Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion · chapter 6 · id influence-c6-02-the-stanford-prison-experiment
“The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated that normal, healthy college students rapidly adopted brutal guard behavior within days when assigned roles of authority, showing the power of situational authority over individual personality.”
TRUE, BUTconfidence: high⚠ extracted by pipeline, re-audit pending
Receipts
Zimbardo (2004), A Situationist Perspective on Abu Ghraib, American Psychologist 59(9)FLAGGED: DOI not in registry
The Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated that good people can be induced to engage in evil deeds by immersion in 'total situations' that alter their behavior.
Le Texier (2019), Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment, American Psychologist 74(7)DOI registry: valid
Guards received explicit instructions regarding prisoner treatment. Zimbardo was present as 'superintendent' and modeled expected behavior. Guard cruelty was coached, not spontaneous. Conclusions were largely written in advance.
Haslam & Reicher (2012), Contesting the 'Nature' of Conformity, PLOS Biology 10(11)DOI registry: valid
The BBC Prison Study (2001) found no evidence of guards naturally conforming to cruel roles. Without coaching, guards were uncertain and prisoners organized resistance. The SPE's conclusions about automatic role adoption are not supported.
Retraction Watch (2025), Should SPE be Retracted?source alive
Multiple scholars have called for formal retraction of the SPE publication, citing fabrication of the 'spontaneous' guard behavior narrative.
This claim is a stable, citable object. If you can falsify a verdict, tell us. Corrections are loud here.