The Lord of the Flies in Palo Alto

  • James C. OlesonEmail author


In 1963, Stanley Milgram shocked the world by demonstrating that most people will administer electrical shocks to another human being, if an authority creates even mild situational pressure. In the summer of 1971, the awesome power of the situation was re-examined, when Philip Zimbardo imprisoned university students in the basement of Stanford University’s Jordan Hall. The findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), a staple in virtually all general psychology texts, were stunning. The study has been widely criticized for ethical violations and is usually deemed to be unreplicable. In 2002, however, Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher created the BBC Prison Study (a.k.a., The Experiment), producing different results and raising questions about the reliability of the study. SPE findings, however, have been cited to explain the abuses witnessed in Abu Ghraib. Quiet Rage, Zimbardo’s 1992 documentary, combines archival footage and interviews with Zimbardo and former prisoners, but exaggerated versions of the study appeared in Mario Giordano’s 1999 novel, Black Box; Oliver Hirschbiegel’s 2001 German-language film, Das Experiment; and Paul Scheuring’s English-language 2010 remake, The Experiment. Another retelling of the SPE appeared in Kyle Patrick Alvarez’s 2015 film, The Stanford Prison Experiment. This chapter asks why the study resonates so powerfully with the public. It describes the original SPE, describes the ethical taboos surrounding it, and relates the original study to its media progeny.


  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, Eliot. 1999. The Social Animal. 8th ed. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  3. Banuazizi, Ali, and Siamak Movahedi. 1975. “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison: A Methodological Analysis.” American Psychologist 30 (February): 152–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, Jared M. 2015. “The Stanford Prison Experiment in Introductory Psychology Textbooks: A Content Analysis.” Psychology Learning & Teaching 14, no. 1: 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartels, Jared M., Marilyn M. Milovich, and Sabrina Moussier. 2016. “Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in Introductory Psychology Courses: A Survey of Introductory Psychology Instructors.” Teaching of Psychology 43, no. 2: 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blum, Ben. 2018. “The Lifespan of a Lie.” Medium, June 8, 2018.
  7. Carey, Benadict. 2018. “Psychology Is Having a ‘Reformation Moment’.” New York Times, D5, July 17, 2018.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, Stuart. 1995. “Demystifying the Stanford Prison Study.” British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Section, Newsletter 33: 31–34.Google Scholar
  9. Drury, Scott, Scott A. Hutchens, Duane E. Shuttlesworth, and Carole L. White. 2012. “Philip G. Zimbardo on His Career and the Stanford Prison Experiment’s 40th Anniversary.” History of Psychology 15, no. 2: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fromm, Erich. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  11. Geggel, Laura. 2018. “One of Psychology’s Most Famous Experiments Was Deeply Flawed.” Live Science, June 15, 2018.
  12. Giordano, Mario. 1999. Black Box: Versuch mit tödlichem Ausgang. Tübingen: Wunderlich.Google Scholar
  13. Greenberg, Karen J., and Joshua L. Dratel, eds. 2005. The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Griggs, Richard A. 2014. “Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in Introductory Psychology Textbooks.” Teaching of Psychology 41, no. 3: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haney, Craig, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo. 1973. “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison.” International Journal of Criminology & Penology 1: 69–97.Google Scholar
  16. Haney, Craig, Alexander Haslam, Stephen Reicher, and Philip Zimbardo. 2018. “Dealing with Toxic Behaviour.” Psychologist 31 (October): 2.
  17. Haslam, S. Alexander, and Stephen Reicher. 2003. “Beyond Stanford: Questioning a Role-Based Explanation of Tyranny.” Dialogue 18: 22–25.Google Scholar
  18. Kulig, Teresa C., Travis C. Pratt, and Francis T. Cullen. 2017. “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Case Study in Organized Skepticism.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 28, no. 1: 74–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Texier, Thibault. 2018. Histoire d’un mesonge: Enquête sur l’expérience de Stanford. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  20. Lovibond, S. H., Mithiran Adams, and W. G. Adams. 1979. “The Effects of Three Experimental Prison Environments on the Behaviour of Non-convict Volunteer Subjects.” Australian Psychologist 14, no. 3: 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgram, Stanley. 1963. “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 67: 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Oleson, J. C. 2002. “The Punitive Coma.” California Law Review 90: 829–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oleson, J. C. 2016. “The New Eugenics: Black Hyper-Incarceration and Human Abatement.” Social Sciences 5, no. 4: 1–20, 66.
  25. Prescott, Carlo. 2005. “The Lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment.” The Stanford Daily, 4, April 28, 2005.——en-20–1–txt-txIN——#.
  26. Prescott, Carlo. 2018. Letter from Carlo Prescott. September 27, 2018.
  27. Rafter, Nicole, and Michelle Brown. 2011. Criminology Goes to the Movies: Crime Theory and Popular Culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ratnesar, Romesh. 2011. “The Menace Within.” Stanford Magazine, July/August 2011.
  29. Reicher, Stephen, and S. Alexander Haslam. 2006. “Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study.” British Journal of Social Psychology 45, no. 1: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Resnick, Brian. 2018. “The Stanford Prison Experiment Is Based on Lies: Hear Them for Yourself.” Vox. June 14, 2018.
  31. Ribkoff, Fred. 2013. “Unheeded Post-traumatic Unpredictability: Philip G. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment as Absurdist Performance.” Liminalities: A Journal of Performance Studies 9, no. 1: 1–19.Google Scholar
  32. Rostand, Jean. 1962. The Substance of Man. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  33. Toppo, Greg. 2018. “Time to Dismiss the Stanford Prison Experiment?” Inside Higher Ed. June 20, 2018.
  34. Tudor, Andrew. 1989. Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Zimbardo, Philip. 1971. “Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary.” In House of Representatives Ninety-Second Congress First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform, and Prisoners’ Rights: California.
  36. Zimbardo, Philip. 1973. “The Mind Is a Formidable Jailer: A Pirandellian Prison.” New York Times Magazine, 38, April 8, 1973.
  37. Zimbardo, Philip. 2004. “Power Turns Good Soldiers into ‘Bad Apples’.” Boston Globe, May 9, 2004.
  38. Zimbardo, Philip. 2006. “On Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study.” British Journal of Social Psychology 45: 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimbardo, Philip. 2007. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  40. Zimbardo, Philip. 2016. “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of the Situation.” In Perspectives on Contemporary Issues, edited by Katherine Anne Ackley, 8th ed., 309–317. Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar
  41. Zimbardo, Philip. 2017. “On the Ethics of Intervention in Human Psychological Research: With Special Reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment.” In Research Ethics, edited by Kenneth D. Pimple, 243–256. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Zimbardo, Philip. 2018. “Philip Zimbardo’s Response to Recent Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment.” June 23, 2018.
  43. Zimbardo, Philip. 2019. “Stanford Prison Experiment: The Story.” Accessed March 1, 2019.
  44. Zimbardo, Philip G., Christina Maslach, and Craig Haney. 2000. “Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, Transformations, Consequences.” In Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm, edited by Thomas Blass, 193–237. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations