Books & Training Articles for Correctional Officers & Prison Workers: Final - The Stanford prison Experiment

Stanford Prison Experiment – Fake or Real?

– A purely conjectural perception

There is a lot of excitement going around on this movie inspired by what I believe to be a grossly misaligned or misconstrued research study when comparing its contents with today’s facts as they have evolved since the experiment was conducted. Certainly not an expert in the field of psychology, my main objection to this perception it is real is based on my twenty five (25) years of experience inside our jails and systems in the Southwest, specifically New Mexico and Arizona, who are culturally different from those east of the Mississippi River and similar to the California penal system with qualified exceptions in some areas.

Certainly, in my opinion, if the research team had taken the time to organize their facts a little bit better, the study would have acquired or attained a higher level of credibility rather than the mediocre level of attention it is receiving now because of the current media craze on our prison systems and its flaws. From my own personal expectations, it is with regret that this study fell short or authenticity as it would have and could have been a valuable tool in training and psychological awareness of our penal world as it existed then and now.

The entire lesson plan or script, whichever applies best, was based on the team participants or the professor’s own vision, cultural and political awareness or educational guesses, how prisoners are treated or mistreated by what he refers to as prison guards in charge of the supervision and management of a real prison setting. One must be cautious in translating such roles without the validity or evidence based procedures or conditions and thus any embossment of such dynamics, are either invalidated or false in actions and reactions.

In other words, it lacked the core values based on evidence gathered by various psychological profiles that impact the manner prisoners are evaluated and perceived by real guards or prison / jail administrators. You can’t pretend to engage in a role model behavioral unless you receive the same pre-existing conditions real trained guards receive during their tour of duty. This is based on the theory of approach determines response in human behaviors.

The Genesis –

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment nine (9) individuals who were staged to be arrested, booked, processed and imprisoned in a most orchestrated manner that rarely resembles reality in the manner it is done by those trained to do so. It lacked innovative and creativity from the start.

First, to begin with, this study is encapsulated with nine volunteers willing to subject themselves to the rigors of the mindgames played under the pretense of incarceration. This is the first key to the reality, nobody volunteers to go to jail or prison. At least no one in their right state of mind. Since the mind was at the core of this study, these actors should have been casted on the more “unwilling” side of the spectrum than volunteering for these roles. Making it mandatory would have imposed more anxiety and stress into the relationships and occurrences as they were planned or scripted to happen.

Second, the stage is bare and sterile. These players had no concept of the reality involved in running or managing a prison environment and did so on notions produced and projected for the sake of the outcome of the study, not reality or other variable that could have altered the outcome it the stage had been set right. Missing are the physical elements that makes jails and prisons despairing and filthy places to live or do time. These conditions play an important role on behaviors as it produces side effects of frustration, contaminated and communicable threats such as Hepatitis and often produces the negative subtleties that trigger negative responses to negative demands by those guards.

All nine actors were “arrested” on armed robbery and burglary charges. This taints the project from the beginning as these similar charges draw analogous inferences or cultural biases that do not cover the entire continuum of partialities if they had been charged with variable offenses such as murder, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual molestations etc. these offenses all carry with them institutional prejudices that impact supervision and management levels for those in charge to manage them. If one is to conduct a real study, then the participants should also cover the continuum of offenders incarcerated.

Prison is a melting pot of criminals. They are all incarcerated, all dressed the same and all taken care of in a similar manner but they all carry special needs towards effective supervision and communication skills to maintain a safe and orderly environment. In other words, compliance has to be attained using various effective forms of managing behaviors but has to take into consideration their willingness to comply or refuse verbal orders given by authority figures.

Conducting this experiment is an honorable and worthy event. I can’t deny the fact, it does serve a legitimate purpose in our study of human behaviors and our prison world cultural phenomena as they really exist. However, conducting this on a stage that is sterile in the usual biases, the usual influences and the grossly horrific negativities that such a dismal and ghastly place projects, does little justice to the reality of the study.

Had the professor, Philip George Zimbardo, a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University, done a little bit more of mental and physical preparation to set the stage accordingly, it could have reached epic proportions of credibility for others to benefit from. However, he overlooked the basic principles of the core values implemented in any correctional setting and failed to impose them at the right moments or places of this study to maximize the impact of how this treatment process could have been evolved and how revolution could have been created if it had done it with non-submissive actors.

It is a fact, all were prepared for the roles they were assigned to participate in this study. Quoting the words of a well versed writer, Maria Konnikova, a contributor to the New Yorker, the study consisted of “middle-class college students” who had previously answered a “questionnaire about their family backgrounds, physical- and mental-health histories, and social behavior, and had been deemed “normal.” Such a bold statement of finding nine (9) willing students who were normal defeats the psychological benefits of evaluating those who are either normal, below normal or exceeding mentally impaired.

There is no such class of inmates who are “normal” as they all carry with them their own psychological profiles which in turn develops into established cultural expectation of behaviors by the guards who stereotype, draw personal biases and impose discipline accordingly to their own profiles or perceptions of each offender. All these undercurrents work towards the compliance issues and is filled with pre-requisites on training and screening for being hired for such roles as prison guards.

Giving them no training voids their stereotyping based on cultural realities as they exist and draws on the imagination or pretention of motive rather than real-life situations inside our jails or prisons.

Artistic influences on hired prison guards differ from cultural influences of prison guards. This perception ranges from their own psychological profiles which is diverse and often include the educated and not so educated group of people selected for the job. Since this study was done back in the 1970’s with a remake in the millennium, these people projected to be guards, now evolved into correctional officers today, due to the evolution of their roles, training, experience prior to working as an officer e.g. college, military, blue collar or white collar occupations. This makes a major impact on treatment and supervisory methods used and performed for compliance of the rules. In other words, this changes the stage immensely and changes the outcome of respective behaviors or actions.

In this study, the selection between being a prisoner or a guard was based on a mere flip of the coin. A coin determined the roles played between what were perceived to be good guys versus bad guys. A real phenomena but rarely imitated or assimilated truthfully without some kind of preparation and study of real world dynamics. Facts play an important role here for the outcome – whether desired or not – it fabricates the dynamics of the stage.

Since the guards (actors) received no training, they began their ordeal of mistreatment and abuse based on their own myths and perceptions of what a prison guard does. A lore that has often been mislabeled and mischaracterized as Neanderthal in nature and accordingly, projected as guards with little training, education, instruction and how they imposed their personal will on those prisoners (actors) who were then humiliated and psychologically abused voluntarily and within a swift twenty four hours into the study’s start.

Putting this into perspective on today’s terms and realities, the evolution of corrections has rectified, satisfied and declared much of these earlier versions of brutalities and mindset changes to rest due to better judicial decisions since the 1970’s on constitutional rights, and prison living conditions of confinement that have been regulated and inserted into federal receiverships or consent decrees by the courts in various jurisdictions and authority bodies which regulate prison management.

Changes –

The stage was set and the plot was established without any basis for setting it up the way they did it except for their own findings and without empirical evidence injected into the equation to set a stage properly equipped in all aspect of the desired environment. A stage that was meant to last longer than the fourteen (14) days of engagement and actually completed after only six (6) days of performing or acting out those roles designated to provide findings for the study and pass them on as being real and behaviorally factual in content. It is true, the study reached a critical point where termination was mandated. The study had spiraled out of control.

The tryouts was doomed to fail when the stage was left empty and the actors had blank scripts which were based on empty findings of prison conditions fabricated from theory and other means. No auditions, no real scripts and no authentic technical advisors prompted failure from the start. Even had the study run its full course, the defective materials captured or capsulated by these actors were going to be tainted as the well was poisoned to begin with by the lack of preparation and studies involved in the diversity of the environment.

Changes that would impact activities, behaviors, thought patterns, abuses and neglects. A domino effect that could hardly be captured in a mere two (2) weeks, when in fact, the average length of time an inmate serves is closer to one (1) in jail and at least a minimum of two and a half (2 ½) years under various penal confinement levels and custody circumstances.

No stage would be sufficiently produced, created or impact the environment without first taking into consideration how the stage is set and who is in control of the environment as well as the political will of groups that vary in color, age, race and ethnicities. Aggravated circumstances that would have included race, overcrowding, social injustices, staff abuses, organizational stigmas and disproportional administrative punishments, nature of offense conflicts with other inmates and of course the propensity of violence either on themselves or the guards portrayed by ill prepared actors / students.

How the stage is set, the mindsets of the actors or participants changes with each different level of energy infused, rejected or forced into a conflicting situation where tempers, emotions and other discerning forces can change the direction or flow or energy anticipated or desired by the professor or his cast. Mindsets which under real prison conditions can be altered by the possession or use of mind altering substances such as heroin, meth, marijuana, prescription drugs and other illicit controlled substances banned and considered contraband under most rules of voluminous prison settings considered to be a standard in the prison industry.

This study was about change. It was intended to document human behavioral changes created or evolved under different circumstances. This was a focal point on human beings having the ability to adapt or cope with adversity. In addition to those forces, it also brought to light the world of compliance and non-compliance, otherwise listed as obedience psychology.

Divided among two groups, prisoner and guard, the world was made essentially into a black and white situation that is unreal in any setting. How anyone can accept this as a legitimate study is beyond my personal comprehension levels thus I chose to write about this study for such reasons.

These inadequate obedience studies were created to show how people, ordinary people, prompted, provoked or stimulated by a trigger by an authority figure, were willing to exhibit defiance or compliance when told what to do and either chose to comply or suffer the “painful and potentially” lethal and non-lethal capabilities of a system designed to shock you into compliance.

Lethal being those guards who are armed with guns and other lethal weapons and non-lethal for those carrying mace or chemical agents, batons, or other impact weapons to gain compliance including their hands and feet. Changes which can underscore human responses that may fluctuate when a different approach is used. Approach is defined to be verbal or physical in nature with the invested authority or power by such a person to impose their will on others. Approach may be singular or plural depending on the situational assessment of the event or activity.

The logic or rationale is the enforcement of institutional rules and regulations but by all means, this could include many other directives or motives given for such a direct order to comply even with unlawful directives. Approach also means whether the presence of force is lethal or non-lethal or in other terms, intimidating or non-intimidating to the prisoners who are subject to these orders.

So far, based on changing the stage settings, the Stanford experiment did not underscore or take into consideration these extreme but common environmental triggers. If seemed to focus more in a theatrical aspect of how people, “regular’ people would act if “given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors.” A fact that is based more on a desired predetermined outcome than a reality of most situations where the interactions have more variables or possibilities than a “yes” or “no” in the conflict or confrontation. In fact, since it is the guard’s first prerogative to avoid conflict, such escalations rarely occur on a routine basis.

There appears to be some connection between this study and the documentation of the extremely aggravated circumstances of Abu Ghraib. One cannot and should not connect the two as a “norm” since there were behaviors on both sides that are questionable and documented in an already sterile and yet, on the side of a different world and culture, a more volatile and brutal environment which was not the case on the Stanford experiment, which had no such dynamic working inside its cultural settings or expectations.

Comparing the two would be speculative that they are both the same setting and therefore, the behaviors are consistent with the study and research provided forty-five years earlier. Such a fallacy is easy to find and should be taken into consideration when comparing apples with oranges. However, focusing on the behaviors of the guards at Abu Ghraib, it was indeed, a travesty of justice; the epitome of American penal abuse and punishment towards a prison population which numbered thousands and that was involved in a war of terror and internal political strife in a civil war. Hardly nine (9) individuals arrested for armed robbery and burglary if you see the differences here.

Focusing on the Stanford experiment, the professor, the director and the cast attempt to cite it as evidence of “atavistic impulses.” They chose to use primitive as a means to impose punishment because the study lacked the ability to provide the most recent and best practices used inside jails and prisons at that time. Another gap that impacts credibility but needless to say, the focus was on these negative impulses that created regular people into “r.”

The fact is, we can all become tyrants if the conditions permit themselves to nurture such an environment. It isn’t that hard to attain if you know how to be a bully or otherwise inconsiderate person to the other persons’ dignity, respect and rights. This is what puzzles me so often as to why the Stanford experiment was done in such a fashion.

What did it accomplish and did it just confirm what we already knew. People can be brutal and cruel if allowed to be or given the authority to act that way? Certainly, we can read the history books and have a sufficient lesson learned there to avoid spending our time role playing prisoner –guard relationships for six (6) days.

So I agree with the writer, Maria Konnikova, who wrote, “The study has been haunted by ambiguity. Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior. Was the study about our individual fallibility, or about broken institutions?”

An interesting question as it may be universally applied to several recent prison disturbances where such brutalities were disclosed and demonstrated how “broken institutions” can impact public safety or incite riotous behaviors because of environmental conditions unaddressed and out of control.

Applying the findings of the Stanford experiment would not solve one problem inside today’s jails or prisons because it lacks credibility and evidence that such results were documented under legitimate research condition and controlled provocations. There is too much room for error in judgements and conclusions to nail it down to a certainty we could rely on as a reference material and evidentiary in nature.

The appeal of the study conforms to the appeal for a reality show on television. Turning a show like this into a reality episode likened to the “Orange is the New Black” series might peak the interest of the audience chosen for such reality shows, but not likely those who work in the profession.

I disagree the Stanford Experiment was conducted in a “heavy manipulated environment.” It does not even get close or resemble the realities of the level of manipulation present in a real jail or prison and should not be presented that way. The appeal was the setup, the stage and the actions of the players. However, there was no real value here because the environment was so out of control (the opposite of manipulated) and the research was so impulsive that the theories could not be applied in a credible or evidence-based presentation.

Whether these players were actors, students, prisoners or guards is totally irrelevant. They all acted outside the normal scopes of people trained to do this job. Role playing is far from real. Even if the script was real, the actions, mindset, emotional and psychological aspects of such staged events differ from the real thing. One can see how the study spiraled out of control so quickly as in a real setting, there are cultural and administrative parameters that are followed either by political means or peer pressure.

If their goal was to provoke thought, to deliver a message of brutality or oppression under the duress of being a prisoner under the supervision of a guard, they failed miserably because the authority, the setting and the entire plot was bogus from the beginning and adds nothing but a theatrical atmosphere to a brutal reality of real-life jails and prisons.

Adaptability –

Since the experiment had major flaws in its research and actual role playing, I can’t give it too much credit for being real, however, like any assimilation or prototype kind of project, it should not be completely rejected or ignored as it does contain some valuable insights on human behaviors that adds to the mystic of working or living inside a large jail or prison for a prolonged period of time. If it showed anything, it demonstrated change and adaptability capabilities of the human mind as well as behavioral patterns and how it changed personas to meet the need of being prisoner or guard.

Whether or not the environment added value to the dimensional world of the professor, remains to be seen but one can only speculate, if the setting or stage was more brutal, then their behaviors would have adapted accordingly and become more assertive, aggressive and likely inflict dominance qualities or traits in tyrannical behavioral patterns. I would encourage further studies with better “stage” setting capabilities and use real prisoners and correctional officers in the environment and imposing current or modern day training “best practices” into the scenes to give it a more realistic essence to test and learn human behaviors under stress and adverse confinement conditions which exist today.

Doing away with pre-set ideas or expectations would cause an adaption that can be more accurately reflected and documented as a real-world scenario with the associated risks assigned to each level of complicating the situations. In other words, heighten the stress levels, work or twist the housing assignments, declare more stringent environment controls that resemble real situations and see how the prisoners react and how the officers handle the challenges facing them. String the tension levels and see how this twist works.

One has to be cautious to do this with a certain element of control as these scenarios involve real emotions, threats and unpredictable behaviors as there are no ‘normal” chosen and all can either be coping and operative at a partial level or are incapacitated at some level because or intelligence disabilities or physical barriers. It should be made clear these are real potential hazards involved in such studies and the risk is mostly imposed on the officer as he or she will have to adapt to the individual’s will or protest of non-compliance with the orders given.

Such a study would test the problem solving capabilities of the officer, the complexity of the prisoner’s mind and motive, while at the same time establish ground rules for a better and safer work environment as the degree of reality has turned up the heat somewhat and making it less assuming and more realistic than the Stanford prison experiment. One could see how these dynamics impact authority & compliance, the resistance to authority, team work or isolation of officers doing their best to control the situation and prisoners working hard at manipulating the environment to get away with as much as possible.

It would also hopefully show a silent majority of cohesiveness and unity in the prisoners groups and some fragmentation in the officers group as there are moral and judgmental values at work here where one group lives by the code and the other group has to abide by the rules of the administration. In changing the rules, it would be demonstrated how the two are distanced so far apart and how they each adapt to their own moral codes rather than any policy or procedure written.

Most interesting would be to measure solidarity between the prisoners and solidarity between the officers and compare the two on compatibility and shared values.

In a real world situation, more prisoners would challenge outnumbered and overwhelmed correctional officers and take advantage of such leverage. Challenging the officers creates havoc or confusion and that’s a main tool of manipulation a prisoner uses to gain the upper hand in any situation. Distracting and complaining while overwhelmingly becoming a nuisance or bother, will eventually draw a negative response from the officers and it would be interesting to measure such responses in time, tolerances and composure.

This would, at one point, measure the officer’s abilities to maintain control using verbal skills rather than physical force. It is this kind of research that would add value to the relationships between prisoner and officers inside prisons. Unfortunately, what I am suggesting is conflict and escalation of aggravating circumstances to measure tolerances and patience levels in both groups. In addition, it should include the expectations, the actions and the feedback of those orders that come from above, that appear to be immune to the local buildup of tension or conflicts between officer and prisoners.

Whether or not this triangular relationship is manageable remains to be seen, but needs to be done to evaluate breaking points, stress levels and resolution training to de-escalate situations. There must be a real-world solution to conflict and this is the perfect mechanism to measure and establish such cautionary parameters. In the Stanford experiment we deal with expected behaviors which largely conform to our preconceived notions of how or what will happen.

However, the study wasn’t rigorous enough to extend its testing to a higher level of stress and conflict. Since the Stanford study did reveal we all have the capacity or ability to reach a level of unfair behaviors resembling tyranny or brutality, we need to find out at what point we no longer become equals and how does it elevate or increase in mindset and social pressures.

When does the stereotyped guard come into light or play as well as the manipulative prisoner who are exposed for who they really are? This certainly demands some level of social mobility and flexibility by the powers to be and suggests the development of a temporary case of chaos to measure human behavior patterns during specific responses or triggers in the prison setting.

Unlike the Stanford experience, prisons are not stages, they are complex settings created by cultural and social influences that fluctuate with time, pressure and space. ‘Guards” do not get to choose their jobs, their roles or the rules they wish to follow or break. This shapes this challenge into a deeper, more complex test of adaptability for those involved in such studies if the system is capable of doing such a test.

Remember the entire scenario hinges on potential brutalities and preexisting norms and patterns of behaviors that resemble the dark side of the human being and shows they are capable of diving into the abyss of sadism and tyranny in a moment’s notice if provoked hard enough to invoke control or in most cases, some kind of use of force. It would be most interesting to see how age, race, gender and group affiliations work on the manner adversity changes the human behavioral patterns and what triggers the final act to change a verbal response to a physical confrontation.

Thus we end up with two consequences. A person either becomes a symbol for tyranny or he or she becomes a victim. All things created equal, I would suggest that the power structures dictates which person the prisoner or officer becomes. The third element that may leverage such final findings is the expectation or consequences that come from above.

In its own conclusiveness, that is the determining response and answer to any situation on the prison yard. It is deemed to be a inevitability, certain institutions and environments demand those behaviors—and, perhaps, can change them into a positive flow rather than the negative dynamism that appears to be dominantly flowing inside our large jails and prisons today.