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.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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