Social Psychology

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20

The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment, again: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation

Jared Bartels

To cite this article: Jared Bartels (2019) Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment, again: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation, The Journal of Social Psychology, 159:6, 780-790, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058

Published online: 08 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6846

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

This article has been awarded the Centre for Open Science 'Open Data' badge.

Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment, again: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation Jared Bartels

William Jewell College

ABSTRACT The day before the Stanford prison experiment began, the investigators held an orientation session for the guards in which they communicated expectations for hostile guard behavior, a flippant prisoner mindset, and the possibility of ending the study prematurely. While the study’s principal investigator has minimized the influence of this orientation, critics have speculated that it provided a “script” for guard abuse. In the present studies, participants were presented with a hypothetical prison simulation study and randomly assigned as guards to an orientation session that included these expectations (Stanford orientation) or one providing basic study information. Across three studies, participants exposed to the Stanford orientation relative to a control orientation, reported greater expectations for hostile and oppressive behavior on the part of the study’s investigator and from others and themselves as guards. The present results provide empirical support for speculation that the language of the guard orientation in the Stanford prison experiment sanctioned abuse among guards.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 1 August 2018 Accepted 13 March 2019

KEYWORDS Demand characteristics; imprisonment; P.G. Zimbardo; social psychology; Stanford prison experiment

In the Stanford prison experiment, Zimbardo and colleagues (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973; Zimbardo, 2007) randomly assigned 21 college-aged men to the role of guard or prisoner in a mock prison. Conflict between the prisoners and guards emerged on the second day of the study and escalated until it was prematurely ended on day six. The authors attributed the abusive behavior among some guards and psychological breakdown among some prisoners to the power of situational forces, among them an excessive power differential inherent in the roles of guards and prisoners. Guard aggression, according to Haney et al. (1973), was “a ‘natural’ consequence of being in the uniform of a ‘guard’ and asserting the power inherent in that role” (p. 92). Critics, however, have challenged this account and the methodological and theoretical soundness of the study (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975; Banyard, 2007; Carnahan & McFarland, 2007; Fromm, 1973; Haslam & Reicher, 2007, 2017; Haslam, Reicher, & Van Bavel, 2018; McFarland & Carnahan, 2009; Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

In 2001 Reicher and Haslam conducted the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) prison study (Reicher & Haslam, 2006). Like the Stanford prison experiment, BBC study participants were randomly assigned the role of prisoner or guard in an institution with psychological dynamics (i.e., power and status asymmetry) mimicking a real prison. However, the BBC prison study differed from the Stanford prison experiment in several key ways. Unlike the Stanford prison experiment, Reicher and Haslam tested a priori propositions of a theory, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), throughout the course of the study. In stark contrast to the Stanford prison experiment, guards in the BBC study were not abusive and prisoners, rather than exhibiting despondency, became increasingly noncompliant with guard directives over the course of the study. The results of the BBC study suggested that role adoption, rather than being a natural consequence of the situation, is determined by the extent to which participants identify with a group. In short, prisoners

CONTACT Jared Bartels [email protected] Department of Psychological Science, William Jewell College, 500 College Hill, 120 Jewell Hall, Liberty, MO 64068-1896 © 2019 Taylor & Francis

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2019, VOL. 159, NO. 6, 780–790 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058

coalesced as a group and guards did not. The opposite pattern appears likely in the Stanford prison experiment, as identification with the guard role was actively encouraged by the experimenters throughout the study, beginning with a guard orientation session prior to the start of the study (Haslam & Reicher, 2007; Haslam, Reicher, & Van Bavel, 2018). While Reicher and Haslam (2006) provided no instructions for guard behavior, demand characteristics via the Stanford prison experi- ment guard orientation may, in part, account for the stark behavioral differences between Stanford prison and BBC prison study guards.

In his seminal paper on demand characteristics, Orne (1962) speculated that, under most circumstances, participants are motivated to be “good subjects” or confirm the experimenter’s hypothesis because they value science and want to contribute. Research indicates that figuring out the point of the study or the experimenter’s hypothesis (Sawyer, 1975), knowledge of being observed (Kiley, 1974; see McCambridge, de Bruin, & Witton, 2012), and suggestive communication from the experimenter (e.g., Navarick, 2004, 2007; Nichols & Maner, 2008; Stern, Saayman, & Touyz, 1978), influence the behavior of research participants. With respect to the latter, Orne (1962) conjectured that implicit suggestions would be more likely to elicit hypothesis-consistent responding compared to explicit communication. However, Navarick (2004, 2007) found that openly communicating the experimenter’s preference for a participant’s response and that a certain participant response would help the researchers with data analysis, produced responding in the advocated direction. Stern et al. (1978) utilized more subtle demand characteristics informing participants in a nocturnal dream study that previous testing indicated a tendency to dream about a particular type of locality (e.g., urban or outdoor-nature). Analysis of dream journals indicated dream content consistent with the suggestion.

Critics have long speculated about the presence of demand characteristics in the Stanford prison experiment (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975; Banyard, 2007; Haslam & Reicher, 2007; Haslam & Reicher, 2012, 2017). Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) surveyed 150 college students in the Boston area about their expectations regarding a prison simulation study. Students were provided informa- tion similar to that given to Stanford prison experiment participants, including the original ad soliciting participants, a description of the rights and privileges one would have to give up as a participant (e.g., stay in prison for one to two weeks; consent to be under surveillance), and an account of the arrest and booking procedures (e.g., participants are arrested, blindfolded, and sent to the prison). After giving participants the above information, Banuazizi and Movahedi probed for awareness of the experimenter’s expectations regarding the outcome and asked participants about their expectations regarding guard behavior. Results indicated that 81% were able to deduce the point of the experiment, and nearly 90% predicted hostile and oppressive behavior on the part of the guards (this dropped to roughly 50% when participants were asked how they would respond as guards).

Decades after the Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) publication, critics would highlight another potential source of demand characteristics in the Stanford prison experiment, the guard orientation. The day before the study began, the principal investigator held an orientation session for the guards, in which he, as prison Superintendent, explained the purpose of the study, what they were able to do as guards, and what to expect in terms of prisoner behavior. The guards were told the following:

We can create boredom. We can create a sense of frustration. We can create fear in them, to some degree. We can create a notion of the arbitrariness that governs their lives, which are totally controlled by us, by the system, by you, me. … They’ll have no privacy at all, there will be constant surveillance–nothing they do will go unobserved. They will have no freedom of action. They will be able to do nothing and say nothing that we don’t permit. We’re going to take away their individuality in various ways. … In general, what all this should create in them is a sense of powerlessness. We have total power in the situation. They have none. (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 55).

Haslam and Reicher (2007) note that the above instructions amount to “details of how to oppress the prisoners” (p. 618). It is not only the guidance itself, but the manner in which it is delivered that is problematic. Note the references to “we” in the above quote. The effect, according to Haslam and

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 781

Reicher (2007), is the “invocation and management of a shared social identity” (p. 618). Suggestive language is evident later in the orientation session as well as guards were informed that prisoners are not going to take the study seriously (i.e., Prisoners think this is all going to be fun and games…) that the study might not last two weeks (i.e., We don’t know how long it’s going to run…) and that the investigators want the study to have an impact (i.e., We’d like it [the study] to have a real impact from the beginning…; Zimbardo, 1971). The content of guard orientation raises doubt about the extent to which the Stanford prison experiment guards were writing “their own scripts on the blank canvass of the SPE [Stanford prison experiment]” as opposed to operating according to a “script of terror” (Banyard, 2007, p. 494).

There is no direct reference to demand characteristics in The Lucifer Effect (Zimbardo, 2007), a book detailing the events of the Stanford prison experiment. However, the author notes that the guard orientation was meant to get the guards “into the mood of the joint” (p. 55). While he does acknowledge that initially “some of the guards’ reactions were probably influenced by their orienta- tion” (p. 216), he concludes that, with or without the orientation, the situational forces would produce the same outcome.

The only study to examine demand characteristics in the Stanford prison experiment was the aforementioned survey by Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975). While these authors focused on demand characteristics in the procedural details of the study given to Stanford prison experiment participants, the present studies examine demand characteristics in the debated guard orientation. Specifically, the disputably suggestive language in the orientation was varied to examine its potential to influence guard responding in a simulated prison study. Both Orne (1962) and Sawyer (1975) discuss several meth- odologies for detecting the influence of demand characteristics including experimentally manipulating these characteristics while controlling for experimental variables, asking participants to respond to a simulation of the experiment and probing for experimenter expectations after such a simulation. Both elements were utilized in the present studies. In light of the results obtained by Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975), the numerous suggestions by critics that the orientation session sanctioned guard abuse, and the results obtained in the BBC prison study in which both an orientation session for guards and guard abuse were absent, it was expected that an orientation session fashioned after the one delivered in the Stanford prison experiment would produce greater negative and less positive responses relative to one providing basic study information.

Study 1

Method

Participants Participation was solicited through a crowdsourcing service in the United Kingdom.1 Participants (N = 128) were paid €1.10 for participation. In order to approximate the SPE sample, participation was limited to males (Mage = 32.07, SD = 11.00). Ethnicity for the sample was as follows: African American = 2, Caucasian = 97, East Asian = 10, Latino(a) = 6, Middle Eastern = 1, Multiracial = 1, Other = 11. This sample size reached the required N = 64 in each group for power of .80 at the α = .05 level (Cohen, 1992).

Procedure Like Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975), participants were given basic information about a hypothetical prison study, information given to participants in the Stanford prison experiment (http://pdf.prison exp.org/geninfo.pdf). Specifically, participants were told that a simulated prison was being estab- lished to study a number of problems of psychological and sociological relevance. Paid volunteers would be randomly assigned to play the roles of either prisoners or guards for the duration of the study. The time period would vary somewhat from about 5 days to 2 weeks for any one volunteer. Participants were also given information about the ad used to recruit participants.

782 J. BARTELS

Upon consent, participants were informed that they were assigned the role of guards and would be asked to listen to the orientation session. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of two orientation sessions. The experimental orientation, henceforth referred to as the Stanford orienta- tion, was modeled after the one delivered by investigators in the Stanford prison experiment (the orientation was transcribed from audio available from the Stanford archives; https://purl.stanford. edu/fx266hb9381). Specifically, the Stanford orientation included expectations for guard behavior (i.e., “We can create boredom, we can create a sense of frustration we can create a sense of fear in them to some degree”), expectations for prisoner behavior (i.e., “prisoners think this is all going to be fun and games”), and expectations for the course of the study (i.e., “If it looks like it’s too serious, we might have to end earlier; we want this study to have a real impact”), and the desire for the study to have an impact (i.e., “We’d like it to have a real impact from the beginning and not just be some silly ass study”). In the control condition, participants listened to an orientation that included only basic study material (also provided to participants in the Stanford prison experiment), including informa- tion about provisions for prisoners (i.e., “Food and accommodations for the prisoners will be provided which will meet minimal standard nutrition, health and sanitation requirements”) and housing of guards and prisoners (i.e., “You guards, along with the warden, will be housed in cell blocks adjacent to prisoner cells with meals and bedding provided for you separately”).

Scripts for both orientations were roughly 220 words in length. A video was created, which included a recording of the script created by a commercially available text-to-speech converter with a standard voice. Both videos included an image of a conference room in which the hypothetical orientation session was held, subtitles, and were roughly 90 seconds in length. Participants were asked to pay close attention to the orientation session, as they would be asked subsequent questions about the information provided. After viewing the video, participants were asked how they expected guards to behave toward prisoners in the study, how they would behave toward prisoners as a guard, and the principal investigator’s expectations for guard behavior. Participants were asked to indicate their expectations for hostile and oppressive as well as friendly, fair, and lenient guard behavior using a 7-point Likert scale. These categories were drawn from results of Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975). Hostile and oppressive responses were significantly correlated (r = .74, .77, .55, p < .01) within each scenario (expectations of guards, yourself as guard, experimenter), as were friendly, fair, and hostile responses (r ranged from .22 to .70, p ≤ .01). Thus, negative (hostile and oppressive) and positive (friendly, fair, and lenient) variables were utilized in the subsequent analysis. Lastly, participants were asked if they recognized the study and, if so, to name it. Data from participants who were able to identify the hypothetical study as the Stanford prison experiment was eliminated.

Results

In order to examine differences in expectations for guard behavior between the two orientation conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. Prior to conducting the ANOVA, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was evaluated and satisfied, and Levene’s F test ranged from .23 to 2.21 (p from .14 to .64). The ANOVA results, summarized in Table 1, indicate that those in the Stanford orientation relative to the control orientation expected more negative (M = 5.24, SD = 1.17 to M = 3.54, SD = 1.35, Hedges’ g = 1.36) and less positive (M = 2.70, SD = 1.21 to M = 3.85, SD = 1.05, Hedges’ g = 1.01) behavior from the others as guards. Similarly, participants expected greater negative (M = 3.73, SD = 1.46 to M = 2.86, SD = 1.23, Hedges’ g = 0.64) and less positive (M = 3.70, SD = 1.18 to M = 4.52, SD = .97, Hedges’ g = 0.75) responses from themselves as guards when assigned to the Stanford orientation relative to the control orientation. Additionally, results indicated that participants in the Stanford orientation compared to the control orientation held that the experimenter expected greater negative (M = 5.21, SD = 1.26 to M = 3.60, SD = 1.38, Hedges’ g = 1.23) and less positive behavior (M = 2.61, SD = 1.34 to M = 3.86, SD = 1.11, Hedges’ g = 1.00) emitted from guards.2

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 783

Discussion

Results from study 1 replicate and extend the findings of Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975). Based on the procedural information given to participants in the Stanford prison experiment, those respond- ing to the Banuazizi and Movahedi survey expected hostile and oppressive behavior from others playing the role of guards and to a lesser extent, themselves in the role of guards. In the present study, results indicated that participants ostensibly assigned to the role of guards in a simulated prison study expressed different expectations for hostile and oppressive guard behavior depending on the nature of the orientation session. Those exposed to an orientation modeled on the original Stanford prison experiment guard orientation indicated greater expectations for hostile and oppres- sive guard behavior relative to those in an orientation where basic study information was given (i.e., absent demand characteristics). These results speak to concerns raised among critics about the demand characteristics inherent in the guard orientation (e.g., Reicher & Haslam, 2006). Haslam and Reicher (2007) note that the guard orientation not only provides a scheme for guard oppression, but uses language (e.g., “We can create boredom, we can create a sense of frustration we…”) that fosters a sense of a shared identity and shared mission between himself and the guards. The present results suggest that the language of the guard orientation in the Stanford prison experiment may evoke hostile/oppressive expectations.

Study 2

Study 1 established that the evocative language in the guard orientation of a simulated prison study influenced expectations for positive and negative guard behavior. Study 2 represents an attempt to replicate the findings in study 1 with a sample that more closely approximates the Stanford prison experiment participants. Thus, in study 2, participation was limited to male university students.

Method

Participants Participation was solicited through a crowdsourcing service in the United Kingdom. Participants (N = 149; Mage = 22.40, SD = 4.40) were paid €0.77 for completing the study. Ethnicity for the sample was as follows: Caucasian = 102, East Asian = 6, Latino(a) = 12, Middle Eastern = 13, Multiracial = 7, Other = 9. This sample size reached the required N = 64 in each group for power of .80 at the α = .05 level (Cohen, 1992).

Table 1. One-way ANOVA results with expectations for guard behavior as the criterion.

Study 1 Study 2

MSPE(SD) a MCon(SD)

b F g 95% CI MSPE(SD) c MCon(SD)

d F g 95% CI

Guard(other) Negative 5.24(1.17) 3.54(1.35) 58.37** 1.36 [0.97,1.75] 5.06(1.21) 3.82(1.32) 35.61** 0.98 [0.64,1.32] Positive 2.70(1.21) 3.85(1.05) 31.59** 1.01 [0.64,1.38] 2.93(1.10) 3.73(1.08) 19.76** 0.73 [0.40,1.07] Guard(self) Negative 3.73(1.46) 2.86(1.23) 12.91** 0.64 [0.28,1.00] 3.74(1.28) 2.99(1.29) 12.55** 0.58 [0.26,0.91] Positive 3.70(1.18) 4.52(0.97) 18.00** 0.75 [0.39,1.11] 4.05(1.04) 4.45(1.09) 5.21* 0.38 [0.07,0.70] Investigator Negative 5.21(1.26) 3.60(1.38) 47.51** 1.23 [0.85,1.61] 5.00(1.46) 3.60(1.17) 41.90** 1.05 [0.71,1.40] Positive 2.61(1.34) 3.86(1.11) 31.52** 1.00 [0.63,1.37] 2.98(1.36) 3.97(0.94) 26.07**e 0.84 [0.50,1.18]

MSPE = Mean for Stanford group, MCon = Mean for control group; g = Hedges’ g; Guard (other) = expectations for others as guards; Guard (self) = expectations for oneself as guard; Investigator = expectations of experimenter; Negative (hostile and oppressive); Positive (friendly, fair, and lenient); CI = confidence interval.

an = 72. bn = 56. cn = 78. dn = 71. eBrown-Forsythe = 26.95** *p < .05, **p < .01.

784 J. BARTELS

Procedure The procedure was the same as in study 1.

Results

As in study 1, a one-way ANOVA was conducted. Prior to conducting the ANOVA, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was evaluated and satisfied in all but one case (i.e., investigator-positive; Levene’s F = 20.88, p < .013), Levene’s F test ranged from .01 to 4.81 (ps from .01 to .94). The ANOVA results, summarized in Table 1, indicate that those in the Stanford orientation, relative to the control orientation, expected more negative (M = 5.06, SD = 1.21 to M = 3.82, SD = 1.32, Hedges’ g = 0.98) and less positive (M = 2.93, SD = 1.10 to M = 3.73, SD = 1.08, Hedges’ g = 0.73) behavior from others as guards. Participants also expected greater negative (M = 3.74, SD = 1.28 to M = 2.99, SD = 1.28, Hedges’ g = 0.58) and less positive (M = 4.05, SD = 1.04 to M = 4.45, SD = 1.09, Hedges’ g = 0.38) responses from themselves as guards when assigned to the Stanford orientation relative to the control orientation. Lastly, results indicated that participants in the Stanford orientation compared to the control orientation held that the experimenter expected greater negative (M = 5.00, SD = 1.46 to M = 3.60, SD = 1.17, Hedges’ g = 1.05) and less positive behavior (M = 2.98, SD = 1.36 to M = 3.97, SD = 0.94, Hedges’ g = 0.84) from guards.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated the results of study 1 with a sample that more closely approximated that of the Stanford prison experiment. While the present results do not provide evidence that Stanford prison guards were responding to demand characteristics, they provide strong support, along with results from Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975), that demand characteristics were present in the Stanford prison study. Thus, they substantiate concerns raised among critics about the suggestive language of the guard orientation (e.g., Haslam & Reicher, 2017). It should be noted that in study 2 (as in study 1), effect sizes were in the small to medium range (Cohen, 1992) when participants were asked to indicate how they would respond as guards, while effects were in the medium to large range when participants indicated how others would act as guards and about the experimenter’s expectations. While these results may appear to weaken the case for demand characteristics, they do so only if one mistakenly assumes that the present studies are an attempt to account for behavior itself (whether in the Stanford prison experiment or a contemporary prison simulation study) rather than demand characteristics per se. Moreover, the discrepancy between others as guards and oneself as a guard, a discrepancy that emerged in the Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) study as well, should be interpreted in light of the well-established better-than-average effect or tendency to rate oneself as more favorable relative to others (e.g., Brown, 2012).

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 indicated that a guard orientation modeled after the Stanford prison experiment orientation influenced the expectations for positive and negative guard behavior among participants responding to a hypothetical prison study. However, the possibility remains that the crucial phrases in the orientation would not have accounted for any hostile or oppressive expectations beyond that produced by the situational variables identified by Haney et al. (1973); see also Zimbardo, 2007) as causally related to the pathological behavior among prisoners and guards. Thus, study 3 sought to control for the experimentally relevant independent variables while manipulating demand characteristics; a method recommended by Sawyer (1975). Since the primary contention over the guard orientation has been the script for negative guard behavior, study 3 focused exclusively on negative (hostile and oppressive) guard behavior. Additionally, study 3 presented participants with an ambiguous open-ended scenario involving guard-prisoner interaction. Essentially, this study represents an attempt to eliminate the influence of the guard orientation by providing participants with additional information that accentuates the situational forces presumed to be influential in the Stanford prison experiment.

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 785

Method

Participants Like study 2, participation was limited to male university students and was solicited through a crowdsourcing service in the UK. Participants (N = 108) were paid €0.88 for participation. Demographic information was as follows: Mage = 24.77, SD = 6.10; ethnicity – Caucasian = 59, East Asian = 16, Latino(a) = 12, African American = 9, Middle Eastern = 1, Multiracial = 4, Other = 7. Data from those who correctly identified the study as the Stanford prison experiment and data from those who failed to correctly answer the manipulation check question was eliminated from subsequent analysis. The sample approached the required N = 64 in each group for power of .80 at the α = .05 level (Cohen, 1992).

Procedure The procedure was the same as in study 1, with two exceptions. First, participants in study 3 were provided with the following additional information prior to the guard orientation:

Prisoners will wear a loosely fitting muslin smock (i.e., something that resembles a dress). The prisoner uniforms will have an identification number on the front and the back. Prisoners will refer to one another and prison staff will refer to prisoners using this number. Prisoners will have a chain and lock around an ankle, will wear rubber sandals and will wear a nylon stocking cap on their head. Prisoners will be housed in barred cells. Guards will wear khaki shirts and pants and reflecting sunglasses and will carry a whistle and nightstick or baton.

After reading the above information, participants “attended” the orientation session and were then presented with a scenario involving guard-prisoner interaction similar to an inter- action that occurred on day 2 of the Stanford prison experiment (i.e., Guards woke prisoners up in the morning for breakfast and to review prison rules. While reviewing the rules one of the prisoners is laughing and smiling). Participants were asked to indicate three ways in which they might respond to the situation and then responded to a question that served as manip- ulation check for their assigned condition (i.e., participants were asked to identify a phrase that was included in their orientation session). As in study 1, participants were also asked about the extent to which the principle investigator expected hostile and oppressive behavior among the guards.

Results

Approximating the methods of Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975), two research assistants, blind to the hypothesis and assigned condition of participants, tabulated the number of hostile/oppressive responses. The raw agreement between the raters was 80.86% and Cohen’s κ = 60.29 (95% CI, 51.47, 69.11) suggested moderate agreement (McHugh, 2012). Scores from the two raters were averaged. An independent samples t-test revealed greater hostile and oppressive responses to the prisoner provocation among those in the Stanford orientation (M = 1.53, SD = 0.97, N = 68) relative to the control orientation (M = 0.69, SD = 0.69, N = 40), t(106) = 4.81, p < .001. Hedges’ g was estimated at 0.96, 95% CI [0.55, 1.37]. Lastly, results revealed greater principle investigator expecta- tions for hostile/oppressive guard responses among participants in the Stanford orientation (M = 5.06, SD = 1.27, N = 68) relative to the control orientation (M = 4.15, SD = 1.14, N = 40), t (106) = 3.73, p < .001. Hedges’ g = 0.74, 95% CI [0.34, 1.15].

Discussion

Study 3 represents an extension of studies 1 and 2 with an exclusive focus on the expected behavior of participants as guards and hostile and oppressive conduct. Results indicate that the language of an orientation session for guards in a simulated prison study influences participants’ expectations for

786 J. BARTELS

hostile and oppressive guard responding. Specifically, an orientation session modeled after the Stanford prison experiment orientation elicited greater hostile and oppressive responses (e.g., “scream at him [prisoner] in front of everybody”) to a prison scenario than an orientation session providing basic study information. The guard orientation made a unique contribution to hostile and oppressive guard responding beyond the presumed operative situational variables from the Stanford prison experiment. Consistent with studies 1 and 2, the experimental group in study 3 indicated that the principal investigator had greater expectations for hostile and oppressive guard behavior compared to those in the control orientation.

General discussion

No post factum study, including the present ones, can account for the behavior of prison guards in the Stanford prison experiment. What the present studies establish is that the guard orientation is imbued with demand characteristics. In studies 1 and 2, participants expected greater hostile and oppressive responses when exposed to a guard orientation in which the principal investigator conveyed expectations for guard behavior, prisoner mentality, and the course and impact of the study (i.e., modeled after the Stanford prison experiment) compared to one in which demand characteristics were minimized by providing only basic study information. Study 3 represented a more rigorous test of the influence of demand characteristics on expectations for guard behavior as: (1) participants responded to an open-ended scenario involving an encounter between a prisoner and themselves (2) guard were provided additional study information that, by itself, may have accounted for expectations, and (3) participants were asked to indicate how they would respond as guards rather than how others would respond (which elicited greater negative responses in studies 1 and 2). Yet, consistent with the results of studies 1 and 2, those in the Stanford orientation indicated a readiness to respond to a prisoner with greater hostility and oppressiveness than those in the control orientation. The present results extend the findings of Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975), who found that college students with no knowledge of the Stanford prison experiment expected hostile and oppressive behavior among guards when given the study information Stanford participants received.

The familiar narrative of the Stanford prison experiment (e.g., Haney et al., 1973) is as follows: Over the course of only a few days, ordinary college students randomly assigned the role of guards in a simulated prison study slipped into the role of “tough” guards, displaying increasingly oppressive and hostile behavior towards fellow college students randomly assigned the role of prisoners. The anonymity, depersonalization, and the power asymmetry inherent in the roles of prisoner and guard were the powerful situational forces assumed responsible for the pathological behavior. However, as critics have noted and the present results corroborate, the role of the research participant is as plausible an explanation for the guard behavior as the social role of prison guard.

An individual assuming the role of research participant is often eager to ascertain the purpose of the study and contribute to science by responding in a manner that confirms the experimenter’s hypothesis (Orne, 1962). Of course, not all research participants are predisposed to act as “good subjects” and the extent to which they serve as one may depend on a number of factors including the experimenter (e.g., the reputation of the experimenter), the information provided study recruits, and communication during the experiment including conveying the scientific importance of the study to participants (Orne, 1962; Orne & Whitehouse, 2000; Silverman & Shulman, 1970). The most salient communication among the “totality of cues” (Orne, 1962) in the Stanford prison experiment may be the guard orientation. During the orientation session, prior to the arrest and booking of prisoners, guards were told what behavior was expected of prisoners and guards (Zimbardo, 2007). Specifically, guards were told that they could create fear and boredom, that prisoners will not take the study seriously, that the study may have to end early, and that the experimenters wanted the study to have an impact. Previous research suggests that communicating the importance of the study, beyond the disclosure of the hypothesis alone, can increase the acquiescence to demand characteristics among study participants (Navarick, 2007). The orientation also included language, particularly the use of “we” and “they” that instilled a sense of shared mission on the part of the guards and

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 787

the superintendent (Haslam et al., 2018). The orientation session, critics charge, set the stage for guard abuse as the language provided a script for guard oppression (e.g., Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

It is important to note that in spite of the demand characteristics present in the guard orientation, not all of the guards in the Stanford prison experiment exhibited abusive behavior. Stanford guards apparently fell within three categories: good, bad, and by the book (Zimbardo, 2007). Haney et al. (1973) note that “a few [guards] were passive and rarely instigated any coercive control over the prisoners” (p. 81). So striking was this lack of complicity in the presence of strong demand characteristics, Fromm (1973) noted that while the authors of the study believed it proved that the situation was capable of producing ruthless sadists in a matter of days, it “proves, if anything, rather the contrary” (p. 81). There are experimental circumstances that may produce responding that runs counter to demand characteristics including situations in which the desire to protect one’s self-image or project a socially desirable image of oneself is stronger than demand characteristics (Silverman & Shulman, 1970). Additionally, demand discrepant behavior may be attributed to the overly explicit nature of the demands. Replications of the Milgram obedience studies have found a lack of obedience among participants when told by the experimenter that they have no choice but to continue with the study (Haslam, Reicher, & Millard, 2015). While research participants may be disposed to want to contribute to science, this command is not consistent with one’s schema for proper science.

The present results are intriguing given recent revelation from analyses of Stanford prison experiment archives (Le Texier, in press). These analyses call into question the standard narrative of the study that guards were creative in their evil machinations, guided only by the presence of powerful roles and their own imaginations. Rather, tough guard behavior was encouraged through- out the study and acts such as waking prisoners in the middle of the night for counts appears to have been influenced by explicit suggestions if not instructions from experimenters rather than represent- ing manifestations of creative evil (Haslam, Reicher, & Van Bavel, in press; Le Texier, in press). Haslam et al. (in press) concluded:

Guards in the SPE [Stanford prison experiment] were not left to their own devices when it came to making decisions about how to behave and run the prison. On the contrary, they were subjected to active leadership from the experimenters.

The Banuazizi study established that demand characteristics were present in study protocol, the present studies indicate that demand characteristics were present in the guard orientation and recent archival analyses reveal that demand characteristics continued beyond the guard orientation. Perhaps Stanford prison experiment critic and textbook author Peter Gray (2013) summarized it best when he noted, “In this experiment, the demands are everywhere” (para. 9).

Notes

1. The materials that support the findings of both studies are openly available in Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/rdfm3/ (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/RDFM3). There is sufficient information for an independent researcher to reproduce the reported results.

2. The results reported here for study 1 included participants that indicated they recognized the study but could not name it. In order to ensure that inclusion of these individuals was not accounting for the differences between the two groups, the analyses were re-run with these participants eliminated (N = 108). This reanalysis produced similar results with all comparisons statistically significant. For example, ANOVA results indicated that those in the Stanford orientation expected greater negative responses from others as guards (F = 48.01, p < .01), from themselves as guards (F = 13.38, p < .01), and believed the experimenter expected greater negative responses (F = 45.11, p < .01) relative to the control condition. Thus, participants who indicated that they recognized the study but were unable to name it were included in subsequent analyses.

3. Brown-Forsythe statistic is reported in Table 1.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

788 J. BARTELS

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/rdfm3/ (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/RDFM3).

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open science badges for Open Data and Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/rdfm3/ (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/RDFM3).

Notes on contributor

Jared Bartels is an Assistant Professor of Psychological Science at William Jewell College. His research interests include achievement motivation and the history of psychology.

References

Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. American Psychologist, 30, 152–160. doi:10.1037/h0076835

Banyard, P. (2007). Tyranny and the tyrant: FROM STANFORD to Abu Ghraib. [Review of the book The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil, by P. G. Zimbardo]. The Psychologist, 20, 494–495.

Brown, J. D. (2012). Understanding the better than average effect: Motives (still) matter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 209–219. doi:10.1177/0146167211432763

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. doi:10.1177/0146167206292689

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company. Gray, P. (2013, October 18). Why Zimbardo’s prison experiment isn’t in my textbook [Web log comment]. Retrieved

from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201310/why-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment-isn-t-in- my-textbook

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622. doi:10.1177/0146167206298570

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2012). Contesting the “nature” of conformity. What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. Plos Biology, 10, e1001426.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2017). Tyranny: Revisiting Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. In J. R. Smith & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), Social psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (2nd ed., pp. 130–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., & Millard, K. (2015). Shock treatment: Using immersive digital realism to restage and re- examine Milgram’s “obedience to authority” research. PloS one, 10, e109015. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109015

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (in press). Brutality is not a product of ‘natural’ conformity to role: Uncovering the role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. The American Psychologist.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2018, June 30). Doing ill for 'the greater good': Understanding what really went on in the Stanford prison experiment. The Inquisitive Mind. Retrieved from http://www.in-mind.org/ blog/post/doing-ill-for-the-greater-good-understanding-what-really-went-on-in-the-stanford-prison

Kiley, D. E. (1974). The effect of the research expectancy on the activity level of institutionalized delinquents. Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 242–247. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6629

Le Texier, T. (in press). Debunking the Stanford prison experiment. The American Psychologist. McCambridge, J., de Bruin, M., & Witton, J. (2012). The effects of demand characteristics on research participant

behaviours in non-laboratory settings: A systematic review. PloS one, 7, e39116. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039116 McFarland, S., & Carnahan, T. (2009). A situation’s first powers are attracting volunteers and selecting participants:

A reply to Haney and Zimbardo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 815–818. doi:10.1177/ 0146167209334781

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.

THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 789

Navarick, D. J. (2004). Analysis of impulsive choice: Assessing effects of implicit instructions. The Psychological Record, 54, 505–522. doi:10.1007/BF03395489

Navarick, D. J. (2007). Attenuation and enhancement of compliance with experimental demand characteristics. The Psychological Record, 57, 501–515. doi:10.1007/BF03395590

Nichols, A. L., & Maner, J. K. (2008). The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics. Journal of General Psychology, 135, 151–165. doi:10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166

Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783. doi:10.1037/h0043424

Orne, M. T., & Whitehouse, W. G. (2000). Demand characteristics. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 469–470). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1–40. doi:10.1348/014466605X48998

Sawyer, A. G. (1975). Detecting demand characteristics in laboratory experiments in consumer research: The case of repetition-affect research. In M. J. Schlinger (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 2, pp. 713–724). Ann Abor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

Silverman, I., & Shulman, A. D. (1970). A conceptual model of artifact in attitude change studies. Sociometry, 33, 97–107. doi:10.2307/2786274

Stern, D. A., Saayman, G. S., & Touyz, S. W. (1978). A methodological study of the effect of experimentally induced demand characteristics in research on nocturnal dreams. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 459–462.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1971, August 14). Tape F [sound recording-nonmusical], Philip G. Zimbardo Papers (SC0750). Stanford, CA: Department of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries.

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

790 J. BARTELS