This blog post examines the raw power exposed by the Stanford Prison Experiment and how humans transform within systems, compiling questions that prompt us to reconsider the choices we must make.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Influence of Systems
The Stanford Prison Experiment prompted me to reconsider the military system. Both the 2010 film ‘The Experiment’ and the German film ‘Das Experiment’ were based on the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo. This experiment began with the question: “What is prison life really like?”
Previous studies on prison life struggled to accurately understand real prison conditions due to factors like inmates’ distrust. To address this, Professor Jim Bardo and his graduate students devised an experiment simulating prison life. Participants were recruited through newspaper ads. The experiment was scheduled to run for two weeks, with participants paid $15 per day. From many applicants, 20 individuals with no prior convictions and in sound mental and physical health were selected. They were randomly divided into 8 inmates and 12 guards.
Professor Jim Bardow served as the prison supervisor, one graduate student as the warden, and two graduate students as supply and management officers, launching the simulated prison with a total of 24 participants. However, the experiment ended after only six days, failing to complete the planned two weeks, due to the inmates’ depression, psychological distress, and neurological disorders. During this brief period, violence and sexual abuse occurred between inmates and guards. Remarkably, these individuals had been ordinary college students just six days prior to the experiment’s start.
Initial Patterns and Changes in the Experiment
Early in the experiment, the prisoners took the situation lightly, adopting an attitude of relaxing and earning money until it ended. In contrast, the guards received instructions from Professor Jim Bardow and graduate students to “treat the prisoners like you would in a real prison.” These instructions led to friction between inmates and guards, ultimately causing the inmates to resist the guards’ coercive behavior and instigate a riot.
The riot became a catalyst for the guards to immerse themselves more deeply in their roles, and their coercive abuse became increasingly systematic. For example, they restricted toilet use, reduced sleep time, and pressured the inmates. More astonishingly, the prisoners gradually conformed to this oppressive environment.
Their compliance was evident during the parole board proceedings held during the experiment. All prisoners defended themselves to secure parole, despite having committed no actual crimes. They argued that “freedom is more important than money” and requested parole. Yet, even though they could have immediately left the experiment by declaring they wanted to quit, not a single one chose to do so. After the committee meeting, the prisoners were handcuffed again and led back to the prison basement, mentally deteriorating as they envied those granted parole.
The System’s Influence
Even more astonishing was that Professor Jim Bardow and the graduate students who designed the experiment were themselves influenced by the system. Researchers, who should have maintained the experiment’s objectivity, tacitly approved or even encouraged inhumane acts as part of the prison system. They instructed guards who showed no coercive attitude to oppress the prisoners more, and forced defiant prisoners into obedience. The research purpose soon became secondary; they were preoccupied with maintaining the prison system itself.
This transformation also affected visiting family members of prisoners and fellow researchers. Even one mother who witnessed an inmate’s abnormal behavior merely acknowledged it without demanding the experiment’s termination. A visiting fellow social psychologist even remarked, “The inmates are filthy” and “They should be treated more harshly.” The system possessed a powerful force that influenced not only its members but also outsiders.
The Experiment’s End and the Importance of Heroes
So how was this experiment finally stopped? Only one visiting fellow psychologist pointed out the experiment’s flaws and demanded its termination. She felt sickened by the prison’s dehumanizing environment and the changes in her fellow researchers, strongly insisting the experiment be halted. After arguing with her, Professor Jim Bardow recognized the problem and ended the experiment.
Through this experience, Professor Jim Bardo realized the importance of “heroes.” He defined a hero not as a grand figure like a mythical character, but as someone who resists the existing system and raises questions. Among the dozens who observed the experiment, she was the only one who voiced opposition to the system.
Similarities Between the Military and Systems
The Stanford Prison Experiment made me reconsider military life. All soldiers, myself included, were united under the same purpose: fulfilling our duty to national defense. This required a command structure demanding obedience to orders and swift responses. Yet, the military system itself cannot justify coercive or inhumane acts. Nevertheless, once inside the system, anyone conforms to its actions. I, too, was influenced by this system and participated in inhumane acts.
Today’s military has largely eliminated many violent practices compared to the past. This change wasn’t simply a result of time passing; it was made possible by the voices of numerous heroes who resisted the system.
To Become a Hero in Reality
We all live within systems, large and small. Long-standing systems like family or nation become so familiar we may not recognize their influence. However, there is also the possibility of being thrust into sudden, unexpected systems, like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
At that moment, will we succumb to the system, or will we become heroes? From now on, rather than adapting to the system, we must cultivate the strength to resist injustice and raise our own voices. We must strive to become heroes in reality, not just heroes in myths.
