stanford prison experiment movie guide answer key

Cast & crew
User reviews

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971, twenty-four male students are selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. In 1971, twenty-four male students are selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. In 1971, twenty-four male students are selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.

Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Tim Talbott
Philip Zimbardo
Ezra Miller
Tye Sheridan
Billy Crudup
130 User reviews
91 Critic reviews
67 Metascore
4 wins & 3 nominations

Top cast 38

Daniel Culp …

Peter Mitchell …

Dr. Philip Zimbardo

Dr. Christina Maslach

Christopher Archer

Anthony Carroll

John Lovett

Gavin Lee …

Prisoner 416

Jerry Sherman …

Jeff Jansen …

Jesse Fletcher

Kyle Parker

Paul Beattie …

Hubbie Whitlow …
All cast & crew
Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

Trivia Although never mentioned in the movie, the real life experiment was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.
Goofs When Dr. Zimbardo speaks with his colleague, the colleague says that he will see him at the beginning of the semester. Stanford does not have semesters; rather, it has a quarter academic calendar.

Daniel Culp : I know you're a nice guy.

Christopher Archer : So why do you hate me?

Daniel Culp : Because I know what you can become.

Connections Featured in WatchMojo: Top 10 Creepiest Historic Events That Are Scarier than Horror Movies (2020)

User reviews 130

Sergeant_Tibbs
Aug 7, 2015
How long is The Stanford Prison Experiment? Powered by Alexa
July 17, 2015 (United States)
United States
Official site
Untitled Stanford Prison Experiment Project
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
Coup d'Etat Films
Sandbar Pictures
Abandon Pictures
See more company credits at IMDbPro
Jul 19, 2015

Technical specs

Runtime 2 hours 2 minutes

More to explore

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, chaz's journal, great movies, contributors, the stanford prison experiment.

stanford prison experiment movie guide answer key

Now streaming on:

Students of high school or university psychology classes are probably familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment. Run in 1971 at the behest of the U.S. Navy, the experiment intended to investigate the cause of conflict between guards and prisoners in military correctional facilities. Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his team chose 24 male Stanford students and divvied them up into guards and prisoners. Turning the basement of one of the student halls into a makeshift prison, Zimbardo placed his subjects under surveillance and watched as the prisoners became passive and the guards exhibited authority by way of sometimes sadistic psychological torture. Zimbardo ended the experiment 6 days into its 2-week run, mostly due to the objections of his fiancée. She felt Zimbardo had become an unhealthy part of his own experiment.

A documentary about this could potentially be fascinating, as some of the actual experiment exists on film. Unfortunately, “The Stanford Prison Experiment” is a dramatization, and no matter how much it may adhere to the well-documented specifics of Zimbardo’s work, it is a massive failure. It prefers to abstract the experiment from any psychological theories or details, opting instead to merely harp on endless, repetitive scenes of prisoner abuse. One particular guard, who thinks he’s Strother Martin in “ Cool Hand Luke ,” abuses the prisoners. The prisoners take the abuse, rebelling once or twice before becoming passive. Zimbardo glares at a TV screen doing nothing while his guards break the rules of the contract everybody signed at the outset. Repeat ad nauseum.

These scenes are supposed to shock the viewer, but they did not work for me, because I just didn’t care. The film reduces the entire experiment to a Dead Teenager movie whose slasher just roughs them up. Prisoners are referred to by numbers in order to strip them of their personal identities, and the film keeps them at this level of distance. We never get to know any subject outside of brief sketches, so the victims become disposable. Despite the best efforts of the actors on both sides of the law, the film is completely clinical in its depiction, striking the same note for over 2 hours. It gets real dull, real fast.

I didn’t care because this isn’t remotely like an actual prison; it’s a bunch of privileged kids playing dress-up for $15 a day. Even a priest Zimbardo hires as a prison chaplain tells the doctor “it’s good that these privileged kids experience prison life.” The actual reasons for the experiment (and its military involvement) are never expressed in Tim Talbott ’s screenplay, so the priest’s comment almost serves as the reason for these tests. And the film takes great pains to tell us that nobody in the experiment suffered “long term psychological damage” after it was abruptly cancelled. I’m sure someone who has experienced the harsh realities of actual prison life would feel relieved that these young men weren’t scarred.

The best scene in “The Stanford Prison Experiment” deals with an actual prisoner and serves to highlight my disdain for how the film trades emotion and details for exploitative shocks. The fantastic Nelsan Ellis (last seen in “ Get On Up ”) plays Jesse, an ex-con brought in by Zimbardo’s team as an expert witness to their proceedings. At a mock parole board hearing, Jesse rips into an inmate, treating him as inhumanely as possible while verbally shredding the inmate’s explanation for why he should be paroled. After the stunned inmate is sent back to his cell, Jesse reveals that he was recreating his own parole board treatment. He tells Zimbardo that playing the role of his own tormentor “felt good, and I hated that it did.” This, in a nutshell, is what the actual experiment sought to explore, that is, the nature of even the nicest human beings to commit evil. Jesse’s revelation, and the psychological toll it takes on him, is more effective than anything else the film conjures up. If only the movie had spent more time interacting with the Strother Martin-wannabe’s own thoughts rather than trudging him out only for sadism.

The film reduces Zimbardo to some kind of megalomaniac who doesn’t know what he is doing. This makes his research seem half-assed and unethical. He watches the guards strike the prisoners (a direct violation of the rules) and the film paints him as the biggest villain of all. He challenges anyone who questions his methods and authority, and at one point, he absurdly sits in a hallway like a low-rent Charles Bronson hoping for the return of a subject who might jeopardize his research. (In the actual case, Zimbardo simply moves the prison to a location unknown by the subject.) And though his intentions are to “feminize” the prisoners by giving them “dresses” that barely hide their genitalia, “The Stanford Prison Experiment” implies that Zimbardo’s sole reason for stopping the experiment was the moment when his guards forced the inmates into a gay sex pantomime. Violence and hog-tying inmates were OK, but none of that gay stuff, the movie seems to say.

Billy Crudup deserves some kind of medal for his attempt to breathe life into his one dimensional character, as do actors like Ezra Miller and Olivia Thirlby . But they are undermined by a poor script, horror movie-style music and ripe dramatizations that exist solely to make the viewer feel superior. I despise movies like this and “ Compliance ” because they pretend to say something profound about their scenarios but are, at heart, cynically manipulative trash designed to make audiences pat themselves on the back for not being “like those people.” Had we been forced to identify with anyone, prisoner or guard, the film might have achieved the palpable discomfort of forcing us to look at ourselves. That was one of the goals of the actual Stanford Prison Experiment. This movie just wants to superficially disturb, and it’s not even successful at that.

Odie Henderson

Odie "Odienator" Henderson has spent over 33 years working in Information Technology. He runs the blogs Big Media Vandalism and Tales of Odienary Madness. Read his answers to our Movie Love Questionnaire here .

Now playing

Deadpool & Wolverine

Matt zoller seitz.

Family Portrait

Brian tallerico.

Hollywoodgate

Simon Abrams

Film credits.

The Stanford Prison Experiment movie poster

The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015)

Rated R for language including abusive behavior and some sexual references

122 minutes

Billy Crudup as Dr. Philip Zimbardo

Ezra Miller as Daniel Culp - Prisoner '8612'

Michael Angarano as Christopher Archer

Tye Sheridan as Peter Mitchell - Prisoner 819

Olivia Thirlby as Christina Zimbardo

Johnny Simmons as Jeff Jansen

Gaius Charles as Banks

James Wolk as Penny

Thomas Mann as Prisoner 416

Moisés Arias as Actor

Keir Gilchrist as John Lovett

Nelsan Ellis as Jesse Fletcher

Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Tim Talbott

Director of Photography

Jas Shelton

Latest blog posts

A Woman Without Peers: Gena Rowlands (1930-2024)

The Needle Drop Sessions: Pump Up the Volume & Untamed Heart

Locarno Film Festival 2024: Youth (Hard Times), Transamazonia, Moon

Thumbnails 8/15/24: Six Must-Reads You Don’t Want To Miss This Week

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Paired Texts
Related Media
Teacher Guide

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

CommonLit is a nonprofit that has everything teachers and schools need for top-notch literacy instruction: a full-year ELA curriculum, benchmark assessments, and formative data. Browse Content Who We Are About

Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo’s Famous Study

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to examine situational forces versus dispositions in human behavior.
24 young, healthy, psychologically normal men were randomly assigned to be “prisoners” or “guards” in a simulated prison environment.
The experiment had to be terminated after only 6 days due to the extreme, pathological behavior emerging in both groups. The situational forces overwhelmed the dispositions of the participants.
Pacifist young men assigned as guards began behaving sadistically, inflicting humiliation and suffering on the prisoners. Prisoners became blindly obedient and allowed themselves to be dehumanized.
The principal investigator, Zimbardo, was also transformed into a rigid authority figure as the Prison Superintendent.
The experiment demonstrated the power of situations to alter human behavior dramatically. Even good, normal people can do evil things when situational forces push them in that direction.

Zimbardo and his colleagues (1973) were interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e., dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e., situational).

For example, prisoners and guards may have personalities that make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and order and guards being domineering and aggressive.

Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons.

Zimbardo predicted the situation made people act the way they do rather than their disposition (personality).

To study people’s roles in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison.

He advertised asking for volunteers to participate in a study of the psychological effects of prison life.

The 75 applicants who answered the ad were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse.

24 men judged to be the most physically & mentally stable, the most mature, & the least involved in antisocial behaviors were chosen to participate.

The participants did not know each other prior to the study and were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were two reserves, and one dropped out, finally leaving ten prisoners and 11 guards.

Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked.’

Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells. Here the deindividuation process began.

When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only.

The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number.

Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.

All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible.

Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was permitted.

Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.

Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Asserting Authority

Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to harass prisoners. At 2:30 A.M. prisoners were awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many “counts.”

The counts served as a way to familiarize the prisoners with their numbers. More importantly, they provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners.

The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They ‘told tales’ on each other to the guards.

They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners’ benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.

Physical Punishment

The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized.

Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards. One of the guards stepped on the prisoners” backs while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit on the backs of fellow prisoners doing their push-ups.

Asserting Independence

Because the first day passed without incident, the guards were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion which broke out on the morning of the second day.

During the second day of the experiment, the prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door.

The guards called in reinforcements. The three guards who were waiting on stand-by duty came in and the night shift guards voluntarily remained on duty.

Putting Down the Rebellion

The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out.

The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary confinement. After this, the guards generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.

Special Privileges

One of the three cells was designated as a “privilege cell.” The three prisoners least involved in the rebellion were given special privileges. The guards gave them back their uniforms and beds and allowed them to wash their hair and brush their teeth.

Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in the presence of the other prisoners who had temporarily lost the privilege of eating. The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.

Consequences of the Rebellion

Over the next few days, the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.

As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards’ contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive.

As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything, so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.

Prisoner #8612

Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage.

After a meeting with the guards where they told him he was weak, but offered him “informant” status, #8612 returned to the other prisoners and said “You can”t leave. You can’t quit.”

Soon #8612 “began to act ‘crazy,’ to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control.” It wasn’t until this point that the psychologists realized they had to let him out.

A Visit from Parents

The next day, the guards held a visiting hour for parents and friends. They were worried that when the parents saw the state of the jail, they might insist on taking their sons home. Guards washed the prisoners, had them clean and polish their cells, fed them a big dinner and played music on the intercom.

After the visit, rumors spread of a mass escape plan. Afraid that they would lose the prisoners, the guards and experimenters tried to enlist help and facilities of the Palo Alto police department.

The guards again escalated the level of harassment, forcing them to do menial, repetitive work such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands.

Catholic Priest

Zimbardo invited a Catholic priest who had been a prison chaplain to evaluate how realistic our prison situation was. Half of the prisoners introduced themselves by their number rather than name.

The chaplain interviewed each prisoner individually. The priest told them the only way they would get out was with the help of a lawyer.

Prisoner #819

Eventually, while talking to the priest, #819 broke down and began to cry hysterically, just like two previously released prisoners had.

The psychologists removed the chain from his foot, the cap off his head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the prison yard. They told him they would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor.

While this was going on, one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud:

“Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer.”

The psychologists realized #819 could hear the chanting and went back into the room where they found him sobbing uncontrollably. The psychologists tried to get him to agree to leave the experiment, but he said he could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner.

Back to Reality

At that point, Zimbardo said, “Listen, you are not #819. You are [his name], and my name is Dr. Zimbardo. I am a psychologist, not a prison superintendent, and this is not a real prison. This is just an experiment, and those are students, not prisoners, just like you. Let’s go.”

He stopped crying suddenly, looked up and replied, “Okay, let’s go,“ as if nothing had been wrong.

An End to the Experiment

Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for two weeks, but on the sixth day, it was terminated, due to the emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression of the guards.

Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards.

Filled with outrage, she said, “It’s terrible what you are doing to these boys!” Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.

Zimbardo (2008) later noted, “It wasn’t until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point — that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist.“

This led him to prioritize maintaining the experiment’s structure over the well-being and ethics involved, thereby highlighting the blurring of roles and the profound impact of the situation on human behavior.

Here’s a quote that illustrates how Philip Zimbardo, initially the principal investigator, became deeply immersed in his role as the “Stanford Prison Superintendent (April 19, 2011):

“By the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of “Stanford Prison Superintendent.” And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics. When a prisoner broke down, what was my job? It was to replace him with somebody on our standby list. And that’s what I did. There was a weakness in the study in not separating those two roles. I should only have been the principal investigator, in charge of two graduate students and one undergraduate.”

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards.

Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal lives.

The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study).

Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one.

Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner’s “final submission.”

Deindividuation may explain the behavior of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.

The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally – it was a group norm. They also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore.

Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner’s submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.

After the prison experiment was terminated, Zimbardo interviewed the participants. Here’s an excerpt:

‘Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed. The research had felt “real” to them. One guard said, “I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something.” Another guard said “Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure.” And another: “… during the inspection I went to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to let me mess it up. He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry.”’

Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutal ways that they had. Many said they hadn’t known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things.

The prisoners, too, couldn’t believe that they had responded in the submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to be assertive types normally.

When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.

A further explanation for the behavior of the participants can be described in terms of reinforcement. The escalation of aggression and abuse by the guards could be seen as being due to the positive reinforcement they received both from fellow guards and intrinsically in terms of how good it made them feel to have so much power.

Similarly, the prisoners could have learned through negative reinforcement that if they kept their heads down and did as they were told, they could avoid further unpleasant experiences.

Critical Evaluation

Ecological validity.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is criticized for lacking ecological validity in its attempt to simulate a real prison environment. Specifically, the “prison” was merely a setup in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department.

The student “guards” lacked professional training, and the experiment’s duration was much shorter than real prison sentences. Furthermore, the participants, who were college students, didn’t reflect the diverse backgrounds typically found in actual prisons in terms of ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status.

None had prior prison experience, and they were chosen due to their mental stability and low antisocial tendencies. Additionally, the mock prison lacked spaces for exercise or rehabilitative activities.

Demand characteristics

Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behavior may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behavior in real life. This means the study’s findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e, the study has low ecological validity.

One of the biggest criticisms is that strong demand characteristics confounded the study. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) found that the majority of respondents, when given a description of the study, were able to guess the hypothesis and predict how participants were expected to behave.

This suggests participants may have simply been playing out expected roles rather than genuinely conforming to their assigned identities.

In addition, revelations by Zimbardo (2007) indicate he actively encouraged the guards to be cruel and oppressive in his orientation instructions prior to the start of the study. For example, telling them “they [the prisoners] will be able to do nothing and say nothing that we don’t permit.”

He also tacitly approved of abusive behaviors as the study progressed. This deliberate cueing of how participants should act, rather than allowing behavior to unfold naturally, indicates the study findings were likely a result of strong demand characteristics rather than insightful revelations about human behavior.

However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. For example, 90% of the prisoners’ private conversations, which were monitored by the researchers, were on the prison conditions, and only 10% of the time were their conversations about life outside of the prison.

The guards, too, rarely exchanged personal information during their relaxation breaks – they either talked about ‘problem prisoners,’ other prison topics, or did not talk at all. The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay.

When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out.

Fourteen years after his experience as prisoner 8612 in the Stanford Prison Experiment, Douglas Korpi, now a prison psychologist, reflected on his time and stated (Musen and Zimbardo 1992):

“The Stanford Prison Experiment was a very benign prison situation and it promotes everything a normal prison promotes — the guard role promotes sadism, the prisoner role promotes confusion and shame”.

Sample bias

The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The study’s findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture (where people are generally less conforming), and the results may be different in collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).

Carnahan and McFarland (2007) have questioned whether self-selection may have influenced the results – i.e., did certain personality traits or dispositions lead some individuals to volunteer for a study of “prison life” in the first place?

All participants completed personality measures assessing: aggression, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, social dominance, empathy, and altruism. Participants also answered questions on mental health and criminal history to screen out any issues as per the original SPE.

Results showed that volunteers for the prison study, compared to the control group, scored significantly higher on aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance. They scored significantly lower on empathy and altruism.

A follow-up role-playing study found that self-presentation biases could not explain these differences. Overall, the findings suggest that volunteering for the prison study was influenced by personality traits associated with abusive tendencies.

Zimbardo’s conclusion may be wrong

While implications for the original SPE are speculative, this lends support to a person-situation interactionist perspective, rather than a purely situational account.

It implies that certain individuals are drawn to and selected into situations that fit their personality, and that group composition can shape behavior through mutual reinforcement.

Contributions to psychology

Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participants led to the formal recognition of ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented.

Most institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and government agencies, require a review of research plans by a panel. These boards review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These boards may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure, or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

Contribution to prison policy

A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).

However, in the 25 years since the SPE, U.S. prison policy has transformed in ways counter to SPE insights (Haney & Zimbardo, 1995):

Rehabilitation was abandoned in favor of punishment and containment. Prison is now seen as inflicting pain rather than enabling productive re-entry.
Sentencing became rigid rather than accounting for inmates’ individual contexts. Mandatory minimums and “three strikes” laws over-incarcerate nonviolent crimes.
Prison construction boomed, and populations soared, disproportionately affecting minorities. From 1925 to 1975, incarceration rates held steady at around 100 per 100,000. By 1995, rates tripled to over 600 per 100,000.
Drug offenses account for an increasing proportion of prisoners. Nonviolent drug offenses make up a large share of the increased incarceration.
Psychological perspectives have been ignored in policymaking. Legislators overlooked insights from social psychology on the power of contexts in shaping behavior.
Oversight retreated, with courts deferring to prison officials and ending meaningful scrutiny of conditions. Standards like “evolving decency” gave way to “legitimate” pain.
Supermax prisons proliferated, isolating prisoners in psychological trauma-inducing conditions.

The authors argue psychologists should reengage to:

Limit the use of imprisonment and adopt humane alternatives based on the harmful effects of prison environments
Assess prisons’ total environments, not just individual conditions, given situational forces interact
Prepare inmates for release by transforming criminogenic post-release contexts
Address socioeconomic risk factors, not just incarcerate individuals
Develop contextual prediction models vs. focusing only on static traits
Scrutinize prison systems independently, not just defer to officials shaped by those environments
Generate creative, evidence-based reforms to counter over-punitive policies

Psychology once contributed to a more humane system and can again counter the U.S. “rage to punish” with contextual insights (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998).

Evidence for situational factors

Zimbardo (1995) further demonstrates the power of situations to elicit evil actions from ordinary, educated people who likely would never have done such things otherwise. It was another situation-induced “transformation of human character.”

Unit 731 was a covert biological and chemical warfare research unit of the Japanese army during WWII.
It was led by General Shiro Ishii and involved thousands of doctors and researchers.
Unit 731 set up facilities near Harbin, China to conduct lethal human experimentation on prisoners, including Allied POWs.
Experiments involved exposing prisoners to things like plague, anthrax, mustard gas, and bullets to test biological weapons. They infected prisoners with diseases and monitored their deaths.
At least 3,000 prisoners died from these brutal experiments. Many were killed and dissected.
The doctors in Unit 731 obeyed orders unquestioningly and conducted these experiments in the name of “medical science.”
After the war, the vast majority of doctors who participated faced no punishment and went on to have prestigious careers. This was largely covered up by the U.S. in exchange for data.
It shows how normal, intelligent professionals can be led by situational forces to systematically dehumanize victims and conduct incredibly cruel and lethal experiments on people.
Even healers trained to preserve life used their expertise to destroy lives when the situational forces compelled obedience, nationalism, and wartime enmity.

Evidence for an interactionist approach

The results are also relevant for explaining abuses by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

An interactionist perspective recognizes that volunteering for roles as prison guards attracts those already prone to abusive tendencies, which are intensified by the prison context.

This counters a solely situationist view of good people succumbing to evil situational forces.

Ethical Issues

The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being “arrested” at home. The prisoners were not told partly because final approval from the police wasn’t given until minutes before the participants decided to participate, and partly because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise. However, this was a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all of the participants had signed.

Protection of Participants

Participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying, and anger.

Here’s a quote from Philip G. Zimbardo, taken from an interview on the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th anniversary (April 19, 2011):

“In the Stanford prison study, people were stressed, day and night, for 5 days, 24 hours a day. There’s no question that it was a high level of stress because five of the boys had emotional breakdowns, the first within 36 hours. Other boys that didn’t have emotional breakdowns were blindly obedient to corrupt authority by the guards and did terrible things to each other. And so it is no question that that was unethical. You can’t do research where you allow people to suffer at that level.”

“After the first one broke down, we didn’t believe it. We thought he was faking. There was actually a rumor he was faking to get out. He was going to bring his friends in to liberate the prison. And/or we believed our screening procedure was inadequate, [we believed] that he had some mental defect that we did not pick up. At that point, by the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of “Stanford Prison Superintendent.” And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics.”

However, in Zimbardo’s defense, the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset.

Approval for the study was given by the Office of Naval Research, the Psychology Department, and the University Committee of Human Experimentation.

This Committee also did not anticipate the prisoners’ extreme reactions that were to follow. Alternative methodologies were looked at that would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.

Withdrawal

Although guards were explicitly instructed not to physically harm prisoners at the beginning of the Stanford Prison Experiment, they were allowed to induce feelings of boredom, frustration, arbitrariness, and powerlessness among the inmates.

This created a pervasive atmosphere where prisoners genuinely believed and even reinforced among each other, that they couldn’t leave the experiment until their “sentence” was completed, mirroring the inescapability of a real prison.

Even though two participants (8612 and 819) were released early, the impact of the environment was so profound that prisoner 416, reflecting on the experience two months later, described it as a “prison run by psychologists rather than by the state.”

Extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held, and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, and then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects.

Zimbardo also strongly argues that the benefits gained from our understanding of human behavior and how we can improve society should outbalance the distress caused by the study.

However, it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were, in fact, more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.

Discussion Questions

What are the effects of living in an environment with no clocks, no view of the outside world, and minimal sensory stimulation?

Consider the psychological consequences of stripping, delousing, and shaving the heads of prisoners or members of the military. Whattransformations take place when people go through an experience like this?

The prisoners could have left at any time, and yet, they didn’t. Why?

After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt?

If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you have conducted a follow-up study?

Frequently Asked Questions

What happened to prisoner 8612 after the experiment.

Douglas Korpi, as prisoner 8612, was the first to show signs of severe distress and demanded to be released from the experiment. He was released on the second day, and his reaction to the simulated prison environment highlighted the study’s ethical issues and the potential harm inflicted on participants.

After the experiment, Douglas Korpi graduated from Stanford University and earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. He pursued a career as a psychotherapist, helping others with their mental health struggles.

Why did Zimbardo not stop the experiment?

Zimbardo did not initially stop the experiment because he became too immersed in his dual role as the principal investigator and the prison superintendent, causing him to overlook the escalating abuse and distress among participants.

It was only after an external observer, Christina Maslach, raised concerns about the participants’ well-being that Zimbardo terminated the study.

What happened to the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards exhibited abusive and authoritarian behavior, using psychological manipulation, humiliation, and control tactics to assert dominance over the prisoners. This ultimately led to the study’s early termination due to ethical concerns.

What did Zimbardo want to find out?

Zimbardo aimed to investigate the impact of situational factors and power dynamics on human behavior, specifically how individuals would conform to the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment.

He wanted to explore whether the behavior displayed in prisons was due to the inherent personalities of prisoners and guards or the result of the social structure and environment of the prison itself.

What were the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

The results of the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that situational factors and power dynamics played a significant role in shaping participants’ behavior. The guards became abusive and authoritarian, while the prisoners became submissive and emotionally distressed.

The experiment revealed how quickly ordinary individuals could adopt and internalize harmful behaviors due to their assigned roles and the environment.

Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30 , 152-160.

Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 603-614.

Drury, S., Hutchens, S. A., Shuttlesworth, D. E., & White, C. L. (2012). Philip G. Zimbardo on his career and the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th anniversary. History of Psychology , 15 (2), 161.

Griggs, R. A., & Whitehead, G. I., III. (2014). Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory social psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 41 , 318 –324.

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison . Naval Research Review , 30, 4-17.

Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53 (7), 709–727.

Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. (1992) (DVD) Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment Documentary.

Zimbardo, P. G. (Consultant, On-Screen Performer), Goldstein, L. (Producer), & Utley, G. (Correspondent). (1971, November 26). Prisoner 819 did a bad thing: The Stanford Prison Experiment [Television series episode]. In L. Goldstein (Producer), Chronolog. New York, NY: NBC-TV.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition , 2 (2), 243-256.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology , 11 (2), 125-133.

Zimbardo, P.G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil . New York, NY: Random House.

Further Information

Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 45 , 1.
Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks
The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Website

Philip Zimbardo reflects on ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’ movie

Today, Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford, will see the story of his famously controversial Stanford Prison Experiment unfold on the big screen.

Conducted in 1971, the experiment simulated a prison environment with a group of 22 male college students. The young men, hand-picked for their physical and mental maturity, among other factors, were randomly assigned the role of “prisoner” or “guard.” While the students were specifically instructed against the use of physical punishment, they were given no further instructions. Throughout the six-day study , half of the prisoners suffered from “extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety” and had to be excused from the experiment.

Since the study was conducted, Zimbardo has written “The Lucifer Effect,” a book in which he discusses the gradual changes experienced within the subjects and himself throughout the experiment. The research has been widely studied by psychology students and beyond, serving as a controversial but poignant example of the effect of a prison environment.

With “The Stanford Prison Experiment” set to premiere today, Zimbardo spoke with The Daily about the original study, as well as his thoughts about the motion picture.

The Stanford Daily (TSD): What were your initial expectations for the original experiment?

Philip Zimbardo (PZ): [We wanted to expand on] Milgram’s experiment on obedience through authority, in which he showed that situational factors can get good people to do bad things… Our study was a follow-up of that, in which we focus less on powerful authority and obedience…

In the earlier research – in most psychological research – it [the study] only goes for a single hour. We wanted to observe the gradual transformation of people into their character, into their role… What’s dramatic about the research – and now what’s dramatic about the movie – is that you see for the first time character transformations – people becoming their role, becoming guards, becoming prisoners – in a relatively short time.

TSD: Why did you decide to conduct the study with college-age males?

PZ: I wanted to have bright, intelligent college students. And unlike Milgram’s study, we gave them personality tests. We only picked the most normal and healthy. The bottom line is, I want to say, here we have normal, intelligent, bright, college students who should understand things about [themselves]. Even more than ordinary, uneducated people. And the point is, it works for them as well as for the ordinary men in Milgram’s study.

TSD: In some of the interviews after the experiment, students explained that the prison became more than just an experiment, that they really grew into their roles as prisoners and guards. Did you also grow into your role as prison superintendent? How did this it affect your research?

PZ: Oh, absolutely. I made the mistake of playing two roles simultaneously. One role was principal investigator of the research project, and in that role I am objective; I am distant; I am emotionally neutral. But then I made the mistake of also being the prison superintendent, and my undergraduate assistant David Chassey played the role of the warden, and my two graduate students…played the two attendants. But we all had a prison-life role to play.

Over time, hour-by-hour, day-by-day, I fell into that role, and in that role I observed guards brutalizing prisoners – in some cases sadistically… And I did not stop it. The only thing I stopped was physical force, but I didn’t stop psychological force, which, in the long run is much worse. I had become, without my awareness, the indifferent superintendent of the Stanford Prison Experiment. And in my book “The Lucifer Effect,” I write about it in great detail – that this was a mistake I made. I should have had someone else play that role.

PZ: When I finished this study, I wrote a few articles about it, because it was really, to me, not a big deal… And then what happened was Abu Ghraib in 2004 – there were obvious parallels with the prison study. Military guards put bags over prisoners’ heads, stripped them naked, humiliated them, just as our guards had done. And so I became an excellent witness to one of those military guards and got to know everything about that horrendous military situation in Iraq. And then I decided I should really go back and review what happened in the Stanford Prison Study, which was 30 years earlier.

And so what I did is I looked at 12 hours of our videotape along with two students who didn’t know anything about this study… And what I decided to do is write a book in which we basically detail what happened in the study. We basically have a chapter of each day, and of course a chapter of setting it [the experiment] up, and other chapters on other things and other kinds of evil situations. My book, “The Lucifer Effect,” [has] been a great success. It’s been in 20 different languages around the world; it’s being used not only by college students and psychologists but in military situations and even in mental hospitals.

TSD: Was there a particular time when your role started to shift from principal investigator to prison superintendent, or was it gradual?

PZ: It’s totally gradual. The point is that we all – I mean I lived there, I slept in my office – hadn’t noticed [the changes] at all. That is, we lived the experiment.

The other problem was we – we meaning my research team – were really not prepared for the intensity an experiment that goes 24/7. Because there are endless logistical things to do – prisoners have to be fed morning, lunch, evening. In order to make it realistic we had parole board hearings two times, with an ex-convict heading it. The secretaries had visiting days two times, with parents, boyfriends, girlfriends. We had a visiting by a prison chaplain…

But the changes are gradual. The changes occur, as I said, a little bit more each day. It’s not a single dramatic thing.

TSD: You mentioned that your two-week study was terminated after just six days; why did you make the decision to conclude the study at the point that you did?

PZ: It’s a critical dramatic instance of heroic action by a young woman, who brought me to my senses…On Thursday night, one of those former graduate students [coming to help with the study], a young woman named Christina Maslach [Ph.D. ’71] – she had been my graduate student at Stanford and also my teaching assistant, and she had just graduated in June – had gotten a job at Berkeley as an assistant professor in psychology and was on her way [to Stanford]…

We had just decided in addition in the beginning of August that we would move in together. We were having a romantic relationship… So she happened to be at Stanford on Thursday working in the library, and contacted me and said, “Hey, can we get together for dinner at the end of the night shift?” And I said, “Sure, why don’t you come down and just check out what’s happening.”

And she comes down and observes guards brutalizing prisoners with bags over their head, yelling, screaming, chaining their legs together, and when I looked at what was happening on the monitor it was nothing more than the 10 o’clock toilet shift – because 10 o’clock was the last time prisoners could go to a real toilet… She begins to tear up, and runs out and says “I can’t look at this”…

I’m arguing about why this is such an important study, and then she [asks], how could I not see the suffering that was so obvious to her? And if this was the real me, because what she had known me before – the professor, who was a caring, loving teacher… I’m not sure I want to continue my romantic relationship with you. And at that point it was really stunning because it was exactly what I needed to shake me loose from my fantasy, from my craziness… At this point it’s like 11 o’clock at night, and I say, “All right, I’m going to end the study tomorrow… ” We ended the study on Friday, the next day.

TSD: Shifting focus from the actual study to the film that’s coming out, how accurately do you think the film portrays your experiment?

PZ: It’s a remarkably accurate portrayal. Now, the only issue of course is they’re compressing six days into two hours – it is a two hour film. So in fact, they had to leave out many traumatic scenes. There are no scenes that were put in that didn’t happen in the real study. There were no scenes that had to be put in for the drama. If anything, they left out a lot of what I consider powerful scenes, which they actually had in and it just went too long so they had to cut it out. I’d say it’s roughly 90 percent accurate.

Now in addition, when I was writing “The Lucifer Effect,” I was sending to the scriptwriter Tim Talbott all of the dialogue between prisoners and guards. So in the movie almost all of what the guards say to prisoners, prisoners say to guards, came exactly from “The Lucifer Effect” (and I got a screen citation).

TSD: What was your involvement with the making of the movie?

PZ: From the beginning, I was the consultant. I reviewed the script; I made significant changes in the script; I contributed to the script. And I was on the set a couple of days. Unfortunately, I couldn’t be there all the time because I was in Europe. And even when the film was shown at Sundance, there were several parts of the movie which were just wrong psychologically, and then also we added the screen credits. Several things which are now in the movie.

TSD: There have been several documentaries and informational videos made about the experiment, but this is more of a motion picture than a documentary. How do you think the dramatization of the experiment affects the events and conclusions that are presented? Are they easier to relate to for the audience?

PZ: Our movie sticks essentially to the facts… So the movie, then, is a dramatic recreation. It’s dramatic in that it’s highlighting some things and not getting into details about something else. But it has the visiting days. It has the parole board hearing. It has at least one scene of the police arrest. It has the interaction of me and my staff making group decisions about what we should do with certain prisoners. At least more than half of the movie is just prisoner and guard interaction with no one else present.

What’s dramatic is, the audience, in looking at the movie – it’s as if they’re looking through a one-way screen, as we were doing. They are taking the place of the observers looking at the drama unfolding. But they are also observing the observers. Observing the changes in me and my graduate students as these things unfold.

I think it’s a unique movie; it’s the only movie I know where the whole movie is about a psychological experiment.

TSD: If you could change something about the movie, what would you change?

PZ: The confrontation I had with Christina is the reason we ended the study – and it makes her a hero. Because in doing what she was doing, she was willing to say two things. She doesn’t know these boys, doesn’t know anything about them. But she’s just saying “I see human suffering, and you are responsible. I don’t want to have a relationship with somebody who could do that… ” That’s heroic. Heroes defend their moral cause aware of the risk.

But they didn’t use that to end the movie. They had a confrontation, and then I go down to the dungeon, and I’m looking at the video, and the video is the worst thing that happens… They wanted a traumatic scene, wanted to have the biggest traumatic impact – which it does… And then I go down, I enter the yard and say, “Okay, this study is over.” So the way the movie does, it doesn’t give her the heroic status that she deserves.

TSD: You mentioned that the audience will be encased in the basement as well. What do you hope viewers will take away from that experience?

PZ: It’s: What kind of guard would I have been if I was in that study? Would I have been a cruel guard; would I have been a good guard; would I have stopped what the bad guards did? What kind of prisoner would I have been? Would I have been defiant? Would I have stood up for my rights? Would I have helped other prisoners who were breaking down? If I would have been the prison superintendent, what would I have done to make the situation not erupt so horribly?

Essentially, we would like them to identify with the prisoners, the guards and me and my staff. And then also the question is: Would you have allowed it to go the second week, or would you end it earlier?… The point is to reflect. We’ve got all this stuff happening, prison riots in New York and Rikers Island – it’s really about abuse of power. Abuse of police power we see everywhere.

This interview has been condensed and edited.

Contact Lea Sparkman at 16lsparkman ‘at’ castilleja.org.

Login or create an account

Hey stanford frosh apply to the daily’s summer journalism institute, deadline to apply: wednesday, august 28.

WEEKLY JOURNALISM WORKSHOPS
PROFESSIONAL GUEST SPEAKERS
MEET DAILY STAFFERS & EDITORS
PRODUCE CONTENT FOR THE DAILY

How the Stanford Prison Experiment Worked

Share Content on Facebook
Share Content on LinkedIn
Share Content on Flipboard
Share Content on Reddit
Share Content via Email

The Takeaways

Zimbardo realized that rather than a neutral scenario, he created a prison much like real prisons, where corrupt and cruel behavior didn't occur in a vacuum, but flowed from the rules and principles of the institution to the people who carried out those principles. The behavior of the guards and prisoners wasn't dictated by some inherent internal trait, but by the situation they were in. The theory that external circumstances are the primary drivers of human behavior is known as situationist theory . Zimbardo didn't form the theory, but his experiment and later writings helped popularize it.

Experimental ethics are also an issue to consider. The Stanford Human Subjects Review Committee and Zimbardo's superiors approved the experiment — another layer of authority complicit in the experiment's outcome (it's like situationist "Inception") — but experimental ethics are more rigorous today. A modern institutional review board would likely never approve such an experiment without major modifications. Zimbardo has said that he feels the initial experiment was ethical (all the participants understood what they'd signed up for and consented), but that he suffered an ethical lapse when he allowed it to continue beyond the first emotional breakdown of a prisoner [source: Stanford Prison Experiment ].

The idea that humans have an inherent tendency toward abuse of authority and submission to authority is not ruled out by the experiment, however. The Stanford Prison Experiment is closely related to another psychological experiment that's as infamous: Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority experiment . In fact, Zimbardo and Milgram were high school classmates and colleagues at Yale University. In the obedience experiment, volunteers were directed to press buttons delivering increasingly powerful, and eventually fake lethal shocks to another person at the direction of a researcher. A large percentage of volunteers went along with the researcher's demands. However, like the Stanford Prison Experiment, the ethics, methodology and conclusions of Milgram's experiment have been called into question recently . And both experiments influenced changes in the regulation and ethical guidelines of studies with human subjects [sources: Zimbardo et al. , Defiesta ].

Zimbardo's conclusion was that we are not so much inherently "evil," but that we will commit heinous acts if encouraged to do so by systems that enable or encourage them. He took his results to the U.S. House of Representatives shortly after the experiment ended, testifying before a subcommittee on prison reform. His primary argument was that given the power institutions have to dictate the behavior of the people within them, it's necessary to reform those institutions to avoid those abuses. He suggested better training and pay for guards, better protection for prisoners' human rights , and specific training programs that could include role-playing scenarios to help guards learn to deal humanely with prisoners (and weed out the most sadistic among guards) [source: House of Representatives ]. The 2003 scandal surrounding prisoner treatment at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib, which mirrored the actions of Zimbardo's guards in disturbing ways, suggests that the experiment is not a relic of the past but still relevant to the way people are treated in modern civilian and military prisons.

Zimbardo's testimony also reflected his belief that researchers should not remain impartial observers, but should engage in social and political ways to act on the discoveries they make and seek ways to improve the world [source: Zimbardo et al. ].

Remember that part about Zimbardo's experiment lacking a control group? In 2002, the BBC broadcasted a similar experiment, one that conformed with modern ethics and removed many of the initial biases, such as dehumanizing the prisoners and giving the guards implements of authority. In many ways it could be seen as a control group for the Stanford Prison Experiment. The outcome? The prisoners stuck together, and the guards became disorganized. Like the Stanford Prison Experiment, this one ended early, because a group of participants planned to take over the prison, and the researchers anticipated violence [source: Reicher & Haslam ].

Author's Note: How the Stanford Prison Experiment Worked

Much of the appeal of the Stanford Prison Experiment, aside from the dark, voyeuristic thrill of learning how the subjects acted, is how easily it lets you insert yourself into the narrative Zimbardo created. What kind of guard would you be? How would you react when another guard did something sadistic? How would you react as a prisoner? Would you organize your fellow prisoners, or work against them to gain favor with the guards? Or maybe you envision yourself in Zimbardo's position, pulling the strings in your scenario. How would you have changed the conditions to alter the subjects' behavior? Could you redesign the experiment to be more ethical?

How Prisons Work
'Made in the USA' Behind Bars: Is Prison Labor Really 'Slave Labor'?
How Solitary Confinement Works
Ramen Replacing Smokes as Preferred Prison Currency?
California Released Thousands of Prisoners Early — Guess How That Turned Out

37 Facts About The Movie The Stanford Prison Experiment

Written by Karine Doe

Modified & Updated: 09 Jun 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

37-facts-about-the-movie-the-stanford-prison-experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a gripping and thought-provoking movie that delves deep into the dark and disturbing realm of human behavior. Based on the infamous 1971 psychological study of the same name conducted by Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo, this film takes viewers on a harrowing journey as it explores the depths to which ordinary people can descend when placed in positions of power and control.

Directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, The Stanford Prison Experiment boasts a stellar cast including Billy Crudup, Ezra Miller, and Michael Angarano, who deliver exceptional performances that bring the intense story to life. This movie not only captivates viewers with its raw and unsettling portrayal of the experiment, but it also raises important ethical and moral questions about the nature of authority, conformity, and the inherent darkness that may lurk within us all.

Key Takeaways:

The Stanford Prison Experiment movie, based on real events, explores the dark side of human behavior and raises important ethical questions about scientific research and human subjects.
The film’s realistic portrayal and thought-provoking themes sparked renewed interest in the original experiment, highlighting the influence of situational factors on behavior and the potential dangers of unchecked power dynamics.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was released in 2015.

The film depicts the infamous psychological study conducted at Stanford University in 1971.

The movie is based on real events.

The storyline closely follows the actual events that took place during the experiment.

The film was directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez.

Alvarez expertly captured the tension and psychological dynamics of the experiment .

The screenplay was written by Tim Talbott.

Talbott’s script delves deep into the ethical and moral implications of the study.

The movie stars Billy Crudup as Dr. Philip Zimbardo.

Crudup’s portrayal of the renowned psychologist is captivating and thought-provoking.

The cast also includes Michael Angarano, Ezra Miller, and Tye Sheridan.

These talented actors bring the roles of the prisoners and guards to life.

The film explores the dark side of human behavior.

It delves into the psychological effects of power and authority on individuals.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was met with critical acclaim.

It received positive reviews for its realistic portrayal and thought-provoking themes.

The movie won the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival.

This award recognizes films with a scientific or technological theme.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was shot in just 21 days.

The production team worked tirelessly to recreate the prison environment.

The film conveys a sense of claustrophobia and tension.

The confined setting adds to the intensity of the story and the psychological pressure experienced by the participants.

The movie raises important ethical questions.

It challenges the boundaries of scientific research and the treatment of human subjects.

The Stanford Prison Experiment received numerous accolades.

It was recognized for its screenplay, direction, and ensemble cast.

The film’s release sparked a renewed interest in the original experiment.

Many viewers sought out the documentary and other materials related to the study.

The movie unfolds in a documentary-style format.

This adds to the authenticity of the story and creates a sense of realism.

The events portrayed in the movie shocked the public in real life.

They brought attention to the potential dangers of unchecked power dynamics.

The Stanford Prison Experiment highlights the influence of situational factors on behavior.

It demonstrates how individuals can be easily influenced by their environment.

The movie’s production design accurately recreates the prison setting.

The attention to detail enhances the film’s authenticity and immersion.

The Stanford Prison Experiment has a runtime of 122 minutes.

This allows for a thorough exploration of the experiment and its consequences.

The film’s soundtrack enhances the suspenseful atmosphere.

The music intensifies the psychological tension and creates an unsettling mood.

The Stanford Prison Experiment received positive audience reactions.

It sparked discussions about human behavior and the impacts of authority.

The movie showcases the emotional toll the experiment had on the participants.

It reveals the psychological distress caused by the simulated prison environment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment portrays the controversial methods used in the study.

It raises questions about the boundaries of ethical research practices.

The film presents the role of Dr. Philip Zimbardo in a complex light.

It explores his motivations, decisions, and the ethical dilemmas he faced.

The Stanford Prison Experiment offers a chilling commentary on human nature.

It shows how easily individuals can be drawn into abusive roles and behaviors.

The movie delves into the psychological effects of deindividuation.

It examines how individuals can surrender their personal identities in a group setting.

The Stanford Prison Experiment emphasizes the power of social roles.

It demonstrates how people can be influenced to conform to assigned roles.

The film’s cinematography adds to the feeling of unease.

The use of close-ups and low lighting contributes to the film’s unsettling atmosphere.

The Stanford Prison Experiment aims to provoke thought and discussion.

It encourages viewers to reflect on the darker aspects of human behavior.

The movie remains faithful to the core findings of the original study.

It stays true to the psychological principles and dynamics observed during the experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment challenges traditional notions of good and evil.

It shows how circumstances can influence individuals to act in cruel or compassionate ways.

The film’s performances have been praised for their authenticity.

The actors effectively convey the emotional turmoil experienced by the participants.

The Stanford Prison Experiment shines a light on the dark side of human psychology.

It reveals the potential for cruelty and abuse that lies within all individuals.

The movie explores the concept of individual identity within a group setting.

It examines how the experiment blurred the boundaries between self and role.

The Stanford Prison Experiment serves as a cautionary tale.

It reminds us of the dangers of unchecked power and the need for ethical safeguards.

The film’s conclusion leaves viewers contemplating the lasting effects of the experiment.

It raises questions about the long-term psychological impact on the participants.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a thought-provoking and unsettling film.

It shines a spotlight on the dark aspects of human nature and the power of situational factors.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a thought-provoking and deeply disturbing film that offers a chilling insight into the dark side of human nature. The movie explores the psychological effects of power and authority, raising important questions about the ethics of conducting experiments on human subjects. With its gripping storytelling and powerful performances, The Stanford Prison Experiment leaves a lasting impact on viewers, forcing them to confront uncomfortable truths about the potential for both good and evil within us all.

Q: Is The Stanford Prison Experiment based on a true story?

A: Yes, the movie is based on the true events of a psychological experiment conducted at Stanford University in 1971.

Q: What is the premise of The Stanford Prison Experiment?

A: The film depicts the experiment in which a group of college students were divided into prisoners and guards to simulate a prison environment, highlighting the effects of power dynamics on human behavior.

Q: Who directed The Stanford Prison Experiment?

A: The movie was directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez.

Q: Which actors starred in The Stanford Prison Experiment?

A: The film features an ensemble cast, including Billy Crudup , Michael Angarano, Ezra Miller, and Tye Sheridan.

Q: What is the significance of The Stanford Prison Experiment?

A: The experiment and subsequent movie shed light on the potential for ordinary individuals to succumb to abusive behavior when placed in positions of power and authority.

Q: Are there any ethical concerns surrounding The Stanford Prison Experiment?

A: Yes, the experiment faced significant ethical criticism for the psychological harm it caused to the participants, leading to the discontinuation of the study.

Q: Can The Stanford Prison Experiment be viewed as an accurate portrayal of the actual events?

A: While the movie provides a dramatized version of the experiment, it captures the essence of the events and the psychological implications of the study.

Q: Is The Stanford Prison Experiment a documentary or a fictional film?

A: The movie is a fictionalized account of the real-life experiment, blending elements of drama and psychological thriller.

Q: How does The Stanford Prison Experiment provoke discussion and debate?

A: The film ignites conversations about the effects of power, human behavior, and the ethical considerations when conducting experiments on human subjects.

Q: Where can I watch The Stanford Prison Experiment?

A: The movie is available for streaming on various platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

How to Prepare Your Kids for School After a Summer of Screen Time

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

The stanford prison experiment.

Common Sense Says
Parents Say 1 Review
Kids Say 5 Reviews

Common Sense Media Review

Powerful depiction of shocking, harrowing real-life events.

Parents Need to Know

Why Age 18+?

Psychological abuse. Prisoners are forced to pretend to have sex. Fighting. Beat

Prisoner forced to strip. Naked bottom shown. Sexual situations.

Uses of "f--k," "s--t," "bitch," "motherf----r," "bulls--t," "ass," "bastard," "

Frequent smoking. References to drinking and drugs.

Any Positive Content?

More of a cautionary tale than a positive message, the movie warns about abuse o

The characters are mainly victims, and most are surprised at just how far things

Violence & Scariness

Psychological abuse. Prisoners are forced to pretend to have sex. Fighting. Beating with nightsticks. Screaming panic attacks. References to rape.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Uses of "f--k," "s--t," "bitch," "motherf----r," "bulls--t," "ass," "bastard," "humping," "cum," "goddamn," "Jesus Christ" (as an exclamation).

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Positive Messages

More of a cautionary tale than a positive message, the movie warns about abuse of power and attitudes toward authority. Nobody knows how they'd actually behave in this situation, but perhaps some foresight will help.

Positive Role Models

The characters are mainly victims, and most are surprised at just how far things went, as if they were unable to control their attitudes and behavior.

Parents need to know that The Stanford Prison Experiment is a drama based on a famous real-life 1971 psychological experiment in which college students took on the roles of either prison guards or prisoners. The material is very strong, with psychological abuse, fighting, beating with nightsticks, screaming panic attacks, and references to rape. (It might have actually qualified as a "torture" movie if not for the fact that it's not "real.") Language is also strong, with many uses of "f--k," "s--t," and more. Prisoners are forced to pretend to have sex, and there are sexual references. Cigarette smoking is prevalent, and there are references to drinking and drugs. The story of the experiment is standard in most psychology textbooks today, and it serves as a fascinating cautionary tale, as well as a look at our inner workings and the way that power can influence us. Adults and older teens with strong stomachs will likely have a lot to talk about. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Parent and Kid Reviews

Parents say (1)
Kids say (5)

Based on 1 parent review

True story. Good movie but not for youth

What's the story.

In August 1971, at Stanford University, Dr. Philip Zimbardo ( Billy Crudup ) prepares for a most unusual kind of psychological experiment. He recruits several male students to portray either prisoners or guards in a mock prison situation (a coin toss decides their role). A hallway and several offices are prepared as cells. The guards quickly adapt to their roles of authority -- aided by their uniforms, nightsticks, and sunglasses -- while the prisoners, wearing numbered gowns and stocking caps, become submissive. The experiment is planned to last two weeks, but it's only a matter of days before things escalate beyond expectations, and the guards start subjecting prisoners to more extreme methods of psychological torture.

Is It Any Good?

This film is a fascinating, revealing, upsetting experience. A movie about the real-life 1971 Stanford prison experiment could have been sadistic and unwatchable, but director Kyle Patrick Alvarez's clinical approach focuses on realism and psychological drama rather than on thrills. Alvarez doesn't try to professionally polish the prison setting; instead, it has a functional, homemade look that makes it feel more immediate. The way the characters wear their hair and clothes -- and they way they carry themselves -- contributes to what feels like an authentic period piece.

The ensemble performances are strong, with the actors uniformly selling the horrors of the grim material, especially former child actor Michael Angarano , who, for his guard role, decides to adopt a scary southern accent (like Strother Martin's in Cool Hand Luke ). Crudup is also terrific, balancing the scholarly importance of his study with its moral conundrums, as is Nelsan Ellis as a former real-life prisoner who consults.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about The Stanford Prison Experiment 's violence . How much actual violence is shown, and how much is in the form of threats or power struggles? What's the effect on the audience? What's the impact of media violence on kids?

What happens in the experiment? Why do the guards become so abusive and the prisoners so submissive? What does the experiment reveal about human nature/behavior?

In the beginning, most of the students say that they would choose to be a prisoner. Why is this? Would you choose to be a prisoner or a guard?

Does this experiment apply to bullies ? Is the abuse of authority and power similar or different?

Movie Details

In theaters : July 17, 2015
On DVD or streaming : November 17, 2015
Cast : Billy Crudup , Michael Angarano , Olivia Thirlby
Director : Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Inclusion Information : Gay directors, Latino directors, Multiracial directors, Female actors, Bisexual actors
Studio : IFC Films
Genre : Drama
Run time : 122 minutes
MPAA rating : R
MPAA explanation : language including abusive behavior and some sexual references
Last updated : July 19, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

What to watch next.

Rescue Dawn

Want personalized picks for your kids' age and interests?

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Best Documentaries

Biopic movies.

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

AP Psych 9.3 The Stanford Prison Experiment EDITABLE Movie Guide & Worksheets

Google Docs™

Description

Treat yourself (and your class) to a movie day with differentiated resources fully aligned to AP Psychology with this editable "The Stanford Prison Experiment" Movie Guide and Student Worksheet Bundle - Designed for brand new teachers and seasoned veterans alike to be able to facilitate a killer lesson with little to no prep and without sacrificing anything in rigor! (looking for a PDF version? Find it here !)

Engage your AP Psychology students with this comprehensive and thought-provoking movie guide and student worksheet bundle focused on the film The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015) . Designed specifically for AP Psychology topic 9.3 (Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience) , this bundle provides a range of resources that align with the units and psychological concepts covered in the course. Prepare your students for an immersive learning experience as they delve into the fascinating world of social psychology and the power of social influence.

This bundle includes the following resources:

Teacher’s Guide with facilitation notes including pre-viewing, viewing, and post-viewing activities and a plot summary for teachers.
AP Psychology Alignment & Lecture Notes / Pre-Reading: Equip students with background information by reviewing the content using the provided notes, or by assigning it as pre-reading.
Movie Guide : A carefully crafted movie guide that encourages active viewing and critical thinking. Students should refer to this movie guide when completing the worksheets. It includes:
Glossary : A comprehensive glossary of key terms and concepts related to the movie and AP Psychology topic 9.3. This resource serves as a reference guide, helping students build their understanding of psychological terminology used in the film.
Timeline : A detailed timeline of the events depicted in the movie, allowing students to visualize the progression of the study and its corresponding psychological concepts. This resource aids students in contextualizing the events and their relevance to AP Psychology topic 9.3.
Student Worksheets: This bundle includes It features two sets of questions differentiated by levels of analysis that students can complete while watching the movie. These worksheets align with the movie guide questions, providing students with structured spaces to write their answers and reflections.
Set 1 : Questions about the events of the movie that help students comprehend the plot and engage with the story on a narrative level. These questions facilitate understanding of psychology concepts through the film's storyline.
Set 2 : Questions geared towards AP Psychology students, allowing them to analyze the movie through a psychological lens. These questions prompt students to connect the movie to relevant theories, research, and concepts in topic 9.3.
Essential Questions For Discussion : Aligned to AP Psychology Topic 9.3 for students to discuss after the movie
An Essay Prompt for students to respond to after watching.
Exit Ticket : Multiple choice questions to assess student mastery of AP Psychology Topic 9.3 concepts reviewed in the movie
Answer Keys for both student worksheets, the multiple choice exit ticket, and a sample student response to the essay prompt.

By utilizing this movie guide and student worksheet bundle, you can effectively integrate the film "The Stanford Prison Experiment" into your AP Psychology curriculum. Engage your students in active learning as they explore the psychological concepts of conformity, compliance, and obedience, and analyze the impact of social roles, situational factors, and authority figures on human behavior. This AP Psychology 9.3 Conformity, Compliance, & Obedience bundle provides a comprehensive and interactive approach to enhance student comprehension, critical thinking, and application of psychology principles.

Don't miss this opportunity to bring the captivating world of psychology to life through the gripping narrative of "The Stanford Prison Experiment." Equip your students with the tools they need to deepen their understanding and excel in AP Psychology topic 9.3 with this engaging movie guide and student worksheet bundle.

Find more resources at https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Store/Natalia-Charron

Movie Guides and Documentary Guides / Student Worksheet Bundles:

AP Psychology

AP Psychology Review With Pixar's Inside Out : Movie Guide and Student Worksheets

High School ELA / AP Language

Their Eyes Were Watching God Movie Guide and Student Worksheets EDITABLE bundle

Classical & Post-Classical Period

Gladiator Movie Analysis Pack for teaching the Roman Empire (Google Docs) (The Classical Period)
Mulan Movie Guide & Worksheet Bundle (EDITABLE) AP World History Unit 1 Topic 1 China

Civil War & Reconstruction (APUSH Unit 5)

Lincoln (2012) Movie Teaching Guide for APUSH Period 5, Student Worksheets, & Key
12 Years a Slave Movie Guide & Worksheet Bundle (EDITABLE) APUSH Unit 5

Industrialization & Imperialism

Andrew Marr’s History of the World #7: The Age of Industry Documentary Guide & Lesson Materials
Modern Times (1936) Differentiated Student Worksheets & Reference Materials (Topic 5.3 Industrialization)
The Last Samurai Student Worksheet and Movie Guide (Topic 5.6 The Meiji Restoration)
The Jungle Book & Imperialism: Lecture Notes, Student Worksheet, And Scaffolded Writing Prompts

World War I

All Quiet on the Western Front (Netflix 2022) movie guide: complete lesson plan and scaffolded materials on trench warfare and disillusionment using the 9-time Oscar nominated movie

The Roaring ‘20s

The Great Gatsby Movie Guide & Student Worksheets (EDITABLE) - APUSH & AP Lit

Causes of World War II

Apocalypse WWII Episode 1: The Aggression EDITABLE Documentary guide & worksheet
World War II in HD #1 The Gathering Storm Worksheets and Documentary Guide

The Holocaust

Schindler’s List Student Worksheet & Resources Aligned to AP World History 7.8
The Boy in Striped Pajamas Student Worksheet and Class Movie Guide APWH 7.8

Questions & Answers

Natalia charron.

We're hiring
Help & FAQ
Privacy policy
Student privacy
Terms of service
Tell us what you think

IMAGES

Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide (Social Psychology)
The Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide by Schaef's Store
Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide: (Prison, Deviance, Lord of the
AP Psych 9.3 The Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide & Worksheet Bundle
Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide (Social Psychology)
The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015)

COMMENTS

The Psychology of The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015) Movie Guide
The movie portrays the ethical dilemmas faced by the researchers as they struggle to intervene and halt the escalating abuse, while also examining the impact of power dynamics, conformity, and dehumanization on human behavior. The Psychology of. The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015) Movie Guide INCLUDES: Summary/Vocabulary/12 Movie Questions.
PDF Commack Schools
Commack Schools
The Psychology of The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015) Movie Guide
Description. "The Stanford Prison Experiment" is a 2015 psychological drama film based on the infamous 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo. The experiment aimed to study the effects of perceived power and authority on human behavior by simulating a mock prison environment. The movie depicts a group of young ...
Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide (Social Psychology)
The 2015 Stanford Prison Experiment movie looks at the psychology experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo during the summer of 1971. It looks at the abuse of power and the dangers of role-playing. ... My worksheet contains 40 movie questions and an answer key has been provided for your convenience. ... TED Talk, and movie guide.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015)
The Stanford Prison Experiment: Directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez. With Billy Crudup, Michael Angarano, Moises Arias, Nicholas Braun. In 1971, twenty-four male students are selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
More Information
A: Although the Stanford Prison Experiment movie was inspired by the classic 1971 experiment, there are key differences between the two. In the actual experiment, guards and prisoners were prevented from carrying out acts of physical violence such as those shown in the movie. In addition, the study ended differently than the movie.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (film)
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a 2015 American docudrama psychological thriller film directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, written by Tim Talbott, and starring Billy Crudup, Michael Angarano, Ezra Miller, Tye Sheridan, Keir Gilchrist, Olivia Thirlby, and Nelsan Ellis.The plot concerns the 1971 Stanford prison experiment, conducted at Stanford University under the supervision of psychology ...
Stanford Prison Experiment Discussion Questions
In 2003, U. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, 20 miles west of Baghdad. The prisoners were stripped, made to wear bags over their heads, and sexually humiliated while the guards laughed and took photographs. How is this abuse similar to or different from what took place in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
The Stanford Prison Experiment movie review (2015)
Despite the best efforts of the actors on both sides of the law, the film is completely clinical in its depiction, striking the same note for over 2 hours. It gets real dull, real fast. I didn't care because this isn't remotely like an actual prison; it's a bunch of privileged kids playing dress-up for $15 a day.
Discussion Questions
Extend your discussion to focus on: The illusion of prison created in marriages where one spouse becomes "guard" and the other becomes "prisoner". The illusion of prison created in neurosis where one aspect of the person becomes the prisoner who is told he/she is inadequate and hopeless, while another aspect serves as a personal guard.
Stanford Prison Experiment Flashcards
The Stanford prison experiment was a social psychology experiment influenced by the Milgram experiment that attempted to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. Consider the steps of the Scientific Method, and think of each step in the scientific method as question.
Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide: (Prison, Deviance, Lord ...
It highlights issues of ethical research and abuse of power. This movie guide is 12 multiple choice questions in which a key is included for easy grading. There are 4 reflection/discussion questions with open-ended answers for students to think about the consequences of the study. If you've enjoyed this resource, please give positive feedback!
The Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide: Uncovering the
Psychology document from Cardinal Ritter College Prep Hig, 6 pages, Name_Date_Period_ Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide (Zimbardo) 1. Watch the opening with the newspapers. How much would the college students be paid a day? 2. The students were asked why they wanted to participate in the study. The first three all ha
The Stanford Prison Experiment by Saul McLeod
to rid a person of lice or other insects. Infringement (noun) : the act of breaking a law or agreement. Derisive (adjective) : expressing contempt or ridicule. Phillip Zimbardo conducted The Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 to discover how quickly people conform to the roles of guard and prisoner. Read for more.
Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo's Famous Study
The experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to examine situational forces versus dispositions in human behavior. 24 young, healthy, psychologically normal men were randomly assigned to be "prisoners" or "guards" in a simulated prison environment. The experiment had to be terminated after only 6 days due to the ...
Philip Zimbardo reflects on 'The Stanford Prison Experiment' movie
Today, Philip Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford, will see the story of his famously controversial Stanford Prison Experiment unfold on the big screen. Conducted in 1971, the ...
How the Stanford Prison Experiment Worked
The Takeaways. Zimbardo realized that rather than a neutral scenario, he created a prison much like real prisons, where corrupt and cruel behavior didn't occur in a vacuum, but flowed from the rules and principles of the institution to the people who carried out those principles. The behavior of the guards and prisoners wasn't dictated by some ...
AP Psych 9.3 The Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Guide ...
Engage your AP Psychology students with this comprehensive and thought-provoking movie guide and student worksheet bundle focused on the film The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015). Designed specifically for AP Psychology topic 9.3 (Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience), this bundle provides a range of resources that align with the units and ...
37 Facts About The Movie The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a gripping and thought-provoking movie that delves deep into the dark and disturbing realm of human behavior. Based on the infamous 1971 psychological study of the same name conducted by Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo, this film takes viewers on a harrowing journey as it explores the depths to which ...
The Stanford Prison Experiment Movie Review
Kids say ( 5 ): This film is a fascinating, revealing, upsetting experience. A movie about the real-life 1971 Stanford prison experiment could have been sadistic and unwatchable, but director Kyle Patrick Alvarez's clinical approach focuses on realism and psychological drama rather than on thrills. Alvarez doesn't try to professionally polish ...
PDF Stanford Prison Experiment: Worksheet
on. Experiment was conducted. 2. Why is the title "Stanford. so. Experiment" a misnomer? 3. What incentives were there for prisoners to outwardly accept t. r. ole and act "crazy"? 4. List three unethical instances concerning the conduct of.
Common lit answer key for Standford prison experiment
Answer. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study that ended prematurely due to ethical concerns and the participants' aggressive behavior. The prison uniforms were used as a tool to de-individualize prisoners, reinforcing the power hierarchy. The lack of objection to abuse may have been due to social pressures and the conforming ...
AP Psych 9.3 The Stanford Prison Experiment EDITABLE Movie Guide ...
Engage your AP Psychology students with this comprehensive and thought-provoking movie guide and student worksheet bundle focused on the film The Stanford Prison Experiment (2015).Designed specifically for AP Psychology topic 9.3 (Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience), this bundle provides a range of resources that align with the units and psychological concepts covered in the course.