<p>The <a href="https://www.prisonexp.org/the-story" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stanford Prison Experiment</a> (see also <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Wikipedia article</a>) is taught to many psychology students because of its infamy and the media coverage around it at the time of the experiment. There have been numerous clear criticisms of the experiment's design and execution, notably; the coaching of the guards, implications of demands by Zimbardo, and the very small sample size.</p>
<p>Are there, however, any criticisms of the conclusions it came to? The idea that human beings are, if fed the right stressors (pressure from authority, freedom from consequence) able and willing to commit acts of violence is the one that sticks out to me - have there been other more rigorous (hopefully more ethical) studies done that support the conclusions the Prison Experiment came to? Or is the reason it is so widely taught because of its infamy and how it exemplifies poor experiment design?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-26T10:42:53.863Z
Related: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/735/7604 and https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/4366/7604
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-26T10:53:21.317Z
Also related: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/15610/7604 plus https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/19862/7604
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-04T04:52:25.377Z
Note that (as per the link in the question) Stanford Prison was not an experiment, but a role-play and simulation, or demo, or at best, a pilot.  Thus, no conclusions should be drawn from it.  There have been partial replications by [Reicher & Haslam (2006)](https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998) and [Lovibond, Mithiran, & Adams (1979)](https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067908254355), but both with quite different conclusions.  I suspect that SPE continues to be taught mostly because of its historical significance and continuing influence.
Arnon Weinberg
<social-psychology><prosocial-behavior><criminology>
Is the Stanford Prison Experiment considered valuable by modern psychologists?
user28983
# Is the Stanford Prison Experiment considered valuable by modern psychologists?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-07-24)

The [Stanford Prison Experiment](https://www.prisonexp.org/the-story) (see also [the Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)) is taught to many psychology students because of its infamy and the media coverage around it at the time of the experiment. There have been numerous clear criticisms of the experiment's design and execution, notably; the coaching of the guards, implications of demands by Zimbardo, and the very small sample size.

Are there, however, any criticisms of the conclusions it came to? The idea that human beings are, if fed the right stressors (pressure from authority, freedom from consequence) able and willing to commit acts of violence is the one that sticks out to me - have there been other more rigorous (hopefully more ethical) studies done that support the conclusions the Prison Experiment came to? Or is the reason it is so widely taught because of its infamy and how it exemplifies poor experiment design?

**Tags:** social-psychology, prosocial-behavior, criminology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/735/7604 and https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/4366/7604  
> **username_1**: Also related: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/15610/7604 plus https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/19862/7604  
> **username_2**: Note that (as per the link in the question) Stanford Prison was not an experiment, but a role-play and simulation, or demo, or at best, a pilot.  Thus, no conclusions should be drawn from it.  There have been partial replications by [Reicher & Haslam (2006)](https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998) and [Lovibond, Mithiran, & Adams (1979)](https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067908254355), but both with quite different conclusions.  I suspect that SPE continues to be taught mostly because of its historical significance and continuing influence.  

---

## 0 answers

