The Stanford Prison Experiment and Labelling Theory

Introduction: The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the best known and most ethically troubling social-psychology experiments of the past fourty years. The experimenters have described it as a career-altering experience, and it has inspired films, books and articles. This essay will describe the experiment and examine some of the conclusions reached by the experimenters, as well as a number of criti!ues of those. "t will then examine the experiment and its results in the context of labelling theory. #$% The Stanford Prison Experiment: The Stanford Prison Experiment was set up by the social psychologist Philip &imbardo and a number of his colleagues. &imbardo has said that he had three principal reasons for wanting to establish this experiment' (e wanted to test the surprising results of a similar experiment that had been conducted in one of his undergraduate classes) he wanted to test the effect of situational variables on individual behaviour, and thereby to prove the situational attribution thesis) and #most importantly according to &imbardo% he wanted to test the effect of anonymity and deindividuation on behaviour.* The experiment involved an attempt to recreate the principal elements of life in an $merican prison. They set out to elicit similar responses in the participants as would be felt in a real prison' power and powerlessness) control and oppression) satisfaction and frustration) arbitrary rule and resistance to authority) status and anonymity) and machismo and emasculation. + Those who participated in it were recruited through a set of newspaper advertisements looking for men to participate in a paid psychological experiment on prison life. The
&imbardo, ,aslach and (aney -.eflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment' /enesis, Transformations, 0onse!uences1 from 0hapter of Thomas 2lass ed, Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm #,ahwah, 34' 5awrence Erlbaum $ssociates, *666%, 7http'88www.prisonexp.org8pdf8blass.pdf9 #visited 6: 4anuary *6 % at **. * Philip &imbardo, -The SPE' ;hat it was, ;here it came from, and ;hat came out of it1 from 0hapter of Thomas 2lass ed, Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm #,ahwah, 34' 5awrence Erlbaum $ssociates, *666%, 7http'88www.prisonexp.org8pdf8blass.pdf9 #visited 6: 4anuary *6 % at <-=. + (aney, 2anks and &imbardo, -"nterpersonal >ynamics in a Simulated Prison1 # =?+% "40P :=, at ?*.

respondents to these advertisements were sub@ected to an array of psychological profiling tests, and the twenty four who were deemed most mature, most psychologically stable, and least involved in anti-social behaviour were selected to take part in the experiment. They were then randomly assigned roles as either prisoners or guards. The prison itself, part of which the guards were involved in building, was contained in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. The chief investigator &imbardo also played the role of prison superintendent in the experiment. The guards were briefed by &imbardo that they were to Amaintain the reasonable degree of order within the prison necessary for effective functioningBC but they were given no instruction beyond that. They were issued with guard uniforms, keys, nightsticks, and sunglasses, all of which were designed to promote a sense of power, anonymity, and group identity. The prisoners were brought into the experiment with the help of the local police department who staged mock arrests of the participants, went through the usual administrative processes in dealing with them, and then brought them to the prison. The prisoners had been unaware that this was in fact part of the experiment. Dn reaching the prison they were sub@ected to what &imbardo has described as a Adegradation ceremonyB E in which they were stripped, deloused, and issued their prison clothing) they were also read the prison rules by the superintendent &imbardo. The clothing and living conditions of the prisoners were designed both to replicate those found in real prisons and to emasculate the prisoners. They were issued prisoner numbers and were only ever addressed by these) they wore cloth caps designed to deindividuate them) they wore no underwear and their clothing was ill-fitting so they were forced to move in an unfamiliar way. They were kept in cramped cells which housed two inmates each, and were forced to rely on the guards to perform even the most basic of tasks. Since the prison itself was in a basement there were no windows in any of the cells and so the only sense of time was provided by meal times and -the count1. This latter procedure, designed by the experimenters as an opportunity for the two groups to interact, involved the prisoners being removed from their cells and counted by the guards. Driginally the count lasted a few minutes, but as the experiment wore on and the guards grew more into their roles of power the count could last for hours at a time.: &imbardo
C

(aney, 2anks F &imbardo, -Study of Prisoners and /uards in a Simulated Prison1 # =?+% = Naval Research Reviews , at ?. E &imbardo, note *, at :. : (aney, 2anks F &imbardo, note C, at =.

*.

notes? that one of the key events that dictated the course of the experiment was the prisoner revolt on day two. >uring this the prisoners barricaded themselves in their cells and taunted the guards) the guards succeeded in putting the revolt down using a fire extinguisher. The ringleaders were put in solitary confinement. The prison guards then set about trying to divide the prisoners, arbitrarily punishing some and rewarding others to foment suspicion amongst them. This tactic worked, and soon the prisoners became suspicious of each other, and increasingly withdrawn and self-reliant. Some of the prisoners suffered severe psychological reactions and had to be released from the experiment early. The power of the situation that had been created was also evident in the reaction of outsiders to it. Gisiting family and friends did not !uestion it, and reacted to it as though it was in fact a real prison situation, with some appealing to &imbardo to be lenient on their son.< $ visiting priest was asked to get legal help for the prisoners. The mock parole board was even told by many of the prisoners that they were willing to give up the money they had earned for participation #their only reason for being in the experiment in the first place% in return for early release. &imbardo himself was unable to see the effect that the situation was having on the participants because of his own role within the prison as a superintendent, and it was left to a visiting graduate student to finally make him realise that the experiment had gone too far. The experiment, which was due to run for two weeks, was halted six days after it began. #2% The Experimenters Conclusions: #i% Social-Psychology Conclusions' The conclusions reached by the experimenters have been set out and refined in a number of articles since the experiment took place. "n one of the earliest articles= they noted that the participants changed their behaviour to reflect the roles expected of them, which tended to re@ect the dispositional hypothesis. "ndeed one of the primary conclusions from the experiment is that normal, healthy people can be transformed by social and institutional pressures, and that people respond to #what
?

&imbardo, 2anks, (aney F 4affe, -The ,ind is a Hormidable 4ailor' $ Pirandellian Prison1 New or! "imes Maga#ine < $pril =?+, at C , C*. < &imbardo, 2anks, (aney F 4affe, note ?, at C*. = (aney, 2anks F &imbardo, note C.

+.

can be arbitrary% labels. 6 They said that the power structure of the prison became internalised by all participants and they assumed their roles in it. 3ot only that, but the guards came to en@oy their sense of power over the prisoners, with some exhibiting sadistic tendencies, and thus many of the guards were upset when the experiment was brought to a premature end. &imbardo called this the -pathology of power1 . The guards were given control over the lives of others and did not have to @ustify their use of power as they would ordinarily. 3ot all guards behaved in the same way, with some becoming sadistic and others performing acts of kindness for the prisoners. Employing Erich Hromm1s definition of -sadistic1 as Athe wish for absolute control over another living beingB &imbardo suggested that nonetheless all of the guards at one stage or another exhibited sadistic tendencies based on their power. * &imbardo also defined the deterioration in the condition of the prisoners as -pathological prisoner syndrome1. + $fter the solidarity between the prisoners collapsed, many of the prisoners became sick and had to be released from the experiment early. The rest of the prisoners became passive, despondent and dependent. &imbardo said that there were a number of processes that contributed to this syndrome' the loss of personal identity) the arbitrary control exercised by the guards) and dependency and emasculation. This could all be seen in the debriefing report where the prisoners assumed that roles had been assigned based on height, with the tallest students given the role of guards) in fact there was no statistically significant difference in the respective heights of the group. C The experimenters said that the power of the situation could also be seen in the reaction of the experimenters and other adults to it. This includes &imbardo1s reaction to the role of prison superintendent he had given himself. (e has subse!uently admitted that this was a mistake on his part, noting that' "n retrospect, " believe that the main reason " did not end the study sooner resulted from the conflict created in me by my dual roles as principal investigator, and thus guardian of the research ethics of the experiment, and as the prison superintendent, eager to maintain the stability of my prison at all
6

&imbardo, 2anks, (aney F 4affe, note ?, at CE. (aney, 2anks F &imbardo, note C, at +. * &imbardo, 2anks, (aney F 4affe, note ?, at CC. + (aney, 2anks F &imbardo, note C, at E. C $bid, at ?.

C.

costs. " now realiIe that there should have been someone with authority above mine, someone in charge of oversight of the experiment, who surely would have blown the whistle earlier. E $nother of the experimenters, 0raig (aney has noted that his decision to release a prisoner who was suffering a psychological episode on day two had to be defended to the other members of the staff on ethical grounds) they attributed the prisoner1s extreme reaction to an internal weakness rather than to their own thesis of situational factors, only revising that conclusion later when they were out of the situation themselves. (aney notes that the Hundamental $ttribution Error #H$E% #attributing behaviour to dispositional factors% is a comforting way to view the behaviour of others, since it means that they alone are responsible for their actions. : The experimenters have suggested that traditional attempts to explain the conditions in prisons have focused on dispositional factors and the traits of those in the environment. This hypothesis has been adopted both by prison advocates and critics who frame their arguments in terms of it, with little examination of the effect of the environment itself, and the roles of those in it, on behaviour. (ere however, the care with which dispositional factors had been ruled out through the screening process at the beginning show that it was indeed situational forces that evoked these reactions. Those selected were in no way antisocial and were of above average intelligence, but in less than week they exhibited antisocial and pathological behaviour. ? "n another article < &imbardo has noted that the negative situational forces overwhelmed positive dispositional ones. The experimenters have claimed that in this experiment it was the situation itself and not a direct authority figure that caused the behaviour. $lthough &imbardo was an authority figure in the experiment, he was working at a remove and was not directing the behaviour of the participants. = The only personality variable that had
Philip &imbardo, A.evisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment' a 5esson in the Power of SituationB "he Chronicle o% &igher 'ducation, +6 ,arch *66? #Gol E+, "ssue +6%. : 0raig (aney, -The SPE and the $nalysis of "nstitutions1 from 0hapter of Thomas 2lass ed, Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm #,ahwah, 34' 5awrence Erlbaum $ssociates, *666%, 7http'88www.prisonexp.org8pdf8blass.pdf9 #visited 6: 4anuary *6 % at *?-*<. ? (aney, 2anks and &imbardo, note +, at ?6-? , =6. < Philip &imbardo, "he Psychology o% Power and 'vil: All Power to the Person( "o the Situation( "o the System(, 7http'88prisonexp.org8pdf8powerevil.pdf9 #visited 6: 4anuary *6 %. = &imbardo, note , at -*.
E

E.

any effect on the result was the level of authoritarianism in the participants, since the higher this was the more likely the participants were to survive in the totally authoritarian environment.*6 The experimenters have observed* that because there were differences in the coping mechanisms between different people, personality variables can act as moderators in allaying or intensifying the effects of social situational variables. &imbardo has concluded** from his research that first it is clear that a range of simple situational factors can impact massively on individual behaviour. Secondly, those who are able to ignore these pressures should be termed heroes and given more credit than they are, and we should learn from how they have done this. Thirdly, there is no high moral ground since the situationist perspective says that it is a part of human nature that anyone can be sub@ect to, and change their behaviour based on, these situational variables. #ii% Conclusions on $mpact o% Study on the )aw' "f the conclusions reached by &imbardo and his colleagues from the Stanford Prison Experiment are correct, there are clear implications for the criminal @ustice system, traditionally focused as it is on the dispositional model of individual criminal liability. Some of these implications have been addressed by the researchers in their publications on the experiment. "n one article*+ &imbardo suggests that the implications of this research for the criminal law are vast, since it shows that its traditional focus on the state of mind of the offender rather than on situational forces may be flawed. (e argues that' $s my own experiment revealed, and as a great deal of social-psychological research before and since has confirmed, we humans exaggerate the extent to which our actions are voluntary and rationally chosen J or, put differently, we all understate the power of the situation.*C (e observes that if the goal of the criminal @ustice system is to prevent crime, rather than to extract vengeance for it, then it is obligated to take into account the situation in which
*6 *

&imbardo, note <, at C. (aney, 2anks and &imbardo, note +, at = . ** &imbardo, note <, at <- =. *+ &imbardo, note E. *C &imbardo, note E, at 2?.

:.

crime is committed and indeed the role of the institutions in creating that situation. (e notes that' "t is clear to most reasonable observers that the social experiment of imprisoning societyKs criminals for long terms is a failure on virtually all levels. 2y recogniIing the situational determinants of behavior, we can move to a more productive public-health model of prevention and intervention, and away from the individualistic medical and religious LsinL model that has never worked since its inception during the "n!uisition.*E "n another article*: &imbardo remarks that the legal system doesn1t have a mechanism for dealing with the challenges posed by contemporary psychological ideas such as situational variables. "n fact, the legal system arguably does to some extent in applying the idea of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in sentencing practice, and in taking account of defences such as self-defence, provocation, and insanity. "t is true that the system is ultimately focused on individual culpability based on dispositional factors, with only minor concessions made to the effect of circumstances on behaviour. This is certainly true in post-conviction stage of the criminal @ustice system, which tends to focus on punishment rather than effective rehabilitation. The experimenter who has conducted most research into this link, between socialpsychology experiments such as the Stanford Prison Experiment and the present criminal @ustice system, is 0raig (aney. "n one article*? on the experiment (aney notes that' "n subse!uent writing about psychology and law, " have often tried to critically address the extraordinary hold that psychological individualism continues to have over legal thinking #e.g., (aney, =<*, =<+% and the lawKs resistance to contextualiIing #especially% criminal behavior #e.g., (aney, ==E) ==:%.*<
*E *:

$bid. &imbardo, note <, at **. (ere he paraphrases a *66+ article on the challenges of contemporary psychology to the legal system' 5ee .oss F >onna Shestowsky, A0ontemporary Psychology1s 0hallenges to 5egal Theory and PracticeB, #*66+% =? 3orthwestern Mniversity 5aw .eview, 6< C. *? (aney, note :. *< $bid, at *<.

?.

(e says that the real world prison system has in some instances been allowed to degrade to the level of the Stanford Prison Experiment and this therefore has institutionalised abuse. (e suggests that public and @udicial sentiment on the issue of prison reform is shaped by a system which removes the public and the @udiciary as far as possible from the conse!uences of the policy of imprisonment. Hinally he notes the inefficacy of the 0ourt mechanism in achieving true systemic changes in any event, suggesting that it is the situation and system that need to be reformed. "f the conclusions of these academics are correct, situational and institutional pressures should feature much more highly in the criminal @ustice system, both at trial stage and post-conviction stage. "t stands to reason that if, as the experimenters claim, the pressures of a situation can cause almost anyone to behave in a way that is currently termed -criminal1, this should be taken into account in examining and assigning criminal culpability. Hurther, if the criminal @ustice system is concerned with rehabilitation and prevention, then it would move away from an imprisonment model that actually creates a situation within which assigned roles or labels influence behaviour of all those in it for the worse. #0% Criti ue of the Study and Conclusions: Mnsurprisingly given the high profile of the experiment, a number of comprehensive criticisms of it have been published. Dne article*= examines the experiment and points to a number of weaknesses with it. The main weakness it identifies is on ethical grounds) such an experiment could probably not be repeated readily because of the genuine psychological trauma suffered by the participants, and the deception involved in the simulated arrest of the prisoners. Hurther, the involvement of the chief researcher in a role as prison superintendent was ethically !uestionable given that it meant the experiment lasted for a longer time than it probably would otherwise have lasted. "n response to this perceived criticism, it is noted that the experimenters have argued that the only breach of the experiment1s own ethical rules was the involvement of the police in the mock arrests.
*=

,ark (olah, Core Study: Haney, Craig., Banks, Curtis., & Zimbardo, Philip. (197 ! " #tudy o$ Prisoners and %uards in a #imulated Prison! "http'88www.holah.karoo.net8Iimbardostudy.htm9 #visited 6: 4anuary *6 %.

<.

They have argued that' . the experiment was shut down when &imbardo realised how much the prisoners disliked the experiment) *. approval for the study was given by various ethics committees and alternative methodologies were studied and discounted) +. extensive oversight and psychological help was available for all participants) and finally C. the benefits of the experiment outweighed the ethical issues. >espite these rebuttals of the criticism of the experiment on ethical grounds, it is clear that there were still ma@or ethical issues with the experiment. 3ot only did it breach its own code of ethics, but that code itself was lacking in allowing &imbardo to perform dual roles, and indeed the ethics committees that approved the experiment included those of the Dffice of 3aval .esearch which had a vested interest in the outcome of the experiment since it was also funding it. $nother criti!ue noted in this article is the unrepresentative sample of the participants of the experiment. ;hile they were screened to rule out dispositional factors influencing the ultimate result, the sample group was remarkably homogenous, and there may therefore be an issue with generalising its findings. $ final weakness discussed in the article is the lack of ecological validity of the experiment. This is essentially the claim that it did not accord enough to the reality of genuine prison life to be able to make general remarks on its effect on people. This criticism can be expanded to the concept of the experiment itself, since it was impossible to tell if the participants only acted as they did because they were aware that they were taking part in a role-play exercise. 3onetheless it is noted that in assessing the data most of the conversations of the participants were about life in the prison, providing some evidence that the roles had actually been internalised. $ similar criticism is made in his book+6 by Erich Hromm, who has provided a comprehensive criti!ue of the experiment. (e criticises the experiment for its lack of comparison with conditions in real prisons which was only cursory. (e says that a more apt real-life situation with which the experimenters should have compared in any event were the 3aIi concentration camps. Hromm then criticises the very value of the experiment itself when there is nothing real world to compare it to.

+6

Erich Hromm, "he Anatomy o% &uman *estructiveness # st ed, Pimlico, ==?%, at <?- 6+. This book is the latest MN version of the book, portions of which were originally published in various forms in =?+.

=.

Hromm also says that he doubts that the experiment actually proved the behaviourist theory the experimenters had set out to prove. (e suggests that the recreation itself, which was supposed to recreate the feelings of power and powerlessness that exist in current prisons, went beyond what exists in actual prisons and Athe actual methods were those of severe and systematic humiliation and degradation, not only because of the behavior of the guards, but through the prison rules arranged by the experimenters.B + Hromm argues that while the experimenters set out to prove that the situation can change the behaviour of normal people drastically, in fact they proved the opposite. (e argues that given that the prison set-up and rules were designed to dehumanise the prisoners and instill feelings of power and superiority in the guards, the fact that two thirds of them did not arbitrarily commit sadistic acts shows that one cannot turn ordinary people into sadists @ust by providing the opportunity. (e argues that' The difference between behavior and character matters very much in this context. "t is one thing to behave according to sadistic rules and another thing to want to be and to en+oy being cruel to people. The failure to make this distinction deprives this experiment of much of its value, as it also marred ,ilgram1s experiment.+* (e notes that one of the puIIling results of this experiment was that the sub@ects began to have trouble distinguishing reality and the role, which the experimenters claimed was due to the situation. Hromm says that this may be true but it is because it was built into the experiment by the experimenters due to their involvement of the police and the difference between the actual conditions and what was described in the contracts. The experimenters pointed to the fact that the prisoners felt they could only be freed at the behest of the parole board, and that they were willing to give up their earnings from the experiment to do so, but Hromm notes that nothing was mentioned of what the contracts contained regarding early leaving provisions. Hromm argues that the experiment itself blurred the lines further between reality and experimentation by not making it clear that they could

+ +*

Hromm, note + , at <=. $bid, at =+, emphasis original.

6.

leave at any stage and this meant that the prisoners bought into the situation and became more docile. Hromm asks' >id the prisoners really AknowB that all this was an experimentO "t depends on what AknowingB means here and what the effects are on the prisoners1 thinking processes if they are intentionally confused from the very beginning and do not know any longer what is what and who is who.++ (e argues that in real life people know their behaviour will have conse!uences but where there is a fantasy constructed with roles in it for them to play, they may react to unconscious tendencies that they would not do in real life. (is final criti!ue is of the methodology employed in the experiment. (e suggests that there was a lack of precision in formulating the results of the experiment, with vague statements made about how pre-existing dispositions altered the individual reaction of the participants, but no !uantative or true !ualitative data was provided on this. (e also argues with regard to the selection process that character traits are unconscious and thus cannot be discovered by simple psychological profiling tests. Thus the data on the guards was open to further !uestion on the grounds that some studies+C have shown that the Apercentage of unconscious sadists in an average population is not IeroB +E and therefore the profiling test at the start, because it was unable to detect any, was probably flawed. Hromm1s conclusion on the experiment is that Prisoners are individuals and they react individually according to the differences in their respective character structures. 2ut this does not imply that their reaction is only a function of their character and not one of their environment. "t is merely naPve to assume that it must be either this or that. The complex and challenging problem in each individualJand groupJis to find out what the specific interaction is between a given character structure and a given social structure. "t is at this point that real investigation begins, and it is only stifled by
++ +C

$bid, at =E-=:. See for instance' Erich Hromm and ,ichael ,accoby, Social Character in a Me,ican -illage # Englewood 0liffs, 3.4.' Prentice-(all, =?6%. +E Hromm, note + , at =C.

st

ed,

the assumption that the situation is the one factor which explains human behavior.+: #>% The Study and Labelling Theory: 5abelling theory, also known as symbolic interactionism, is the theory that Ahuman actions are best understood in terms of the meanings those actions have for the actors.B +? The meanings people attach, and on which they act in a given situation, are attached by themselves and defined collectively through their interaction with others. 5abelling theory is therefore concerned with the meaning that is attached to actions, by the actor themselves, by society, or by both. $ crucial idea in labelling theory is that there is no inherently -criminal1 behaviour, and the word -criminal1 is @ust a label attached to certain actions.+< $nother important concept is that of the -master status1 += which is a label that has been internalised by an actor and which therefore dictates their actions. "f a person is labelled a -criminal1 and internalises that label, their actions will be conducted based on their internalised master label of -criminal1. Gold discusses five contexts within which symbolic interactionism comes into play' the meaning of crime to the self) the meaning of crime to the criminal) the meaning of crime to the larger society) state power and the meaning of crime) and the situational meaning of crime. "t is this last idea that is examined by experiments such as &imbardo1s Stanford Prison Experiment. Through examining the work of &imbardo, the authors of Gold came to the following conclusions about his work on the interaction between the label, the situation, and an individual1s actions. Hirst, they said that &imbardo1s principal area of interest was in understanding why good people do bad things. (is focus was on the effect of situational and institutional pressures on the ordinary person, and he re@ected the dispositional hypothesis in favour of Aan incrementalist approach in which !ualities are ac!uired through experience or practice and in which all are capable of transgressing, depending
+: +?

$bid, at 6+, emphasis original. 2ernard, Snipes, and /erould, -old.s "heoretical Criminology #:th ed, Dxford Mniversity Press *6 6% at **:. +< .oger (opkins 2urke, An $ntroduction to Criminological "heory #+rd ed, ;illan Publishing, *66=%, at :<. += (oward 2ecker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology o% *eviance # st ed, 3ew Qork' Hree Press, =:+%, at ++-+C.

*.

on the circumstances.BC6 $ccording to Gold his argument is that people and situations are in a state of dynamic interaction in which situational context transforms character. (e notes that people @ustify evil acts to themselves using higher morality such as stating that they are protecting their homeland, or doing some other morally desirable task. Hor &imbardo the explanation lies in the power of the state to use propaganda to instill fear in their population, to stereotype and dehumanise others, and thereby to remove them from the participants1 moral understanding. 2oth the Standford Prison Experiment and ,ilgram1s Experiment were used by &imbardo of examples of the effect the situation can have on the individual. ;hile &imbardo1s situational analysis provides no excuse for behaviour it does explain the extent to which actions can be dictated by the power of situational forces. "n a criminological context, it shows that the line between criminal and noncriminal is blurred. The study raises important !uestions too about the ability of some to resist or mitigate institutional pressures, and what can be learned from those who do resist. ;hile there is no overt discussion in Gold about the explicit relationship between discrete labelling theory and the situational pressure framework advanced by &imbardo and his colleagues, in fact the experimenters make a number of references to labels and their effect on behaviour in their own work. "n one article C &imbardo noted that the tendency to ignore situational variable has been termed the Hundamental $ttribution Error #H$E% by a colleague of his. (e says C* that societies are geared towards individualism rather than collectivism and thus we are culturally conditioned to think this way and place higher emphasis on personal choice and that this idea has the social virtue of rendering society and its institutions blameless. (e then examines 2andura1s model of moral disengagement, or the way in which people disengage from the moral conse!uences of their destructive behaviour, noting the importance in that theory of the conse!uence of a label being attached to someone, which amongst other things influences others1 behaviour toward them. "n another article C+ the experimenters note that one of the primary conclusions from the experiment is that normal, healthy people can be transformed by
C6 C

2ernard, Snipes, and /erould, note +<, at *+C. &imbardo, note <. C* $bid, at +. C+ &imbardo, 2anks, (aney F 4affe, note ?, at CE.

+.

social and institutional pressures, and people respond to #what can be arbitrary% labels. "n yet another articleCC they note that the situation saw those in the various roles internalise them and thus behave in a manner that they would not previously have done. "t is clear therefore that although the experimenters did not frame the ma@ority of their work in general labelling theory terminology it was certainly something of which they were aware and which had an impact on the way they framed their conclusions. Conclusion: $ number of criticisms of general labelling theory have been made.CE Hor instance, the claim is often made that labelling theory fails to concentrate ade!uately on primary deviance, or the original process by which a label is ac!uired. "t is submitted that the Stanford Prison Experiment provides a valuable answer to this criticism, since it shows that a situation itself is one factor that can cause someone not only to gain a label, but to internalise it to the extent that their behaviour is radically altered by it. $nother criticism of general labelling theory, which is that it focuses on soft deviance, is also repudiated by the experiment, since it clearly shows the capacity for much more egregious behaviour to be caused by a label. Hinally, the criticism that labelling theory ignores the responsibility of the actor, while not rebutted, is limited somewhat by this experiment because of the acknowledgment of the impact of some personality variables, and the discussion of a range of reactions to the label that varied between individuals. That being said, it is important to note that &imbardo himself, and his colleagues, make only fleeting reference to the power of labels to change people1s behaviour, and their focus is consistently on the situation, and the pressures exerted by that. Therefore the criticism of the experiment it is most apt to make, it is submitted, is of the focus in the conclusions drawn by the experimenters on their own situationist theory at the expense of applying other more well-established theories to the results. The experiment provides a useful example of how labels are ac!uired by individuals, based on the situation, and how this can modify their behaviour in a profound way. $lthough some of Hromm1s criti!ues are stronger than others #for instance his criticism that the experiment has no real-world
CC CE

(aney, 2anks and &imbardo, note +, at = . See for instance 2urke, note +=, at ?E- ?:.

C.

comparator is contradicted by him when he compares it to a concentration camp) and indeed is refuted by such real world situations as the $bu /hraib abuses%, ultimately his conclusion on the experiment is accurate' "t does not provide the magical answer that explains all deviant behaviour as resulting from situational pressure. "t is an important piece in the puIIle, however, and a useful exploration of the impact of a situation on shaping and attaching labels and the conse!uent behaviour. $s such, it carries an enduring attraction for those interested in the causes of the worst excesses of human behaviour.

E.