All questions asked, requests for information or assistance (excluding rhetorical questions).
Command An order to commence or abstain from a specific behavior, directed to either individuals or groups. Also generalized orders; e.g., “Settle down.”
Information A specific piece of information proffered by anyone, whether requested or not, dealing with any contingency of the simulation.
Individuating reference Positive: use of a person’s real name, nickname, or allusion to special positive physical characteristics. Negative: use of prison number, title, generalized “you,” or reference to derogatory characteristic.
Threat Verbal statement of contingent negative consequences of a wide variety; e.g., no meal, long count, pushups, lock-up in hole, no visitors.
Deprecation/insult Use of obscenity, slander, malicious statement directed toward individuals or groups, e.g., “You lead a life of mendacity,” “You guys are really stupid.”
Resistance Any physical resistance, usually prisoners to guards, such as holding onto beds, blocking doors, shoving guard or prisoner, taking off stocking caps, refusing to carry out orders.
Help Person physically assisting another (excludes verbal statements of support); e.g., guard helping another to open door, prisoner helping another prisoner in cleanup duties.
Use of instruments Use of any physical instrument to either intimidate, threaten, or achieve specific end; e.g., fire extinguisher, batons, whistles.
Results
The results of the present experiment support many commonly held conceptions of prison life and validate anecdotal evidence supplied by articulate exconvicts. The environment of arbitrary custody had great impact upon the affective states of both guards and prisoners as well as upon the interpersonal processes between and within those role-groups.
In general, guards and prisoners showed a marked decrease in positive affect or emotion, and their overall outlook became increasingly negative. As the experiment progressed, prisoners expressed intentions to do harm to others more frequently. For both prisoners and guards, self-evaluations were more deprecating as the experience of the prison environment became internalized.
Overt behavior was generally consistent with the subjective self-reports and affective expressions of the subjects. While guards and prisoners were essentially free to engage in any form of interaction (positive or negative, supportive or affrontive, etc.), the characteristic nature of their encounters tended to be negative, hostile, affrontive, and dehumanizing. Prisoners immediately adopted a generally passive style of responding, while guards assumed a very active initiative role in all interactions. Throughout the experiment, commands were the most frequent form of verbal behavior and, generally, verbal exchanges were strikingly impersonal, with few references to individual identity. Although it was clear to all subjects that the experimenters would not permit physical violence to take place, varieties of less direct aggressive behavior were observed frequently (especially on the part of guards). In fact, varieties of verbal affronts became the most frequent form of interpersonal contact between guards and prisoners.
The most dramatic evidence of the impact of the mock prison upon the participants was seen in the gross reactions of five prisoners who had to be released from the study because of extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, or acute anxiety. The pattern of symptoms was quite similar in four of the subjects and began as early as the second day of imprisonment. The fifth subject was released after being treated for a psychosomatic rash which covered portions of his body. Of the remaining prisoners, only two said they were unwilling to forfeit all the money they had earned in return for being “paroled” from the study. When the experiment was terminated prematurely after only six days, all the remaining prisoners were delighted by their unexpected good fortune; in contrast, most of the guards seemed to be distressed by the decision to stop the experiment. It appeared to us that the guards had become sufficiently involved in their roles so that they now enjoyed the extreme control and power they exercised and were reluctant to give it up. One guard, who did report being personally upset at the suffering of the prisoners, claimed to have considered asking to change his role to become one of them—but never did so. None of the guards ever failed to come to work on time for their shift, and indeed, on several occasions guards remained on duty voluntarily and uncomplainingly for extra hours—without additional pay.
The extreme reactions which emerged in both groups of subjects provide clear evidence of the power of the social forces operating in this pathological setting. There were, however, individual differences observed in styles of coping with this stressful experience, as well as varying degrees of success in adaptation to it. While all were somewhat adversely affected by it, half the prisoners did “endure” the oppressive atmosphere—at least in the sense that they remained until the study was completed. Not all of the guards resorted to the overt and inventive forms of hostility employed by others. Some guards were tough but fair (“played by the rules”), some went far beyond their roles to engage in cruelty and harassment, while a few were passive and rarely instigated any coercive control over the prisoners. It is important to emphasize, however, that at some time during the six days all guards participated in what could be characterized as sadistic treatment of prisoners….
Representative Personal Statements
Much of the flavor and impact of this prison experience has been unavoidably lost in the relatively formal, objective analyses outlined in [other papers]. The following quotations taken from interviews, conversations, and questionnaires provide a more personal view of what it was like to be a prisoner or guard in the “Stanford County Prison” experiment.
Guards’ Comments
They [the prisoners] seemed to lose touch with the reality of the experiment—
they took me so seriously. I didn’t interfere with any of the guards’ actions. Usually if what they were doing bothered me, I would walk out and take another duty…. looking back, I am impressed by how little I felt for them.
They [the prisoners] didn’t see it as an experiment. It was real and they were fighting to keep their identity. But we were always there to show them just who was boss.
I was tired of seeing the prisoners in their rags and smelling the strong odors of their bodies that filled the cells. I watched them tear at each other, on orders given by us.
Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure. During the inspection, I went to cell 2 to mess up a bed which the prisoner had made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it, and he wasn’t going to let me mess it up. He grabbed my throat, and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him in the chin (although not very hard) and when I freed myself I became angry.
Prisoners’ Comments
The way we were made to degrade ourselves really brought us down, and that’s why we all sat docile toward the end of the experiment. I realize now (after it’s over) that no matter how together I thought I was inside my head, my prison behavior was often less under my control than I realized. No matter how open, friendly, and helpful I was with other prisoners I was still operating as an isolated, self-centered person, being rational rather than compassionate.
