirical evidence re. the thesis of The Authoritarian Personality, to test if nature or environment is determinative. (I.e., under the right conditions, will most/all people become tyrants?)

If anyone knows of such a connection, please add it to the article. Phantom in ca (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, the Wiki article on Zimbardo has a section on the Stanford Experiment that looks like it hasn't been revised to reflect the new revelations re. it.

Philip Zimbardo#Stanford prison study

If someone qualified has some time to edit that section of that article, it would be helpful to Wiki readers. Phantom in ca (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Quote from Brian Dunning

Citation needed comment I removed

Writer Brian Dunning noted that "Most of the Stanford guards did not exhibit any cruel or unusual behavior, often being friendly and doing favors for the prisoners".[citation needed]

I found the source of this comment.[2] It is the author's weekly podcast, not a fact-checked news source that would qualify as WP:RS for what happened in 1971. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

German newspaper article reports scientific criticism of SPE

Because of recent findings: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/psychologie-das-wichtigste-gefaengnis-experiment-steht-unter-betrugsverdacht-1.4043674

--APS^talk 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The article you cite does not name any reputable scientist calling the SPE a "scam," but instead links to an article signed by many scientists urging people to debate openly but civilly, and reconsider issues that have been raised, as part of the common effort of science to uncover truth. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Update request added to article

Is there something new in July beyond the recently (June 2018) publicized recordings that have been publicly available on the experiment website for many years? The talk page would be a good place to mention any WP:RS that this article should include. The recent Cosmos article looks interesting.[3]HouseOfChange (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This article would benefit from a more balanced treatment of the experiment and the critics of this experiment. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Natureium (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Natureium, I made this comment on July 12, and since then I and others have been working to improve the article's NPOV status. If you look at the article as it was on July 12, you can see what I was worried about. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Standford Prison Experiment Was Hoax

User HouseOfChange is trying to cover up the fact that this experiment was a hoax by reverting the change which stated that it was. Please change this back to say it's a hoax.

I'm not going to go back and forth with this user, but we'll eventually realize that this is junk science and ought to be labeled as such. An article like this is doing too much damage to human knowledge.

Here's what I said to HouseOfChange:

It was clearly a hoax which was basically admitted by the author himself.

The results failed to replicate. The "subjects" were coached. The main character who had a "break down" admitted that he was acting and was not emotionally broken like the results said it was.

This is dictionary hoax, and I'm confused why don't think so.

I gave notes on why it's a hoax, and I'd prefer if you responded.

Perhaps I'm mistaken?

https://ascienceenthusiast.com/the-famous-stanford-prison-experiment-was-a-hoax/

"But according to a recent article written by Ben Blume, the experiment itself was a lie. Ben obtained previously unreleased recordings of the psychologist who ran the Stanford study, and interviewed participants of the study. Ben states that the guards were coached to be cruel to the prisoners." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItalianRake (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not user HouseOfChange. This is an encyclopedia and we react to statements with caution, representing a neutral point of view. While the whole experiment seems methodologically flawed, it it better to wait a bit before posting accusations of the sort. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

From Merriam Webster, a hoax is "an act intended to trick or dupe" or "something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication." There is a difference between an intentional "hoax", "fraud", "lie", or "scam", and a scientist's research project whose methods and interpretation have been disputed. I don't know of any WP:RS reporting that guards were coached to be "cruel" and the blogpost cited is very far from WP:RS. By making this article clear, NPOV, and informative, we can let readers decide for themselves how honest (or not) the researchers were, and how valuable (or not) their interpretation of their work was. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you need for this to be proven a fraud? What standard of evidence will you accept if you won't accept evidence from many of the participants who said it was fake? If this experiment is not fake then there is no such thing as a fake experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItalianRake (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also a tape where those involved in fixing it confessed: "Once the simulation got underway, Jaffe explicitly corrected guards who weren’t acting tough enough, fostering exactly the pathological behavior that Zimbardo would later claim had arisen organically.

“The guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a tough guard,” Jaffe told one such guard [skip to 8:35]. “[H]opefully what will come out of this study is some very serious recommendations for reform… so that we can get on the media and into the press with it, and say ‘Now look at what this is really about.’ … [T]ry and react as you picture the pigs reacting.”"

https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItalianRake (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The primary author of the experiment does not even deny it's a hoax anymore:

“It’s got a life of its own now. If he wants to say it was all a hoax, that’s up to him.”

https://pickle.nine.com.au/2018/06/15/17/30/stanford-prison-experiment-faked-say-people-involved

I think not putting this as a hoax is doing the historic record an injustice:

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/07/01/was-the-stanford-prison-experiment-a-sham-a-qa-with-the-writer-who-exposed-the-celebrated-study

"So I went back to Zimbardo's book and began mapping it out. I was shocked to discover a whole other story of the experiment lying just under the surface of the rhetorical devices that Zimbardo has been using for a long time to obscure it.

And then I gradually began reaching out to former subjects, finding that their accounts supported this alternate narrative. Many of them were quite upset with the use that Zimbardo had made of their story. They felt their experiences had been misrepresented over the years.

It all kind of snowballed from there for me." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItalianRake (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we try to provide clear, factual information, even about controversial topics. The article already contains information about the Weber tape, which the Zimbardo team preserved and made available online. I also think it is already clear from the article that ugly behavior by some of the guards was encouraged, enabled, and tolerated by the experimenters. You are mistaken if you think it will somehow "right a great wrong" to put this article into the same category as articles about fur-bearing trout or the "disappearing blonde gene." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How do you determine what is and is not a hoax? What standard could I apply to figure this out?

Thanks for this time on this matter. Love and respect to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItalianRake (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the difference between a hoax and a mistake, or even a misrepresentation of experiment results, is that a hoax is planned by a hoaxer to be deceptive. Nevertheless, I would urge you, if you are interested in this topic and want to make a contribution to the article: find NPOV articles about it in reliable sources like NYT or Atlantic and add information that you consider relevant to the article.

To give a relevant example, if I wanted Wikipedia to make the case that Donald Trump had been compromised by Putin, the best way for me to do it would be to add factual, reliably source material demonstrating that to the article. The best way would NOT be for me to put DT's article in category "Traitors." That might make my fellow-partisans cheer and giggle, but (even if it was not quickly reverted), making that claim would convince not one person to share my opinion. Factual statements do more good work than abuse does. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Coaching of guards"

A recent edit by Spious [4] adds some relevant material, but unfortunately also removes original WP:RS citation and replaces it with a primary source from the Stanford prison experiment team. In my opinion, the article has room for both sources, but the complex matter should be presented in balanced NPOV way. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

another criticism link

[5] Has some citations to further info. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sudent volunteers?

In several places, the article implies that all the study participants were students. However, I don't believe that this was actually the case. College-age males were recruited in the Palo Alto area, but the volunteers accepted into the study were not required to be students. And most of those who were students were certainly not from Stanford, as is sometimes claimed, but rather were attendees at other institutions who were back home in Palo Alto for the summer break. I'd like to go through the article and reword it to address this issue where appropriate. Any thoughts? jxm (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Stanford Prison Experiment Article

I am a practicing clinical therapist and concerned by the term "fraud" in article on Stanford Prison Experiment article. It looks like this word was recently inserted after an article by Brian Resnick who is a science writer who termed this (and other psychology experiments) as fraudulent. This is a strong word and I'll agree this experiment had some flaws but it was nearly 50 years ago and we've made improvements. The experiment was able to take deeper risks and it did reveal that even random volunteers were capable of sadistic behavior under the right conditions. Denying this creates more disillusionment and blocks the potential for healing and growth. In my practice, I work with clients in understanding and integrating shadow energies. This is especially relevant in these times in regards to systemic racism and police mistreatment of people of color. In conclusion, I feel The word "fraud" invalidates the lesson of this experiment and should be removed. Thank you so much Rickemf (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Rickemf

I agree that the word "fraud" (or in this context perhaps scientific misconduct) is not descriptive of this experiment. While Dr. Zimbardo seems to have underreported important aspects of the experiment, such as the quantity and quality of coaching that the "guards" received, there does not seem to be evidence of falsification or fabrication of materials. Dr. Zimbardo's choice to withhold some materials (such as ) until 2011 may have been because of a personal bias. However, it would be far-fetched to classify that as fraud, especially when assessed against the scientific standards of the 70s. It doesn't seem justified to keep the word "fraud" in the lead section. It could be added elsewhere in the article that the Vox journalist Brian Resnick has called it "fraud"[6].Qtea (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Brian Resnick is described on Vox as 'a science reporter at Vox.com, covering social and behavioral sciences, space, medicine, the environment, and anything that makes you think "whoa that's cool."' His use of the word 'fraud' is just one more example of journalistic hyperbole to dramatize a situation, and the article should certainly not be referenced ahead of American Psychologist. Indeed, it is not even worthy of inclusion as a source when there are much better professional sources addressing the issues with the experiment. I have deleted it. Blurryman (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

April 6 2021 Zimbardo lecture on SPE

To the co-author’s, editors and page watcher of this article on SP: Impressive article!

As part of the 50th anniversary of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Stanford is hosting an interview with Philip_Zimbardo. On 6 April at 4pm Pacific time (12am UTC): Stanford-prison-experiment-50-years-later-conversation-philip-zimbardo-virtual-event

I’ve been working with Zim for years and would delighted to include you if you have an interest. I’d also love to collaborate with you to get you the additional source materials we’ve got from his work. Who’s currently interested in improving the article? I have Conflict of Imterest so can’t edit directly, but I’m also not a paid publish - I’m just enthusiastic about improving articles like this! DrMel (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Zimbardo’s responses to critiques

I work with Dr Zimbardo, and recognize that I have a conflict of interest editing this article directly. He has written this detailed response to the critiques of his SPE and I offered to post it here on the Talk Page - to discuss with you, other editors, to determine how we can make the article as high quality as possible. Zim is also available for questions and can help us identify missing sources.

In looking at his text below, I recognize Wikipedia articles do not include phrasing or content like this unless it’s published elsewhere. I’m not sure where else he’s posted this yet, and will check back. My big Q to you, whomever is reading this, is this: could you take a look at what he’s written below and determine whether and how we can use any of the elements?

Quality of the article with consistent NPOV is the goal. This is an unconventional way to update an article, I know, so thank you in advance for your time considering possibilities. DrMel (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted)

(Shared here per Zimbardo’s request by DrMel (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC))

DrMel, I have removed the content you added because it seemed to be copied directly from a website, which does not appear to be appropriately licensed. You can link to that website, but you can't copy the content over here. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help to correct errors asap

The Stanford Prison Experiment happened 50 years ago. This article might be included in Wikipedia front page “On This Day” section - but it has errors needing cleanup in order to be suitable.

I work with Zimbardo, and have a conflict of interest in editing directly. I’m also disabled - using an iPad for access, which makes wiki editing a real struggle.

Is there someone watching this page who could help make the needed changes?

For example: the experiment started Sunday, August 15, 1971 with the arrests of the prisoners, and was ended on the sixth day, Friday, August 20. It appears to be mistakenly listed as 8/14-20 or 8/15-21 in many online references, but both are 7 days, and the details on prisonexp.org describe how Day 1 started on Sunday, and Zimbardo ended the experiment on the 6th day.

Thanks for any reply! DrMel (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)