Here’s What Happens When You Ask a Bunch of Hippie Kids to Act Like Correctional Officers

Inside Hollywood’s reenactment of the Stanford Prison Experiment.


It has taken Hollywood more than four decades to turn the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment into a feature film, but not for lack of trying. There have been numerous attempts, retired psychology professor Philip Zimbardo told me. One involved Leonardo DiCaprio, whose father, George, was one of his students. But they kept falling through, either due to the whims of Hollywood or because Zimbardo found the treatments “too grandiose.”

To use the university’s name in The Stanford Prison Experiment movie, which hits theaters on July 17, producer Brent Emery had to agree that he would portray the events of 1971 largely as they actually happened. (Zimbardo, a consultant on the film, has only one critique of the portrayal of him by actor Billy Crudup: “I said, ‘You’re Italian! You’ve got to move your hands more.’ And he couldn’t do it!”)

“These kids were all anti-war activists, hippies, long hair,” Zimbardo says. “Nobody wanted to be a guard.”

The true story is dramatic enough, in any case. Zimbardo, then 38, was interested in the “situational” dynamics—first demonstrated eight years earlier by psychologist Stanley Milgram—that can lead good people to do bad things. His research team divided paid student volunteers into two groups and had them assume the roles of inmates and guards: “These kids were all anti-war activists, hippies, long hair,” Zimbardo recalls. “They were against authority. Nobody wanted to be a guard.”

Drawing from Zimbardo’s experimental footage, the film crew painstakingly re-created the mock prison his research team had constructed in the basement of Stanford’s psych building. (“Everything is identical,” he says.) The dialogue between guards and prisoners is also true to life, much of it from Zimbardo’s 2007 book, The Lucifer Effect, which describes the proceedings in detail.

Little happened in the first 24 hours, and the professor feared his study was a bust. But on the second day the “prisoners” rebelled, barricading their cells with mattresses, ripping the numbers off their uniforms, and bad-mouthing the guards, who stepped in to forcibly crush the rebellion. At that moment, Zimbardo recalls, “it no longer was an experiment. It became a prison run by psychologists.”

As the guards ratcheted up their psychological aggression, the prisoners began having emotional breakdowns—real ones. Zimbardo acknowledges that it’s hard to believe, but “they became prisoners. A guard could say, ‘Spit in his face, tell him he’s a prick, tell him he’s a bastard,’ and they would do it without question.”

Zimbardo ended the experiment in six days after the guards, in a foreshadowing of Abu Ghraib, began forcing prisoners to simulate sodomy on one another.

The experiment was meant to last two weeks, but Zimbardo ended it in six days after the guards, in a foreshadowing of Abu Ghraib, began forcing prisoners to simulate sodomy on one another. It was his future wife, Christina Maslach, who convinced him: “We had this big argument,” Zimbardo recalls, “in which she basically called me down to say, ‘These are not prisoners! These are not guards! These are boys, and they are suffering and you are responsible and you have become affected by your own experiment. You have become the superintendent!'”

The professor later testified in the defense of Ivan “Chip” Frederick, the staff sergeant at Abu Ghraib who had affixed wires to the fingers of the Iraqi man whose mock execution came to symbolize the scandal. Frederick also admitted he’d forced prisoners to masturbate and made them pile naked atop one another. (He was sentenced to eight years; none of his superiors was ever charged.)

Zimbardo argues in his book that any of us might have behaved similarly under the circumstances—overcrowding, incredible tedium, absence of oversight, and vague orders to soften up prisoners. “We know from lots of research that the human mind can rationalize anything,” he says. “Once you start on that slippery slope of evil, there is no going back for the vast majority of people.”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate