You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
We imprison people to punish them, to protect the public, to deter others and — we hope — to reform them. But what does imprisonment actually do to the people inside it, prisoners and guards alike? In 1971 a study set out to find out by building a prison in a university basement and staffing it with ordinary young men, and what happened became one of the most famous and disturbing demonstrations in psychology. This is the sixth and final topic of the criminal option and the second from the social area. In Background we examine the purposes of imprisonment — punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and reform — and the psychological effects of being imprisoned. In Key research we study Haney, Banks and Zimbardo's (1973) simulated prison at Stanford, in depth, including its findings about situational roles and deindividuation and its notorious ethical problems. In Application we design a strategy for reducing reoffending. The topic connects to the individual–situational debate, to obedience and conformity, and to some of the sharpest ethical questions in the whole specification.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section B (Criminal) topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| The purposes of imprisonment (punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, reform) | Effect of imprisonment — Background (Social) | AO1; AO3 evaluation |
| Psychological effects of imprisonment; situational roles and deindividuation | Background — what prison does to people | AO1; AO2 explanation |
| Key research: Haney, Banks & Zimbardo (1973) simulated prison | Effect of imprisonment — Key research | AO1 method/results; AO3 ethics/evaluation |
| A strategy for reducing reoffending | Effect of imprisonment — Application | AO2 application; AO3 judgement |
The specification is referenced descriptively throughout; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for the exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (knowledge of the purposes and effects of imprisonment and of the Stanford study), AO2 (applying it to a reoffending-reduction strategy) and AO3 (evaluating the study, especially its ethics and its situational conclusion).
Imprisonment serves several, sometimes conflicting, purposes, and much of the debate about prison turns on which purpose is being pursued.
These purposes pull in different directions. A regime designed purely for retribution and deterrence (harsh, punitive, degrading) is very different from one designed for rehabilitation (constructive, supportive, skill-building), and a central empirical question is whether harsh punishment actually reduces reoffending or in fact makes it worse.
Whatever its purpose, imprisonment has profound psychological effects. Prisoners can experience deindividuation (loss of personal identity, being reduced to a number and a uniform), institutionalisation (becoming so adapted to the controlled, dependent routine of prison that they lose the capacity for autonomous life outside), depression, anxiety and learned helplessness, and exposure to a criminal subculture that can reinforce rather than reduce offending. High reoffending rates — a large proportion of released prisoners are reconvicted within a couple of years — are a persistent challenge and raise the question of whether prison, at least as often practised, reduces crime or reproduces it.
The key theoretical idea the Stanford study brings is that behaviour in prison may be driven less by the personalities of prisoners and guards than by the situation — the roles, the power structure, the environment. Social roles carry powerful expectations, and people who step into a role (guard, prisoner) may conform to its expected behaviour even against their own values. Deindividuation — the loss of a sense of individual identity and personal responsibility, often produced by anonymity, uniforms and being part of a group — can release behaviour that the individual would normally restrain, including cruelty. If brutality in prisons is produced by the situation rather than by "bad apples", then reforming the people will not fix it; you have to reform the situation.
Why this is a social topic — and the individual–situational debate. This topic is the sharpest statement of the situational side of the debate. Where the biological topics (Raine) locate the roots of behaviour in the individual, the Stanford study claims that ordinary, decent people behave cruelly when placed in a brutalising situation. The tension between these — is bad behaviour caused by bad people or bad situations? — is the central evaluative thread of the whole social area and one of the most important debates in the specification.
The most important empirical question about imprisonment is deceptively simple: does it work? The answer depends on which purpose you measure against. As incapacitation, prison "works" in a narrow sense — a person in prison cannot burgle houses in the community. As retribution, "working" is a matter of moral desert, not measurable outcome. But as deterrence and rehabilitation — the purposes that promise to reduce future crime — the evidence is far less encouraging. Reconviction rates are stubbornly high in many jurisdictions, with a large fraction of released prisoners reconvicted within two years, and short custodial sentences in particular are associated with higher reoffending than community alternatives for comparable offenders. Several mechanisms may explain this counter-intuitive result. Prison can act as a "school for crime", where less experienced offenders learn attitudes, skills and contacts from more hardened ones. It can sever the very bonds — jobs, housing, family relationships — that protect against reoffending, so that a person emerges less employable, homeless and socially isolated. It can institutionalise, eroding the capacity for independent decision-making. And by labelling a person as a "criminal" (a link to labelling theory and to Dixon et al.'s stereotyping) it can promote a self-fulfilling criminal identity. The uncomfortable implication is that prison, at least as commonly practised, may sometimes increase the crime it is meant to suppress — which is precisely why the application strand focuses on rehabilitation and resettlement rather than punishment alone.
The Stanford study is best understood as part of a wider tradition in social psychology that stresses the power of the situation over individual disposition. Its closest cousin is Milgram's obedience research (Component 02), which showed that ordinary people would administer apparently dangerous shocks under the instruction of an authority figure — again suggesting that situations, not defective personalities, produce harmful behaviour in ordinary people. Zimbardo extended this from obedience to an authority to conformity to a role: no one ordered the guards to be cruel, yet the role of "guard" in a prison-like power structure, combined with deindividuation and the dehumanisation of the prisoners, was enough to produce escalating abuse. This has a profound and troubling moral implication, which Zimbardo later developed into what he called the "Lucifer Effect": that ordinary, good people can be led by situational forces to commit acts of cruelty, and that understanding this is essential both to preventing institutional abuse and to resisting the comforting but dangerous myth that atrocities are committed only by monsters. The relevance to real institutions — prisons, but also care homes, detention centres and military settings — is direct: if brutality is a product of unaccountable power, deindividuation and dehumanisation, then it is prevented not by screening out "bad apples" but by designing institutions with oversight, accountability, humane conditions and the preservation of individual identity on both sides of the bars. Whether one accepts the strong situational conclusion or the more moderate "situations powerfully shape but do not wholly determine behaviour" reading, this tradition reframes institutional cruelty as an engineering problem about situations rather than merely a moral problem about individuals.
Full citation: Haney, C., Banks, W. C. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973) Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. (Reported in Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1–17, and related publications.)
Zimbardo and colleagues set out to investigate how readily ordinary people would conform to the roles of prisoner and guard in a simulated prison environment, and whether the brutality often reported in real prisons is due to the dispositions of the people involved ("bad apples") or to the situation itself. In other words, they wanted to test the situational hypothesis: that the prison environment, not personality, produces the behaviour seen inside prisons.
The study was a controlled observation conducted as a simulation (often described as a field experiment, though it lacked a conventional independent variable and control group).
The simulation was made as realistic as possible to induce the psychological states of imprisonment. Prisoners were "arrested" at their homes by real local police, searched, handcuffed, booked, blindfolded and taken to the mock prison, where they were stripped, deloused, given smock uniforms with an ID number, a nylon-stocking cap (to simulate shaved heads) and a chain on one ankle — measures designed to produce deindividuation and humiliation. They were referred to by number, not name. Guards were given uniforms (khaki), reflective sunglasses (to prevent eye contact and increase anonymity), and batons, and were told to maintain order but were given no specific training and (in the study's framing) no explicit instruction to be cruel — they were left to work out how to run the prison. Zimbardo himself took the role of prison superintendent, a decision that later drew heavy criticism. The behaviour of prisoners and guards was observed and recorded.
The study was scheduled to run for two weeks but was terminated after just six days because of how extreme the behaviour became.
Haney and colleagues concluded that the behaviour was produced by the situation, not the dispositions of the participants: ordinary people, randomly assigned to roles in a brutalising institutional environment, conformed to those roles to a degree that produced real cruelty and real suffering. They argued for a strongly situational explanation of institutional behaviour — a "pathology of power" and of the prison situation itself — with the clear implication that the problems of real prisons are not solved merely by removing "bad" individuals, because the situation generates the behaviour. Prison environments, they argued, can dehumanise and damage both the held and the holders.
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Powerful, vivid demonstration of situational influence and role-conformity, with real-world relevance to prisons and institutions | Grave ethical problems: psychological harm to prisoners, inadequate protection, questionable ability to withdraw, Zimbardo's dual role as researcher and superintendent |
| Random allocation of roles supports the situational interpretation (personality did not differ between groups) | Demand characteristics: participants may have acted out stereotypes of how guards/prisoners "should" behave rather than genuinely conforming |
| Rich qualitative data on the dynamics of an institution | Low generalisability: young American male volunteers; a simulation, not a real prison with real sentences and histories |
| Highly influential on debates about prison reform and the power of situations | Not all guards were brutal, which suggests dispositional factors and personal choice also mattered — the situation was not wholly determining |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.