Back to Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

A few months ago, I saw an article on the Stanford Prison Experiment, discussed it on this blog in a brief post in which I said I wanted to circle back to this. Thankfully Retraction Watch gave me an excuse, and some down time at a conference is allowing me time to say a few more words. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (SPD going forward) was controversial from the start, as any of us with even a cursory awareness of social psychological research would know. Regrettably, it has been taken as the gospel in many textbooks (Introductory Psych textbooks as well as Social Psych textbooks) leading to the impression that the SPD was instrumental in establishing the importance of the power of the situation. Zimbardo himself certainly used the notoriety of the SPD for self-promotion throughout the remainder of his career and life. 

The Retraction Watch article I mentioned above addresses a question that seems reasonable to ask: should Zimbardo's papers on SPD be retracted? Certainly, as the guest author notes, there are good reasons to do so. First up the author considers the scientific credentials of the study. There is no well-defined a-priori hypothesis which itself is a big no-no. Where was the control group? There was none. Any tests of significance? Who needs those, right? Then there is the little matter of Zimbardo's expertise. He had no known background in criminology as I understand it. One major ethical principle is competence. Does the PI have the background to adequately design and execute the study? Can the PI adequately train their research assistants to carry out their duties in the lab? In this case, Zimbardo fails the competency test.

There is also the question of the originality of the study's design. Granted, in the sciences we build on the work of others. So as far as novelty goes, I am not that much of a stickler. But it is important to credit the sources that inspired one's work. In the case of the SPD, apparently Zimbardo got the idea from a student term paper that remained uncredited.

The ethical treatment of participants is certainly worth weighing as well. The conditions the "prisoners" in this simulation experienced were inhumane to put it bluntly. Humiliation, unsanitary conditions, and sleep deprivation were all part of the experience. The SPD was a lawsuit waiting to happen. 

I have covered the credibility of the findings elsewhere on this blog. There was certainly evidence of fraud in the reporting. Important details were left out intentionally. The seemingly "spontaneous" scene during the six days the simulation ran were effectively stage managed by Zimbardo. Maybe I am being charitable calling this the psychology of community theatre, but it captures the essence.

So all of the above would make any paper published ripe for retraction. But there is a problem. This research is over 50 years old. One article that was published in the early 1970s appeared in a journal that technically no longer exists. Retraction would be impossible in that case. 

If retraction is impossible, what is the remedy? I think I am largely in agreement with the author that the SPD is best covered in textbooks, seminars, and public media coverage as a cautionary tale of how not to conduct research or how to report findings. The study had so many ethical red flags after all. And really this is my clarion call to textbook authors: if you are working on a new book for students or updating your own, and you cover Zimbardo's SPD, make sure to treat it not as some amazing revelation about human behavior but rather as a flawed and fraudulent study that violated fundamental ethical principles. Don't leave those of us who teach Introductory Psych courses or Social Psych courses do damage control individually. 

Happy New Year!

 

After a bit of a break, it is time to jump right in. The academic world can be a challenging space, depending on where one lives. Even if we take location out of the equation, there are plenty of political interest groups pressuring colleges and universities to crack down on whole degree programs, faculty speech, and student speech. I may not be a free speech absolutist, but I do generally err on the side of free expression, as the academy writ large tends to function better when faculty and students can speak their minds, with the caveat that there is an agreement on the fundamentals (what I call data or what everyone else would call facts or premises). So far, I've been pretty lucky, but I always know I am always one legislative session away from running out of luck. But I choose to be hopeful. I do know we will face some serious headwinds depending on what the next president of the US pursues in terms of student visa availability, the would Department of Education, and so on. In a sense, it is a good thing that policies governing curriculum are devolved to the states and in my sector often to college or university systems. Without some centralized means of enforcing faculty or students to follow a particular party line, the odds of pulling that feat off are very minimal, but not non-existent. If we're really fortunate, the incoming US president will prove to be about as lazy and ineffective as he was during his first term (2017-2021). 

This is an especially interesting time to be studying authoritarianism. I study authoritarianism from a psychological perspective as opposed to studying authoritarian political organizations and systems. I do think the work I and others who are far more well-known does inform how to understand how an authoritarian regime could become established and perpetuated, and that those in political science and history can inform us psychologists on how those systems might influence authoritarian attitudes among the citizenry. 

I have slowed down my research activities considerably these last few years. Initially, the pandemic threw a monkey wrench into my plans. Then it just came down to a series of personal family crises these last couple of years that have kept me out of the game. Thankfully, I am now essentially a senior academic, so perhaps it matters a bit less if I publish or not. I have been revisiting a couple topics recently and should be sharing a bit of that with you at some point later on in the year. 

In the meantime, happy new year!