如何评价菲利普·津巴多主导的「斯坦福监狱实验」被质疑造假？ 第1页

Blogger Ben Blum (online Medium, June 7, 2018) recently questioned the authenticity and value of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), labeling it a “fraud” and a “lie,” and other commentators have followed suit. For example, after watching a video that I deposited with the Stanford Archives, Brian Resnick wrote, “This damning video debunks the famed experiment” (VOX (June 14, 2018), and Jay Van Bavel told LIVE-SCIENCE (June 12, 2018), “The bottom line is that conformity isn't natural, blind or inevitable.” French author Thibault LeTextier (2018) even published a book-length critique entitled History of a Lie.

In this response to my critics, I hereby assert that none of these criticisms present any substantial evidence that alters the SPE’s main conclusion concerning the importance of understanding how systemic and situational forces can operate to influence individual behavior in negative or positive directions, often without our personal awareness. The SPE’s core message is not that a psychological simulation of prison life is the same as the real thing, or that prisoners and guards always or even usually behave the way that they did in the SPE. Rather, the SPE serves as a cautionary tale of what might happen to any of us if we underestimate the extent to which the power of social roles and external pressures can influence our actions.

Background

What was the Stanford Prison Experiment, and what serendipitous events catapulted this academic experiment about situational power into national prominence? The SPE was a study conducted at Stanford University over six days, August 14-19, 1971, designed and conducted by me, as principal investigator, along with my research team of graduate students, Craig Haney and William Curtis Banks, undergraduate David Jaffe, and prison consultant, Carlo Prescott. It was an exploratory investigation of the extent to which the power of situational forces could transform individual behaviors of participants. Twenty-four college students, recruited from a newspaper ad to participate in a study of prison life, first completed a battery of psychological tests and surveys (in order to establish that they were healthy and normal, and had not had any prior experience of breaking the law). These students were then randomly assigned the roles of prisoner and guard. The guards worked 8-hour shifts, while the prisoners lived full time in a mock prison setting created in the basement of the Stanford psychology department. Stanford’s Human Subjects Research Office approved this unique experiment, within the guidelines they provided. The intended two-week experiment was terminated after 6 days because of the unexpectedly extremely negative reactions of many of the mock guards and prisoners. Full details of this study are available in my book The Lucifer Effect (2007) and online, www.PrisonExperiment.org.

Shortly after the SPE ended, dramatic events in two American prisons—San Quentin and Attica—brought prison conditions into the national limelight. On August 20, during an alleged escape attempt by Black political prison activist George Jackson, a number of San Quentin guards and prisoners were killed. From September 9 - 13, a thousand Attica prisoners took control of that facility in public protest against Jackson’s “murder.” That confrontation ended with National Guardsmen killing many of those prisoners as well as their prison guard hostages. Extensive news coverage and congressional investigations ensued, and I was invited to participate in both media interviews and congressional hearings, which generated considerable interest in what had happened in our mock prison.

Before responding to questions about whether I portrayed the SPE honestly and accurately, it's important to note that I have gone to great lengths to make every bit of documentary information from the SPE publicly available in the archives of Stanford University and Akron University’s Museum of Psychology. This information includes more than 40 boxes of observational data; prisoner, guard, and staff reports; diaries that were gathered during and following the study; and 12 hours of videos made during the study. The Lucifer Effect also contains 10 chapters devoted to various aspects of the SPE, with full documentation as to the source of every assertion. In addition, a considerable amount of material about the SPE has been available on the Stanford Prison Experiment website for more than 15 years. Thus, contrary to critics who imply that they've unearthed new information that I kept hidden, the SPE has been a model of open science long before practices such as public archiving and data sharing were common.

Critics also claim that my place in modern psychology is based primarily on the SPE. However, my reputation derives from considerable research and theories on many topics, both before and after the SPE. Indeed, I was already a tenured full professor at Stanford and nearly 40 years old by the time that the SPE was conducted in 1971, and it was my earlier work at New York University that led me to be invited to author one of the leading introductory psychology texts, Psychology and Life (over 12 editions), and later Psychology: Core Concepts. Subsequently, I was chosen from a group of textbook authors to become the creator and narrator of the 26-part TV series, Discovering Psychology, which has been viewed by millions of students and teachers around the world. I suspect that my place within psychology derives as much from those contributions, if not more so, than it does from the SPE itself. Overall, I have contributed to 40 different areas of psychology, as documented in more than 60 books and 600 publications that I have written so far.

In this reply, I will first address claims about the alleged fraudulent nature of the experiment’s process and conclusions. I will detail some of the study’s unique features, discuss its scientific validity, and describe several real world applications. Finally, I will conclude by outlining some unexpectedly valuable extensions derived from my SPE experiences and reflections.

Main Criticisms

Recent criticisms of the SPE have focused on six issues, each of which I will address in turn.

1. A staff member publicly denounced the SPE as flawed and dishonest. Blum cites a 2005 op-ed in the Stanford Daily student newspaper allegedly written by SPE prison consultant Carlo Prescott and entitled “The lie of the Stanford Prison Experiment.” In fact, Blum even borrowed the op-ed title as the core theme for his blog. The reality is that Carlo never wrote a word of that op-ed. He and I had become friends after our first meeting in my social psychology class in May 1971, and after I learned that he had served time in prison, I invited him to serve as SPE's expert advisor on prison life. A careful reading of the student newspaper op-ed makes evident that the writer had a very distinctive legalistic style and vocabulary, not at all like Carlo’s. It turns out that its real author, who also published many related negative SPE comments online, was Michael Lazarou, a Los Angeles movie writer. He had befriended both Carlo and me in an attempt to get me to agree to give him screen rights to a Hollywood movie about the SPE. When I chose instead to go with Maverick Films producer Brent Emery, Lazarou began writing critiques of the SPE (Brent Emery’s phone records indicated, “Carlo said it was NOT him, but all from Lazarou,” May 7, 2005). In other words, it is simply not the case that the SPE prison consultant referred to the study as a lie.

2. The staff's instructions for guards to be "tough" biased the guards' behavior and distorted the research outcomes. The SPE was designed as a mock prison simulating some of the main features that characterized the American prison system at that time. Central in the training of guards was to exercise their power over the prisoners so that they maintained order, prevented rebellion, and eliminated escape attempts. My instructions to the guards, as documented by recordings of the guard orientation, were that they could not hit the prisoners but could create feelings of boredom, frustration, fear, and "a sense of powerlessness—that is, we have total power of the situation, and they have none." We did not give any formal or detailed instructions about how to be an effective guard.

None of the participants wanted to a guard, but half were randomly assigned to that role. As shown in a documentary film on the SPE, entitled Quiet Rage, the guards took awhile to get into their role; videos from the first day show them giggling while encouraging prisoners to take the rules seriously. One of three guards on a shift that day wasn't even getting prisoners to follow orders issued by the other guards, so David Jaffee, acting as the SPE Warden, took this guard aside and asked him to become more active, involved, and "tough" in order to make the experimental setting seem more like a prison. Here are his exact words:

We really want to get you active and involved because the guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a “tough guard”… what I mean by tough is [that] you have to be firm, and you have to be in the action… It’s really important… for the workings of the experiment [because] whether or not we can make this thing seem like a prison—which is the aim of the thing—depends largely on the guards’ behavior.

There was never any further specification in how to be active or tough, although there was an explicit admonition against any use of physical force.

Despite the request David Jaffee made, none of the guards behaved in a dominant way during the first two shifts. What made a difference was that on Day 2 the prisoners rebelled with verbal and physical confrontations challenging the full complement of nine guards. After the guards put down this rebellion, one of them declared that prisoners were "dangerous," and with that new view of the situation, several guards became much tougher in their actions.

It's important to note that in all my reports about the SPE, I have always highlighted individual differences among the guards. One or two guards on each shift became progressively meaner over time, others maintained a more even-tempered style, and a few were considered “good guards” from the prisoners’ perspectives. However, none of the “good guards” ever intervened to prevent the cruelty of their fellow guards. Even Blum acknowledges these individual differences among the guards. From my perspective, the range of guard behaviors undercuts any criticisms of the alleged demand characteristics that presumably distorted the results of the SPE. The fact that some guards remained "good guards" throughout the study shows that cruel guards chose to act on their own initiative. It is their extreme behaviors that generated the dramatic effects of the study, most notably those of the iconic guard nicknamed “John Wayne” for his macho performance.

3. One guard was intentionally play-acting his role. The prisoners nicknamed one guard on the night shift “John Wayne” because he acted like an out-of-control, Wild West cowboy. However, some critics have dismissed this guard's behavior as merely play-acting the role of tough guard. After the experiment, “John Wayne” (David Eshelman) explained that he modeled his role after the warden in the movie Cool Hand Luke. He said he wanted to be a realistic guard, so he stepped up to lead his night shift to be really tough on the prisoners. He did so by punishing prisoners repeatedly with extensive push-ups (occasionally, with some prisoners stepping on the back of others), limiting food access, or issuing arbitrary rules. With each passing night, he became more creatively evil in ways that went beyond being a tough guard. Indeed, he later said that he began to think of himself as a “puppeteer” who made prisoners do whatever he chose. In an extreme perversion of his experimentally assigned role, he devised an unthinkable way to humiliate all prisoners on the fifth night of the study. He ordered them to think of themselves as “camels,” half as males and the other half as females. Those ordered to be female camels had to bend over, while the male camel prisoners were ordered to hump them “doggy style,” which they reluctantly did by simulating sodomy. A video recording, made in my absence, indicated this episode lasted nearly ten minutes with all three guards shouting epithets and laughing hysterically. Fortunately, I had earlier decided to terminate the experiment the next morning.

I think it goes without saying that such actions go far beyond simply playing the role of a tough guard. It is also worth noting that Eshelman's fellow guards fully participated in these activities and other offensive behaviors that typified their shift—activities that were strikingly similar to the sexually degrading rituals imposed on Iraqi prisoners by American prison guards in Abu Ghraib Prison. Moreover, the night shift was not alone in excessively brutalizing the SPE prisoners; several guards on the other two shifts also regularly engaged in acts designed to humiliate the prisoners. Were these acts of brutality—and their striking parallels with real-world prison atrocities—nothing more than a function of social demand characteristics in a fraudulent "sham" study, as Blum and other critics have argued, or do they tell us something important about human nature? The full body of available evidence clearly suggests the latter.

4. A prisoner who seemed to have an emotional breakdown was actually just faking the breakdown to leave the study early. Blum portrays the case of Doug Korpi, alias Prisoner 8612, as an instance of me being duped into believing that a prisoner was having an emotional breakdown when in fact the prisoner was simply faking a breakdown in order to leave the study early. The evidence Blum cites for this conclusion is that Korpi told Blum in an interview: "I was faking… If you listen to the tape, you can hear it in my voice... I was being a good employee. It was a great time.” To this criticism, I have two responses. First, I would argue that any researcher who believes a research participant is having a breakdown is ethically obliged to treat the breakdown as real, even if the breakdown later turns out to be feigned. And second, I'm not alone in regarding the breakdown as real, because Doug Korpi himself went on record in Quiet Rage as saying that his time as a prisoner was the most upsetting experience of his life (see the accompanying video).

For reasons I cannot fathom, Korpi’s story has changed several times over the past 47 years: from genuinely losing control of his emotions, to getting out of the study so that he could lead an insurrection and liberate the other prisoners, to faking a breakdown just to get out early and study for an upcoming Graduate Record Exam, and to other reflections and memory distortions. Regardless, the conclusions Korpi drew from the study in his Quiet Rage interview, 17 years after the experience, are fully consistent with my own conclusions: "The Stanford Prison was a very benign prison situation, and it still caused guards to become sadistic [and] prisoners to become hysterical."

5. A British research team failed to replicate the SPE. An “experiment” based loosely on the SPE was filmed and broadcast on a 4-part BBC-TV show in May 2002 (Koppel & Mirsky, 2002). Its results appeared to challenge those of the SPE because the guards showed little violence or cruelty toward the prisoners. Instead, the opposite occurred. The prisoners dominated the guards, to the point where the guards became “increasingly paranoid, depressed and stressed and complained most of being bullied.” Several of the guards couldn’t take it any more and quit: none of the prisoners did so. Blum points to that TV show as another challenge to the validity of the SPE. However, in no way did this “reality-show” meet the scientific criteria for a replication.

From the time of being recruited with national ads to be actors in a "university-backed social science experiment to be shown on TV," every participant knew their actions and voices (from lapel mics they had to wear always) would be seen and heard on national TV by family and colleagues. Any similarity to the intense build-up of emotional confrontations between SPE guards versus prisoners, 24/7, was diluted by the daily itinerary of the British research team (Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher). These researchers frequently intervened, made regular public broadcasts into the prison facility, administered daily psychological assessments, arranged contests for the best prisoners to compete to become guards, and as in many “reality-TV” shows, created daily "confessionals" for participants to talk directly to the camera about their feelings. Ironically, the results of this show could be interpreted as further evidence of the “power of the situation,” although in this case the “situation” was that of reality-TV.

Among the participants in this BBC-TV prison show, several of whom had contacted me afterwards, was Philip Bimpson, the ringleader of a prisoner rebellion against the hapless guards. He said, in part:

"The prisoners won because they had organized themselves quicker than the guards; their subversive actions and organizational skills outwitted the guards who were disorganized in their new surroundings. They did not understand that they had to organize themselves and form a set of rules that they all agreed on… I think the group is being exploited by the BBC for commercial gain. Me and my new friends in the group joined the experiment for the furtherance of science & not to be used as a form of cheap entertainment." (Personal email communication, 26 Feb. 2002; supplemented by my subsequent visit in Glasgow, Oct. 10, 2004)

I therefore reject the use of this “replication” as a scientifically valid challenge to results from the SPE (for a more detailed response to this criticism, please see my article in The British Journal of Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 127.).

6. Early publications appeared in non-peer reviewed journals to avoid rejection. Several critics have claimed that I chose to publish early accounts of the SPE in non-peer reviewed journals in order to avoid likely rejection of this study. That is not the case. The research team published its first account of the SPE in the Journal of the Office of Naval Research because I had used funds from ONR that were left over from a previous grant, and ONR insisted that I document my research in its journal. Our next publication was in the International Journal of Penology and Criminology, at the invitation of the editor. In 1973, I then published an account of the SPE in the New York Times Magazine—not to bypass peer review, but to reach a large national audience and use the opportunity to frame the SPE as a Pirandellian Prison. My colleagues and I subsequently published several other articles and chapters about the SPE in peer-reviewed journals and books for academic audiences, including the American Psychologist, which is rigorously peer-reviewed.

Additional Topics

Now I want to turn to some other issues: highlighting what is unique about the SPE; describing its scientific and conceptual validations; showing how it has influenced decisions in legal settings; and discovering how the U.S. military has applied one of its main conclusions. I then turn to reflect on three of its enduring positive extensions in the domains of shyness, time perspective, and heroism.

Uniqueness of the SPE

The design of the SPE is unique in social psychological research by enabling observations of behavior patterns of the participants during an extended period of more than 120 hours. One of its main conclusions is that participants who were randomly assigned to roles of prisoner or guard gradually assumed those new identities in a simulated prison setting, despite their awareness of its experimental nature. Most other research is typically compressed into a one-hour session, so it is not possible to observe the emergence of situated identities, such as some normal, healthy college students becoming either cruel guards or helpless prisoners.

Scientific Validation

Replication with variations by independent researchers is the hallmark of all experimental research, and so it was with the SPE. A team of researchers at the University of New South Wales, Australia, extended the SPE design by having one condition similar to ours and several other experimental variants to explore how social organizations influence the relationship between prisoners and guards (Lovibond, Mithiran, & Adams, 1979). Their "Standard Custodial" regime was modeled on medium security prisons in Australia and was closest in its procedure to the SPE. The researchers' central conclusion of their rigorous experimental protocol notes: "Our results thus support the major conclusion of Zimbardo et al. that hostile, confrontive relations in prisons result primarily from the nature of the prison regime, rather than the personal characteristics of inmates and officers." (pp. 283). These results, within this research design, also help offset skepticism about the validity of such simulation experiments by providing baselines to assess behavioral changes from objectively defined structural characteristics of real-life prisons. However, it should be noted that it is no longer possible for anyone to attempt a full replication of the SPE, given the critiques that it is not ethical to ever conduct this type of research again.

Conceptual Validation: The Mock Psychiatric Ward as SPE for Staff

Consulting with research director, Norma Jean Orlando, I advised on how it would be possible to create a mock psychiatric ward in Elgin State Mental Hospital in Illinois, where 29 staff members played the roles of mental patients on a locked ward for 3 days and nights. Twenty-two regular staff played their usual roles, while trained observers and video recordings reported on all that transpired. In a short time, most mock patients began behaving in ways that were indistinguishable from real patients: six tried to escape, two withdrew into themselves, others were totally silent, two wept uncontrollably, another came close to having a nervous breakdown, and the majority reported feeling “incarcerated” with no one caring about their well-being. One staff member-turned- patient who suffered during the weekend ordeal gained enough insight to declare: “ I used to look at the patients as if they were a bunch of animals; I never knew what they were going through before.” The positive outcome of this experience was the formation of a committee of staff members working cooperatively with current and former patients who were dedicated to raising consciousness of hospital personnel about the way patients were being mistreated and how they had to change their behavior to create a more constructive, humane environment (Orlando 1973).

The Enduring Value of SPE’s Message in Legal Settings

I have spent much of my professional career trying to bridge the translation of research findings into social change efforts that promote social justice and what is best in human nature. In their hearings on prison reform (October, 1971), the Subcommittee of the United States Congress House of Representatives wanted not only my analyses, but also recommendations for reform. In my statement in the Congressional Record, I clearly advocated for congressional intervention into the prison structure to bring about improvements in the condition of inmates, as well as for correctional personnel. In addition, I wish here to highlight the important contributions that Craig Haney has made to prison reform. He is widely regarded as the foremost expert in the nation on the psychology of imprisonment, notably in challenging conditions of solitary confinement and the death penalty. Craig’s expertise is based on having earned both a Ph.D. in psychology and a law degree from Stanford University.

Unfortunately, blogger Blum’s Medium critique misrepresents published testimony in the Congressional Record about my constructive arguments for improving our nation’s mass incarceration system. My advocacy has largely taken the form of consciousness-raising about the necessity for ending the “social experiment” of prisons because, as measured by high rates of recidivism and current mass levels of incarceration in the United States, that experiment has failed. We must find the reason for that through more thorough systems analyses, and propose alternative solutions to incarceration.

My second testimony before a Congressional subcommittee that focused on juvenile detention (September, 1973) moved me further toward becoming a social advocate. I outlined 19 separate recommendations for improved treatment of detained juveniles. I was pleased to learn that a new federal law was passed that was in part stimulated by my testimony. Senator Birch Bayh, who headed this investigation, helped to put into law the rule that, to prevent juveniles being abused, juveniles in pre-trial detention should not be housed with adults in federal prisons.

One powerful legal impact of the SPE derived from my participation in the Federal Court trial of Spain et al. versus Procunier et al. (1973). The "San Quentin Six" prisoners had been isolated in solitary confinement for several years for their alleged involvement in the murder of guards and informer prisoners during the escape attempt of George Jackson on August 21, 1971. As an expert witness, I toured the facilities of San Quentin's maximum adjustment center and interviewed each of the six prisoners a number of times. My prepared statement and two days of trial testimony concluded with the opinion that all of these prison conditions of involuntary, prolonged, indefinite confinement under dehumanizing conditions constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and must therefore be changed. The Court arrived at a similar conclusion and ordered improved living conditions for inmates. In addition, I served throughout the trial as a psychological consultant to the team of lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Later, in 2004, I was asked to be an expert witness in the military trial of American prison guard, Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick. He was a leader of the guards on the night shift in Abu Ghraib Prison, all of whom participated in brutalizing Iraqi prisoners. There were many apparent similarities between the incidents of prisoner abuse by the guards in Abu Ghraib and the SPE. Frederick’s behaviors were shown to be completely atypical, as he had no prior history of such harmful actions towards any other people, and instead had been given many honors for his outstanding military service. Although he admitted his guilt in committing these abuses in Abu Ghraib, his prison sentence was shortened considerably by the judge’s acknowledgement of my testimony documenting the power of the situation in that unusual prison.

Interestingly, I was also asked to be an expert witness in the federal trial of Alex Blum, the cousin of Ben Blum, who mentions him in his Medium blog. Briefly, Alex was a guilty party as get-away driver in a bank robbery along with three other U.S. Rangers. Alex had long obsessed about becoming a U.S. Ranger, and as a recruit, he was assigned to an officer, Luke Elliot Sommer, who was his taskmaster and who issued orders to be obeyed without question. One of them was to assist in a “practice drill” of robbing a local bank, but in fact, it turned out to be a full-scale bank robbery. I spent enough personal time with Alex to realize the extent to which he was “blindly obeying" the authority of Capt. Sommer (who got a 24-year prison sentence). Alex might have received a similar long sentence, but instead it was reduced to only 16 months, presumably because the court accepted the expert testimony. When in prison, it took Alex a full eight months to come to the realization that what he had done was a real bank robbery and not a ranger drill, which for me demonstrated the power of his “Ranger-Mindset” of total obedience to his assigned authority. It was a powerful combination of Milgram’s obedience scenario along with cult-leader mind control, as seen in the Jonestown followers of Jim Jones, and those of Rev. Moon. For valuable information on mind control, see Steven Hassan’s Combating Cult Mind Control (2015).

Situationally-Based Behavioral Explanations Are Never Forms of “Excusiology”

“What social psychology has given to an understanding of human nature is the discovery that forces larger than ourselves determine our mental life and our actions—chief among these forces is the power of the social situation” (Banaji, 2001, Psychological Science Agenda).

In Solomon Asch’s classic research (1955), the power of a group majority distorted the perceptual judgments of individual college students. In Stanley Milgram’s obedience research (1963), the power of an authority figure induced actions that went against the moral conscience of adult male participants to harm a stranger. In experimental research on moral disengagement, Albert Bandura (1975) showed that college student participants shocked the “errors” of other students with highest intensity when they had been labeled “animals,” compared to other conditions. In the SPE, we witnessed the creation over time of two mentalities, that of dominating guards and of helpless, hopeless prisoners in a setting that validated these alternative personas. I believe that these four psychological studies, among others in our discipline, illustrate the extent to which the power of a social situation can come to dominate and distort individual perceptions, judgments, values and behaviors.

It should be made crystal-clear that when social psychologists attempt to explain the behavior of individuals in terms of influential external situational forces, they are never implying that personal responsibility is absolved. People are always responsible for the consequences of their actions -- personally, socially and legally. Understanding why we do something does not excuse our liability for the outcomes of that behavior.

Nevertheless, some critics of the SPE display a naïve misunderstanding of this perspective by claiming that a message of the SPE is that individuals "cannot really be held accountable for the sometimes reprehensible things we do . . . it is also profoundly liberating. It means we're off the hook” (Blum, 2018). Similarly, LeTextier (2018) proclaims: “It’s like, ‘Oh my god, I could be a Nazi myself. I thought I was a good guy, and now I discover that I could be this monster.’ And in the meantime, it’s quite reassuring, because if I become a monster, it’s not because deep inside me I am the devil, it’s because of the situation. I think that’s why the (SPE) experiment was so famous in Germany and Eastern Europe. You don’t feel guilty. ‘Oh, okay, it was the situation. We are all good guys. No problem. It’s just the situation made us do it.’ So it’s shocking, but at the same time it’s reassuring.”

This argument was rejected in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi doctors and others many decades ago, and with good reason; the individuals were indeed “just doing their job” but were still held accountable for the atrocities they committed.

I strongly reject the criticism that the underlying message of the SPE is to absolve people of their “sins.” Changing or preventing undesirable behavior of individuals or groups requires an understanding of what strengths, virtues, and vulnerabilities that they bring into any given situation. We need to recognize more fully the complex of situational forces that are operative in given behavioral settings. Modifying them, or learning to avoid them, can have a greater impact on reducing undesirable individual reactions than remedial actions directed only at changing the people in a situation after they have done wrong. That means adopting a public health approach in place of the standard medical model approach to curing individual ills and wrongs. I have stated repeatedly that attempting to understand the situational and systemic contributions to any individual's behavior does not excuse the person or absolve him or her from responsibility in engaging in immoral, illegal, or evil deeds. Furthermore, I've always endorsed all efforts to create conditions, systemic and social, which can bring out the best in human nature.

Military Use of SPE in SERE Trainings

When I lectured at the United States Naval Academy, I was informed that the Navy and other military units train their personnel using the documentary footage of the SPE to avoid the excesses that are likely to occur during these exercises. Following the Korean War, when some airmen were alleged to have given actionable information to the enemy, our military developed a policy of never giving any information when captured by any enemy, other than name, rank and serial number. The military instituted war games in which some personnel acted as escaped prisoners who were hunted down by other staff, and then interrogated as intensely as possible in order to break them down into giving confessions and vital information. This program, Search, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) continues to function as one effective training program to achieve the desired objective of never complying with any enemy commands for information. However, there have been reports of excesses practiced by the simulating interrogators, which were dangerous to the well-being of the simulating captives. The SPE is shown as a warning of the ease in which anyone can cross the line from play-acting to becoming cruel torturers. I found this to be an unexpected positive outcome of some of SPE’s messages in real-world settings.

SPE as Pirandellian Prison

The opportunity to contribute an article to the New York Times Magazine (1973) allowed our research team to present our experience to a larger public audience, rather than limit it to academics only. This meant that we had to engage in a different style of writing. I valued the idea of framing the SPE in terms of playwright Luigi Pirandello's metaphors of the thin line between reality and illusion, between acting and being, between role-playing and the role becoming the self, and so that is what we did.

The SPE was a drama that was enacted by young men playing their assigned roles without scripted lines and without an audience for hours and days on end. Everyone knew it was only a play. Everyone knew it was just a psychology experiment; that they were in the basement of the psych department, not a real prison; that the prisoners had not committed any crimes; that the guards could have earned their salary by simply playing cards in their guard office for much of their 8-hour shift as long as they kept prisoners locked in their cells. But in a relatively short time frame, the psychology study became a “prison,” and the only two ways out of that dungeon were to be released by the arbitrary decision of the parole board or by becoming/acting seriously disturbed mentally or physically. In addition to Korpi, four other mock prisoners had to be released early for extreme emotional or medical reasons.

As is also apparent from our documentary videos and verbatim transcripts, not only did most of the research participants enact their roles as if they were imprisoned or were doing their job as paid guards, but almost everyone else who got engaged in that setting acted as if it were a real prison. The prime example is the Catholic priest who I had invited to evaluate the fit of this experiment with his experience in real prisons. He did so by interviewing all the prisoners. However, he soon got into the role of prisoner counseler, calling a prisoner’s mother to inform her that her son needed a public defender to help get him out of this prison. The public defender also knew the SPE was just an experiment, but when meeting with the desperate prisoners, he maintained his aloof role that was legally limited to what he could do to help them.

Carlo Prescott got so involved in his role as head of the parole board that he began to chastise and verbally abuse many of those pleading to be paroled, until some cried and begged for his understanding of their case. He later said that he had unconsciously become the kind of person he had hated most in the world, the parole board authorities that had turned down his own requests dozens of times before. Afterwards, he reported becoming sick to his stomach, realizing what he had become, and he did not want to play that role ever again.

And then there was me. I began the study as the principal research investigator, in charge of my team of student researchers, all interested in exploring together the dynamics of a unique situation we had created. I had initially instituted observational and research protocols, video recording assignments, and data collection procedures, as all experimental researchers do. However, over a very short time, I was transformed into the full-time role of Prison Superintendent. In my view, that is the major flaw of the SPE; it had no independent scientific observer of the unfolding events. My agenda became less about data collection than about daily staff assignments, timing of meals, meeting with concerned parents, parole board sessions, guard shift changes, meeting with the prisoner grievance committee, dealing with prisoner breakdowns, and more.

One vivid illustration of this flaw in the study came on Thursday night, five days into the study, when there was the usual 10:00 pm scheduled toilet run -- the last time prisoners could go to a regular toilet rather than urinate or defecate in buckets in their cells. The night shift guards used this event as an opportunity to torment and confuse the prisoners in various ways. By then, I no longer acknowledged the suffering of the prisoners; the toilet run was only a checkmark on my daily schedule.

That's when I received an unexpected challenge from a visitor observing how the guards were dehumanizing and tormenting the prisoners (again without any staff direction). Christina Maslach, a new psychology professor at U.C. Berkeley, whom I was dating, came down to take me out to dinner. However, when she saw the ongoing treatment of the hooded, chained prisoners, she ran outside in tears. We had a major confrontation in which she made clear that this situation had changed me from a teacher who loved students into someone who could be indifferent to student suffering. She then said she didn't want to continue our relationship if I did not come to my senses. That was my wake-up call to shed the Prison Superintendent garb, return to my usual persona, and terminate the SPE the next morning.

So what really happened in the five days of the SPE? Was it an unfolding drama of human nature in its worst apparel, or just kids play-acting to please the director?

I strongly believe the former.

Enduring Legacies

Three of my contributions to psychology and society have emerged in various ways from extensions of ideas I extracted from the SPE. They are: (1) understanding and treating shyness, (2) understanding and utilizing the power of time perspective to improve the quality of our lives, and (3) creating the Heroic Imagination Project to inspire compassionate social action for good and against evil.

Shyness. I first conceptualized shyness in 1972 as a self-imposed psychological prison in which the shy individual plays the dual roles of guard (who limits all freedom of speech and social behavior) and also the reluctant prisoner (who submits to those constraints and thus loses much self-esteem). I went on to do pioneering research on this topic, created the first shyness treatment clinic (still in operation at Palo Alto University), and also published several popular books and magazine articles for the general public. Thus, I have integrated education, research, therapy, and public awareness of this widespread personal and social phenomenon.

Time Perspective. My interest in exploring the psychology of time perspective, or the temporal zones in which we all live, emerged in part from the sense of distorted time we all experienced during the SPE. Without clocks or windows, that basement prison’s time revolved around each guard shift coming and going. We often felt trapped in an expanded present time zone when the guards were endlessly harassing the prisoners, or in a present fatalistic time zone that most prisoners experienced when nothing they did made a difference in how they were treated. I subsequently developed a scale to measure individual differences in time perspective, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory; conducted original research on the topic; published several books on time perspective and its applications in various kinds of therapy both to heal trauma and to improve the quality of our lives. In addition, I have brought together a global team of researchers and practitioners studying, using, and extending the ideas and procedures that emerged in part from one of my many personal experiences during the SPE.

Creating Everyday Heroes. In the final chapter of The Lucifer Effect, I switched focus from trying to understand how good people can turn evil to asking whether it is possible for ordinary people to be inspired and trained to become everyday heroes. Since then, and with support of colleagues following my public statement of that theme in my 2008 TED talk, On the Psychology of Evil, I've devoted my academic and personal life to creating a nonprofit foundation, The Heroic Imagination Project (HIP). Its mission is to inspire and train ordinary people, especially our youth, to be ready and willing to enact extraordinary deeds of compassion in challenging situations they face in their lives. In addition to a research agenda, we have developed a unique educational program that provides the foundation for training people how to think and act heroically in situations they face. These lessons have demonstrated effectiveness with high school and college students, as well as in business settings. HIP has become a global movement with vibrant programs in more than a dozen nations on several continents, with many more coming on board soon. For more information, please visit www.HeroicImagination.org

Conclusion

I hope that this reply to the critics of the legitimacy and enduring value of the SPE help make evident that they are substantially wrong in their conclusions. For whatever its flaws, I continue to believe that the Stanford Prison Experiment contributes to psychology’s understanding of human behavior and its complex dynamics. Multiple forces shape human behavior, they are internal and external, historical and contemporary,

cultural and personal. The more we understand all of these dynamics and the complex way they interact with each other, the better we will be at promoting what is best in human nature. That has been my lifelong mission.

Selected References

CRITICS

Blum, B. (2018, June 7). The Lifespan of a Lie. Medium.

Resnick, B. (2018, June 14). This damning video debunks the famed experiment. VOX.

Van Bavel, J. V. (2018, June 12). “The bottom line is that conformity isn't natural, blind or inevitable.” Live SCI=NCE.

Textier, T. (2018). History of a Lie. Paris: Editions La Decouverte.

REBUTTAL CITATIONS

Asch, S. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193 (5), 31-35.

Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 253-269.

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398- 413.

Blum, B. (2017). Ranger Games. New York: Doubleday.

Lovibond, S. H., Mithiran, X., and Adams,W.G. (1979). The effects of three experimental prison environments on the behaviour of non-convict volunteer subjects. Australian Psychologist, 14, 273-87.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

Orlando, N.J. (1973). The Mock Ward: A study in Simulation. In Behavior Disorders: Perspectives and Trends. O. Milton & G. Whalers, Eds. (3rd Ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott) pp. 162-170.

Zimbardo. P. G. (2007). British J. Social Psychology, 127: Commentary for BPS Journals Department. Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC Prison Study

Wells, M. (Jan. 24, 2002). BBC halts 'prison experiment." The Guardian Unlimited, on line.

Koppel, G., & Mirsky, N. (Series producer and Executive producer, respectively.). (2002, May, 14,15, 20, 21). The Experiment. London: BBC.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), 1969 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment. Congressional Record. (Serial No. 15, October 25, 1971). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner’s Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Zimbardo, P. G. (1972). Pathology of Imprisonment. Society, 6, 4, 6, 8.

THE SPE

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison (Naval Research Reviews 9 (1-17)). Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research.Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1973, April 8). The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison. The New York Times Magazine, Section 6, pp. 38, ff.Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Jaffe, D. (1974). The psychology of imprisonment: Privation, power and pathology. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing Unto Others: Explorations in Social Behavior (pp. 61-73). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zimbardo, P. G. (1974). The detention and jailing of juveniles (Hearings before U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, 10, 11, 17, September, 1973). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 141-161.Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1976). Social roles and role-playing: Observations from the Stanford prison study. In E. P. Hollander & R. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current Perspectives In Social Psychology (4th ed.), (pp. 266-274). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Haney, C. (1978). Prison behavior. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Neurology, (Vol. 9; pp. 70-74). New York: Human Sciences Press.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). (Testimony of Dr. Philip Zimbardo to U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary). In J. J. Bonsignore, et al. (Eds.), Before the law: An introduction to the legal process (2nd ed.; pp. 396-399). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Zimbardo, P. G. (1989). (Writer and producer), & Musen, K. (Co-writer and co-producer). Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Study [Video]. Stanford, CA: Stanford Instructional Television Network.

Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (1999). Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm. (pp. 193-237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zimbardo, P. G., Plous, S., &, Lestik, M. (1999, Dec.). The Stanford Prison Experiment Web Site: http://www.prisonexp.org.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Lestik, M. (2007). The Lucifer Effect Web Site. Launched March 2007. Web site: www.LuciferEffect.com.

MIND CONTROL

Scheflin, A.W., & Opton, E. M., Jr. (1978). The mind manipulators: A non-fiction account. New York: Paddington Press.

Sullivan, D., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1979, March 9). Jonestown survivors tell their story. Los Angeles Times, View section, Part 4, pp. 1, 10-12.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1983, Winter). To control a mind. Stanford Magazine, 11, pp. 59-64.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Hartley, C. F. (1985, Spring/Summer). Cults go to high school: A theoretical and empirical analysis of the initial stage in the recruitment process. Cultic Studies Journal, 2, 91-147. Weston, MA: American Family Foundation.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Andersen, S. A. (1993). Understanding mind control: Exotic and mundane mental manipulations. In M. Langone (Ed.), Recovery from Cults (pp. 104-125). New York: Norton Press.

Layton D. (2003) Seductive poison: A Jonestown survivor’s story of life and death in the peoples Temple. New York: Doubleday.

Hassan, S. (2015). Combatting Cult Mind Control. Newton MA: Freedom of Mind Press.

ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS

Ruch, F. L., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). Psychology and Life (8th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Gerrig, R., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2015). Psychology and Life (19th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Zimbardo, P. G., Johnson, R., & McCann, V. (2017). Psychology: Core Concepts. (8TH ed.). NY: Pearson.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1975). On transforming experimental research into advocacy for social change. In M. Deutsch & H. Hornstein (Eds.), Applying Social Psychology: Implications For Research, Practice, and Training (pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1989). (Co-writer, chief academic advisor, host), & WGBH-TV (Producer). Discovering Psychology [26-program video series.] Washington, DC: Annenberg-CPB. [Updated 2002].Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Recollections of a social psychologist's career: An interview with Dr. Philip Zimbardo. Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 14, 1-22.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Does psychology make a significant difference in our lives? American Psychologist, 59, 339-351.

SHYNESS

Zimbardo, P. G., Pilkonis, P., & Norwood, R. (1975, May). The silent prison of shyness. Psychology Today, 69-70, 72.Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness: What It Is, What To Do About It. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1977, Jan.-Feb.). Shyness--The people phobia. Today’s Education, 66, 47-49.Pines, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1978). The personal and cultural dynamics of shyness: A comparison between Israelis, American Jews and Americans. Journal of Psychology and Judaism, 3, 81-101.Zimbardo, P. G., & Pilkonis, P. (1978). Shyness. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Neurology, (Vol. 10; pp. 226-229). New York: Human Sciences Press

Zimbardo, P. G., & Radl, S. L. (1981). The Shy Child. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zimbardo, P. G. (Consultant, On-Screen Performer), & Ene Riisna (Producer), John Stossel (Correspondent). (1983). The Pain of Shyness. ABC-TV News, “20/ 20.”

Zimbardo, P. G. (1986). The Stanford shyness project. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on Research and Treatment (pp. 17-25). New York: Plenum Press.Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1998). Shyness. Encyclopedia of Mental Health, 3, 497-509.

Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2001). Shyness as a clinical condition: The Stanford Model. In L. Alden & R. Crozier (Eds.), International Handbook of Social Anxiety (pp. 431-447). Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). Foreword. In L. Henderson. Social Fitness Training: A Cognitive-Behavioral Protocol for the Treatment of Shyness and Social Anxiety Disorder. Palo Alto, CA: Shyness Institute.

TIME PERSPECTIVE

Boyd, J. N., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1997). Constructing Time After Death: The Transcendental-Future Time Perspective, Time & Society. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Journals.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288.

Zimbardo, P. G. &, Boyd, J. N. (2008). The Time Paradox. New York: Rider.

Zimbardo, P. G., Sword, R., & Sword, R., (2012) The Time Cure: Overcoming PTSD with the New Psychology of Time Perspective Therapy. San Francisco: Wiley.

Zimbardo, P. G., et al. (2013). Time Perspective Therapy: A New Time-Based Metaphor Therapy for PTSD. Journal of Loss and Trauma: International Perspectives on Stress & Coping. London, UK: Routledge.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2015). Reflections on the beginning of time perspective. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.). Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in honor of Philip G. Zimbardo. Switzerland: Springer.

Zimbardo, P. G. & Sword, R. (2017) Living & Loving Better: Healing from the Past, Embracing the Present, Creating an Ideal Future with Time Perspective Therapy. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Stolarski, M., Fieulaine, N., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2017). Putting time in a wider perspective: The past, the present, and the future of time perspective theory. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

HEROISM

Blau, K., Franco, Z. E., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2009). Fostering the heroic imagination: An ancient ideal and a modern vision. Eye on Psi Chi.13, 18-21.

Franco Z., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2010) The banality of heroism. In: Keltner D, Marsh J, Smith J.A., eds. The compassionate instinct: The science of human goodness. (pp. 287-300). New York: Norton.

Franco, Z. E., Blau, K., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation Between Heroic Action and Altruism. Review of General Psychology, 5 (2). 99-113.

Zimbardo, P.G., Breckenridge, J. N., & Moghaddam, F. M. (2013). “Exclusive” and “inclusive” visions of heroism and democracy. Current Psychology: A journal for Diverse Perspective on Diverse Psychological Issues, 32(3), 221-233.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Sword, R. (2016, 5.31). Be a Hero. Stand up. Speak out. Change the world. Psychology Today Blog. Franco, Z. E., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2016). The psychology of heroism: Extraordinary champions of humanity in an unforgiving world. In: A.G. Miller (Ed.) The social Psychology of good and evil. (494-523). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Franco, Z. E., Blau, K., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2011). Heroism: A conceptual analysis and differentiation between heroic action and altruism. Review of General Psychology, 15(2), 99. Franco, Z. E., Allison, S. T., Kinsella, E. L., Kohen, A., Langdon, M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2016). Heroism research: A review of theories, methods, challenges, and trends. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 0022167816681232.

Zimbardo, P. G., Seppala, E. M., & Franco, Z. E. (2017). Heroism: Social transformation through compassion in action. In E.M. Seppala et al. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of compassion science. Pp. 487-494.

---

应知友要求，协助更新中文翻译，仅供参考：

作者：Jenny蔡健玲
链接：https://www.zhihu.com/question/281179300/answer/422104211
来源：知乎
著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权，非商业转载请注明出处。

博客作者Ben Blum于2018年6月7日在线上媒体Medium上，发表了一篇针对1971年斯坦福大学监狱实验（简称SPE）的真实性和价值的充满批判和敌意，近乎谩骂的文章，将其标为“欺诈”和“谎言”，一些其他的评论者也一样。比如说，Brian Resnick在看了我存放在斯坦福档案室里的视频后，写道“这个该死的视频揭穿了这个著名的实验”（VOX节目，2018年6月14日）。而6月12日，在Live SCIENCE里，Jay Van Bavel说，“究其实，从众这事并不是自然的，盲目的或者一定要发生的。” 此外，法国作家Thibault LeTextier的新书《谎言史》（2018）也加入了批评SPE的行列。

作为对于这些批评的回应，我在此声明，这些批评都没有提供任何实质性证据可以改变SPE的结论，即，其帮助理解系统性和情境性的力量如何在不知不觉中影响我们个人负面或正面行为的价值。SPE的核心信息并不是说一个模拟的监狱与真的监狱是一样的，也并不是说囚犯和狱警都一直或往往像实验中发生的那样行动。事实上，它传递的信息是一个警示故事：即如果我们低估了这些影响我们行动的社会角色和外部压力，那么可能会发生什么。

背景

什么是斯坦福大学监狱实验，又是哪些偶然事件把这一关于情境力量的学术实验推到了一个举国关注的重要地位？SPE是一个在1971年8月14日至19日，共计六天的，在斯坦福大学进行的一项研究。由我作为首席研究员进行设计和指导，与我的团队，包括研究生Craig Haney，William Curtis Banks，本科生David Jaffe，和监狱顾问Carlo Prescott，共同完成的。这是一项探索性调查，旨在研究情境力量能够改变参与者个人行为的程度。从报纸广告中，我们招募了24名大学生参加了这项监狱生活研究。他们先完成了一系列心理测试和问卷调查（为了保证他们都心理健康并正常，也没有任何触犯法律的先例）。他们随后被随机分配了囚犯和狱警的角色。狱警每班工作8小时，而囚犯则24小时生活在斯坦福心理学系地下室的模拟监狱里。斯坦福大学的人类研究项目办公室批准了这个独特的实验，认定其符合规定。由于这些模拟狱警和囚犯后来发生出乎意料的极端消极的反应，这项预计进行两周的实验在6天后被终止。这项研究的全部细节已付梓出版，书名“路西法效应”（2007年）。也可以在http://www.PrisonExperiment.org上查找到。

在SPE结束后不久，西海岸的圣昆廷监狱和东海岸的阿提卡监狱爆发的戏剧性事件使监狱环境成为全国的焦点。8月20日，在黑人政治活动家George Jackson涉嫌逃跑期间，一些圣昆廷狱警和囚犯遇害。从9月9日至13日，有1000名阿提卡囚犯控制了监狱，公开抗议对Jackson的“谋杀”。这场对抗最终以国民警卫队杀死了许多囚犯以及他们的狱警人质结束。媒体进行了广泛的报道，美国国会也组成相关委员会进行了一系列调查。而我则被邀请参加电视媒体活动和国会听证会，这些听证会也让大众对我们的模拟监狱中发生的事情产生了相当大的兴趣。

在回复关于我是否诚实并正确地描述了SPE的质问之前，我认为我有必要强调我已经尽可能地使SPE的每一个细节都公开于众，无论是在斯坦福大学的公开档案中，或是在阿克伦大学心理学博物馆的档案馆中。我捐赠了40多箱有价值的观察数据，在研究期间和之后收集的囚犯/狱警/工作人员的报告和日记，以及SPE期间录制的12小时视频。《路西法效应》（ 2007年）中也包括了10个章节，用来专门介绍SPE的各个方面，并提供了关于每个论断的来源的完整文档。同时，大量有关SPE的材料其实都可以在过去的至少15年里于斯坦福监狱实验的官网上直接获得。因此，与这些批评者所述的“他们发掘了我隐藏已久的新信息”恰好相反，SPE早在档案公开与数据分享等等实践普遍化之前就一直是开放科学的典范。

批评者们还声称我在现代心理学中的地位主要来自于SPE。然而，我的声誉来源于许多主题的大量研究和理论，在1971年推出SPE之前以及之后都有。事实上，1971年进行SPE的时候我已经将近40岁，是斯坦福大学的终身教授。是我在纽约大学研究和教学方面先前取得的成就，使我受邀合作撰写心理学最重要的入门教材之一《心理学和生活》的原因。后来我从一群知名作家中被选中成为26集电视节目“发现心理学”的创作者和解说员。近几十年来，全球已有数百万学生和老师观看了这个节目。我认为对于我在心理学领域的地位的建立，我这些工作的贡献不比SPE少。总的来说，我已经对40个不同领域的心理学做出了贡献，也在迄今为止我撰写的60多本书和600本出版物有所记录。

在对这些关于实验过程和结论的欺诈性质的说法进行回应之后，我将详细介绍SPE的一些独特之处，讨论它的科学效度以及它许多方面的现实应用。最后，我将会以我从SPE的经历中获得启发，从而想到的几个出乎意料而富有价值的延伸领域作为结尾。

主要批判

近期对于SPE的批判主要集中于6个问题，我将会一一进行回应。

1. 一名工作人员公开谴责SPE是有缺陷和不诚实的。Blum引用了一篇2005年发表于斯坦福日报（校园报）上的专栏文章，这篇报道据说是SPE的监狱顾问Carlo Prescott写的，名为《斯坦福监狱实验的谎言》。而且，他甚至借用了这个标题作为他自己博客的标题主题。事实上，这篇文章完全不是Prescott所写的。他与我在我1971年5月的一堂社会心理学课上第一次相见就变成了朋友，而在了解到他曾经在监狱里待过一段时间之后，我就邀请他作为我关于监狱生活的专家顾问。仔细地阅读那篇专栏文章，会发现作者的行文与用词都具有一种特殊的，带有法律性的风格，与Carlo的完全不一样。其实，这篇文章以及许多网络上对于SPE的负面评论的真实作者，都是Michael Lazarou，一个洛杉矶的电影编剧。他与我和Carlo是在一次尝试获得我准许去拍摄一部关于SPE的好莱坞电影时相识的。但在我选择了Maverick Films的Brent Emery来制作这部电影后， Lazarou就开始对于我和SPE写负面评论。（Brent Emery的电话录音显示，“Carlo说那并不是他，全是来自于Lazarou的。” 2005年5月7日）。换句话说，SPE的监狱顾问根本就没有说过这个实验是一个谎言。

2. 研究人员指示狱警变得更加“强硬”，扭曲了他们的行为也影响了实验结果。SPE是依照当时美国监狱系统的典型特征而设计的一个模拟监狱。当时狱警训练的核心内容便是对囚犯们行使他们的权力，使囚犯们听从指示，防止他们反抗或尝试逃脱的意图。我当时对于狱警们的指示，正如狱警指南上所记录的一样，是说他们不能击打囚犯，但是可以创造无聊、沮丧、恐惧、以及无力感等等情绪，也就是说狱警在这个情境里拥有所有的权力，而囚犯没有。我们并没有对如何成为一个有效的狱警给予任何正式的，或是具体的指示。

当时没有参与者想要被分到狱警的角色，只是一半被随机分配到了这个角色。正如SPE电影里Quiet Rage一段所展现的一样，狱警们花了一段时间来代入他们的角色；第一天的录像显示他们曾偷笑着让囚犯更加遵守规矩一些。那次交接的三个狱警中的一个显然没有参与进来，即使在让囚犯们遵守其他两个狱警的指示时也是一样。因此，David Jaffee作为SPE的监狱长，看到这个狱警没有真正代入角色，便将他带到一旁，让他变得更加积极一些，参与进去，变得更加“强硬”一些以符合监狱的设定，让这个实验更像监狱一些。他的原话如下：

“我们真的很希望你能变得更加积极主动并参与进去，因为狱警们必须认识到每一个狱警都必须成为一个“强硬的狱警”。这里的“强硬”，我是指你必须变得更加严格、坚定，并且你必须有所行动。这对于这个实验来说非常重要，因为我们是否能让这个东西变得真正像一个监狱，也就是我们这个实验的目的，很大程度上就取决于狱警们的行为。“

我们从未更加具体化如何去变得更加“强硬”，并且当时有明确警告禁止使用任何武力。

虽然David Jaffee已经作出了如上要求，在最开始的两次轮班中，狱警们都没有表现得有主导性。然而，第二天早晨，在囚犯们以多种形式进行反抗并引起了与全体九个狱警的言语及肢体冲突后，一切都改变了。待该次反抗被狱警们平复之后，一个狱警声称这些囚犯们“很危险”，而在这种全新的视角下，许多狱警确实变得更加“强硬”了起来。

值得注意的是，在我所有对于SPE的报告中，我一直强调狱警中所存在的个体差异。在每次轮班中，会有一两个狱警变得越来越强硬与刻薄，而其他的则继续保持着一个温和的角色扮演，他们中有一些人被囚犯们视为“好狱警”。但是，没有任何一个“好狱警”曾为了减少或阻止其他狱警的残忍行为而进行干涉。Blum承认了狱警之间的个体差异，“大部分狱警表现得十分平凡。甚至有些狱警会帮助囚犯们做些小事情。”从我的观点来看，这些狱警的行为削弱了对于所谓的需求特征影响SPE实验结果的任何批评。一些狱警自始至终都保持着“好狱警”的角色的事实正说明了那些残忍的狱警们是自发地对囚犯们变得越来越刻薄与残忍的。正是他们的这些极端行为引导至了该研究如此戏剧化的效果，其中包括最典型的狱警“John Wayne”的“大男子气概表演”。

3. 一个狱警有意表现得更为残忍来使实验符合我的预期。一个值夜班的狱警因一直表现得像一个疯狂失控的西部牛仔而被囚犯们绰号为“John Wayne”。然而，许多批评者并不认为这个狱警的行为仅仅是有意地饰演强硬狱警的角色。在实验之后，“John Wayne”（David Eshelman）声称他是以电影Cool Hand Luke中的监狱长为蓝本来塑造他自己的角色的。他说他想要变得更像一个真的狱警，于是在每次轮夜班时都会对囚犯们十分强硬。他让囚犯们一直做俯卧撑（有时，他还会让其他囚犯踩在他们的背上），限制他们的饮食，并肆意制定规矩。每晚，Eshelman都会以极有“创意”的方式变得越来越残忍，远远超出了一个强硬狱警的界限。确实，他后来说他开始自认为是一个“玩偶师”，操控着囚犯们做任何他想做的事情。极度滥用他的角色权力，Eshelman在实验的第五天想出了一个不可想象的方式来羞辱所有的囚犯。他命令他们将自己想象为“骆驼”，一半囚犯被分为雄性，另外一半被分为雌性。那些被分为雌性的“骆驼”们需要弯腰，而那些雄性的“骆驼”囚犯们则被命令以“小狗式”与他们“性交”，他们非常不情愿地模拟着鸡奸行为。在我缺席时所录制的视频显示该事件持续了大约10分钟，所有三个狱警都喊着辱骂性的称号，歇斯底里地笑着。幸好，我先前已经决定在第二天早晨终止这次实验。

毋庸置疑，这种行为远远超出了所谓“强硬”的狱警所应该扮演的角色。值得一提的是，与Eshelman同班的其他狱警们都全全参与了这些使他们的轮班具有特征性，有攻击性的活动——这些活动与美国狱警在阿布格莱布监狱（Abu Ghraib Prison）对伊拉克囚犯所作出的有关性侮辱的仪式十分的相似。而并不仅仅是这一夜班过分地残忍对待SPE的囚犯们；在其他几班中，也有几个狱警频繁涉及羞辱囚犯们的活动。这些野蛮的行为，以及与其极其相似的真实监狱里发生的残暴行为，真的如Blum和其他批评者所说的那样，只是在一个“虚假”的研究中所发生的社会需求特质的效果吗？还是说，它们能反应有关人性的某些特质呢？所有可用的证据都支持后者。

4. 一个看似产生精神崩溃的囚犯实际上只是为了早些离开实验而伪装精神崩溃。Blum描述Doug Korpi，或囚犯8612，为我被一个实际上只是为了早些离开实验而伪装精神崩溃的囚犯骗得认为他真的产生了精神崩溃的例子。Blum为其结论所引用的证据是Korpi在一次采访中对他说：“我都是装的…如果你听录音，你可以从我的声音里听出来…我只是想做一个好员工。那是一段不错的时光。”针对这点批评，我有两个回应。第一，我会说所有的实验人员在发现有参与者产生精神崩溃时，都有道德责任相信它是真实的，尽管后来被证实是伪装出来的。第二，并不仅仅我认为那次崩溃是真的，因为Doug Korpi他后来在Quiet Rage的录音中曾经说道，他当囚犯的那段时间是他一生中最令人难过的一段经历（请看附的视频）。

由于我不能理解的种种原因，Korpi的故事在过去的四十七年中发生了很多变化：从真的变得情绪失控，到想早点走出去，以便他能够引导一场起义并解放其他囚犯，再说是假装疯狂以期早日离开，这样他就可以为即将举行的研究生考试学习，以及其他的反思和记忆扭曲。无论如何，Korpi在该实验发生后的第17年，在Quiet Rage的采访中所得出的结论与我所得出的结论是完全吻合的：“斯坦福监狱已经是个很善良的监狱环境了，然而它依然导致狱警们变得残酷，而囚犯们变得歇斯底里。”

5. 英国的研究团队没有成功地复制SPE。一个说是基于SPE的“实验”被录制，并于2002年5月在BBC的电视上播出(Koppel & Mirsky 2002)。它所得出的结果似乎反驳了SPE，因为其中的狱警表现出了极少对于囚犯的暴力与残忍行为。正好相反，囚犯们主导了狱警，而狱警则变得“越来越多疑，抑郁，感到压力，并抱怨说收到了虐待”。有几个狱警因为无法忍受而退出实验，但没有任何囚犯退出。Blum表示这个电视节目是对于SPE效度的又一挑战。然而，这个“真人秀”在任何意义上都没有达到一个科学复制的标准。

从全国性广告中被征募，成为参与“一项在全国电视播放，由大学支持的社会科学实验”的演员时，每个参与者都知道他们的行为和声音(--他们必须一直佩戴领口的话筒)会被家人和同事在国家电视台上看到和听到。SPE 中警卫与囚犯之间，那种七天二十四小时的紧张情绪与对抗完全被稀释了——英国研究小组(Alex Haslam和Stephen Reicher)的日常行程稀释了所有相似之处。这些研究人员不断地进行干预：定期在监狱设施进行公共广播；每日进行心理评估；安排比赛，以便让比赛中的最佳犯人成为保安。在整个“真人秀”节目中，他们为参与者们创造了日常“忏悔”环节，让参与者直接面对摄像机谈论他们的感受。讽刺的是，这个电视节目的结果也可以被理解成“情境的力量”的又一证据，尽管这里的“情境”是电视真人秀。

在这档由英国广播公司(bbc)制作的监狱节目中，有一位参与者后来亲自联系了我，他就是菲利普•宾森(Philip Bimpson)，引领囚犯们反抗狱警的一个头目。他说的部分内容如下:

“……犯人赢了，因为他们比卫兵组织得快。他们的颠覆行动和组织能力胜过了在新环境中毫无组织性的警卫。他们（也就是警卫）不明白，他们必须组织自己，形成一套他们都同意的规则。我认为，这个小组被BBC利用了，用来获取商业利益。我和我在小组里的新朋友们（应该）参加的是一个为了促进科学发展的实验，而不是一种廉价娱乐的形式。” (个人电子邮件通讯，2002年2月26日;随后，我于2004年10月10日访问了格拉斯哥。)

我因此反对使用该“复制”作为一个对于SPE结果具有科学性的反驳（针对该批判更详细的回应，请看我在The British Journal of Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 127.中的文章）。

6. 早期论文发表在非同行评审的期刊，以避免被拒绝。有几位批评家声称，我选择在非同行评议期刊上发表SPE的早期报告，是为了避免这项研究被拒绝。事实并非如此。我们之所以在《海军研究办公室》杂志上发表了关于SPE 的第一个报告，是因为我使用了海军研究局之前批准的一项基金，而他们坚持让我将我的研究刊载在他们的期刊上。(顺便一提，SPE的全部预算只有2500美元)。我们的下一篇文章应编辑的邀请发表在《犯罪学杂志》上。1973年，我在《纽约时报》(New York Times)杂志上发表了一篇关于SPE的文章，被指责“绕开了通常的同行审查程序”。我当时这么做是为了广泛的接触全国（此处指美国）的观众。我不同寻常地将SPE 形容成了“皮兰德里监狱”(在后面的章节中会详细描述)。我和我的同事在众多同行审阅的期刊和书籍上，发表了许许多多关于SPE的文章，供学术读者和普通读者阅读，其中包括American Psychologist，一个有许多同行审阅的期刊。

Additional Topics

接下来我会转向讨论几个其他话题：SPE的独特之处;它的科学和概念性的验证；它如何影响法律环境中的决定;美国军队是如何运用其中的一个主要结论的。然后我会向大家介绍它在羞怯、时间观和英雄主义领域的三个最持久的积极延伸。

SPE的独特性

SPE的设计在社会心理学研究中是独一无二的，它可以观察参与者在超过120小时的时间内的行为模式。它的主要结论之一是，参与者被随机分配到囚犯或看守的角色，尽管他们意识到这些新身份具有实验性质，但是，他们在模拟监狱环境中逐渐获得这些新身份。大多数其他的研究通常被压缩成一个小时的时长，所以不可能观察到特定身份的出现，比如一些正常、健康的大学生变成了残忍的狱警或无助的囚犯。

科学验证

由独立研究人员进行的可变性复制是所有实验研究的标志，SPE也是如此。澳大利亚新南威尔士大学(University of New South Wales, Australia)的一个研究小组扩大了SPE设计，采用了一种类似于我们的条件和其他几个实验变量，以探究社会组织如何影响囚犯和狱警之间的关系(Lovibond, Mithiran，& Adams,1979)。他们的“标准监管”制度模仿了澳大利亚的中等安全程度的监狱，在程序上最接近SPE。研究人员对严格的实验协议的核心结论是:“因此，我们的研究结果支持Zimbardo等人的主要结论。监狱中敌对的、对抗的关系主要源于监狱制度的性质，而非囚犯和官员的个人特征。”(283页)。在这个研究设计中的结果，通过提供基准线来评估客观定义的真实监狱生活的结构特征的行为变化，也有助于消除对这种模拟实验有效性的怀疑。

概念验证: 像SPE一样，员工参与到模拟精神病病房

我咨询了研究主任Norma Jean Orlando，就如何在伊利诺伊州埃尔金州立精神病院(Elgin State Mental Hospital)建立一个模拟精神病院提出了建议, 29名工作人员在一间锁着的病房里扮演精神病人的角色，时间为3天3夜。22名普通工作人员扮演了他们通常的角色，训练有素的观察员和录像记录了所有发生的情况。在很短的时间内,大多数模拟病人开始行为方式,与真正的病人是没有区别的: 六个人试图逃跑,两个又重新做回自己,其他人是完全沉默,两个人失声痛哭，另一个有点近似精神崩溃,大多数表示感到被“监禁”,而且没有人关心他们的状况。一名在周末受尽折磨的员工变成了病人，他觉得自己已经获得了足够的洞察而宣称:“我过去常常把病人当作一群动物看待，我从不知道他们以前经历过什么。”这个实验能带来的积极成果，是委员会的建立，委员会的员工与现在和之前的病人一同努力，致力于医院员工建立起对于病人受到不公对待的意识，以及他们必须改变行为，创建一个更具建设性的,有人文气息的环境。(Orlando,1973)。

SPE’s 信息在法律中的持久的价值

我花了大部分的职业生涯来把学术发现变成社会变革的努力，进而提升社会公平，并搭建由此到人性中最善处之间的桥梁。在他们关于监狱改革的听证会上(1971年10月)，美国国会众议院的小组委员会不仅仅想要的是我的分析，也包括对改革的建议。在国会记录中，我的陈述里，我明确呼吁对于监狱结构进行国会干预，以改善被收容者和教改人员的处境。

另外，我希望强调下Craig Haney 作为一名法律学者，他在改善监狱条件和挑战死刑方面所做的重要贡献。Craig 在获得心理学Ph.D后，又从斯坦福法学院获得了LL.D 。

不幸的是，博主Blum 在Medium 上的批评彻底误读了已公开的我之前在国会听证上关于提升我们大规模监禁系统的建设性意见的证词。我提倡终止关于监狱的“社会实验”的必要性的意识觉醒，是因为用美国居高不下的重犯率和目前大规模的服刑率来衡量的话，那个实验是失败的。我们必须用更彻底的系统分析来支持监禁的合法性，并提出监禁的替代方案。

我在国会委员会做的关于青少年拘禁第二组证词(September, 1973) 让我进一步变成了社会积极分子。我列举了19条关于提升被拘禁的青少年的待遇的独立建议。一项新的联邦法律被通过了，一部分原因是因为我的证词的带动，对此我深感安慰。参议员Birch Bayh 主导了这次调查，并协助将新的规定写入法律：为了防止青少年被虐待，在审判前被拘禁的青少年不应被与成年人一同拘禁在联邦监狱中。

因为我参与了联邦法院关于Spain 等人vsProcunier 等人的审判（1973），SPE还对司法产生的深远的影响。“圣昆汀囚犯六人组”，因为在1971年8月21日George Jackson 的越狱行为中，被认为参与了对狱警和告密囚犯的谋杀，被单独监禁超过三年。作为专家证人，我拜访了圣昆汀的重罪囚禁中心，并对这六位囚犯分别进行了数次访谈。我准备的陈述和在那两天的证词得出的观点是：所有在反人类环境下的非自愿的、过久的、无限期的监禁带来的“残忍和反常规的惩罚”必须被改变。法院得出了类似的结论，并责令提高重犯的生存条件。此外，我在此次审判中担任了原告律师团的心理顾问。

2004年，我受邀担任美国狱警Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick 的军事审判的专家证人。他是Abu Ghraib 监狱的夜班领导，而他所在的整个班组都参与了对伊拉克囚犯的虐待。Abu Ghraib 和SPE的狱警虐待犯人事件有许多显而易见的相似点。Frederick的行为是完全反典型的，因为他在此前完全没有对他人有任何伤害行为。虽然他承认了自己在Abu Ghraib监狱虐待囚犯的行为，法官因为有了非常规监狱中权利滥用现象的认知，减轻了他的服刑期。

有趣的是，我也是Ben Blum 在Medium 的博客中所提到的他的表兄Alex Blum 案联邦审判的专家证人。Alex作为逃逸车辆的司机和另外三位美国游骑兵一同参与了一起银行抢劫案。Alex 一直有成为一名游骑兵的夙愿，作为一名预备兵，他被指派在军官Luke Elliot Sommer麾下，并必须无条件服从他的指挥。他收到的其中一项指令便是配合这次抢劫银行“演习”，事实上，这是一次真刀真枪的银行劫案。我与Alex 进行足够时长的私下交流后，意识到他在“无条件服从权威”思想上受到的影响。Sommer 被判拘禁24年，而Alex，可以推测，因为法院听取了我的证词，没有获得相似年限的判刑，只被判了16个月的监禁。在狱中，Alex花了整整8个月的事件才意识到自己参与的是真实的抢劫，而不是“军事演习”，对我而言，这展示了他无条件服从权威的“游骑兵思维”的影响力。正如琼斯镇事件的追随者和Moon牧师追随者身上看到的那样，这是米尔格拉姆的顺从实验场景与邪教领袖精神控制的有力结合。有关精神控制的更多宝贵信息，请参阅Steven Hassan的“与邪教的精神控制做斗争”(2015)。

基于情境的行为解释决不是“找借口大法”的形式,“社会心理学对人性的理解的是，发现比我们自身更大的力量决定了我们的心理生活和我们的行为—— 这些力量中的主要力量就是社会情境的力量。”(Banaji, 2001, 心理科学事项)

在阿施的经典研究（1955）中，团体中大多数人的力量扭曲了（大学生）个体的感性判断。 在米尔格拉姆的服从研究（1963）中，权威人物的权力诱发了成年男性参与者违背自己的道德良知而伤害陌生人的行为。 在对道德推脱的实验性研究中，班杜拉（1975）指出，其他条件相同情况下，当学生参与者被标注为“动物”时，其他学生对他犯“错误”后电击惩罚最强烈（虽然被试并没有真的被电击）。 在SPE中，我们目睹了随着时间的推移创造出两种心态，即在保证这些替代人物形象的环境中统治守卫和无助，无望的囚犯。 我相信这四项心理学研究，包括我们学科中的其他研究，都说明了社会状况的力量能够在多大程度上主宰和扭曲个人的看法，判断，价值观和行为。

然而，应该清楚地表明，当社会心理学家试图用影响力的外部情境力量来解释个人的行为时，他们绝不是在暗示个人责任是可以免除的。人永远应该对自己行为的后果负责——个人，社会和法律上都是。了解我们行为的成因并不是我们对该行为结果逃避责任的理由。

然而，SPE的一些批评者对这种观点表现出天真的误解，声称SPE传达了“个人不能真正对其所做的有时应受谴责的事情承担责任”的观点...这真是深度解放。这意味着我们摆脱了束缚”（Blum，2018）。同样，LeTextier（2018）宣称：“就像：我的天啊，我可能是纳粹分子。我一直觉得自己是个好人，现在我发现我也可以是个怪物。同时，这很让人放下思想包袱，因为如果我变成怪物，这并不是因为我内心深处是个魔鬼，而是情境的缘故。我认为这就是为什么SPE在德国和东欧如此出名的原因。你不会感到内疚：哦，好吧，这是情境的作用。我们都是好人，没问题，是环境把我们变成这样的。这是令人震惊的，但同时也令人宽慰。”

回想几十年前在纳粹医生和其他人的纽伦堡审判中，这样的观点被否定了;他们确实为他们在“只是在做他们的工作”时所犯下的暴行付出了代价。

我强烈反对将SPE传递的信息理解为“人可以为自己的罪恶开脱”的批评观点。改变或防止个人或群体的不良行为需要了解人在各种特定情况下展现出来的力量、美德和脆弱性。我们需要更全面地认识在特定行为背景下运作的情境力量的复杂性。相比错误发生之后的补救，提前纠正和预防这些行为的发生，更有益于减少不良的个体反应。这意味着采用公共卫生措施取代标准的医疗模式方法来治疗个体的弊病。我多次表示，试图理解情境和系统因素对个体的影响，并不意味着人可以对自己的不道德，非法或邪恶行为免除责任。更进一步说，我一直赞同创造系统性和社会性的条件，来引出人性中最好的一面所进行的所有努力。

SPE实验在SERE培训中的军事应用

我在美国海军学院(United States Naval Academy)演讲的时候得知，海军和其他军事单位会把SPE的纪录片片段用于人员培训，以避免演习中出现过激行为。朝鲜战争之后，部分飞行员被指控向敌人提供了部分执行机密。于是，军队制定了一项政策，即士兵一旦被敌人捕获，除了姓名、军衔和序列号以外，不得透露任何信息。军队为此还创立了战争模拟游戏，在游戏中，一些士兵会扮演被其他工作人员追捕的在逃囚犯，并接受极为严厉的审讯，通过审讯攻破他们的抵抗，逼迫他们坦白，并获取重要信息。这个战争模拟游戏名为“搜索，躲避，抵抗，逃脱(SERE)”，一直被用做军队的现行训练项目，以训练士兵达到目标要求：永不屈服，不让敌人获取任何信息。然而，有人报告称模拟审讯人员的操作行为过激，对模拟俘虏的身心健康十分危险。因此，SPE实验的纪录片可用于警示审讯人员：任何人都可能在游戏中跨越界限，变成残酷的虐待者。我认为这是SPE实验能为真实社会带来的意外用途。

SPE：皮兰德娄风格的监狱

（注：Luigi Pirandello皮兰德娄，意大利小说家，风格以怪诞、荒唐、真实著称。）

早期，我曾在《纽约时报》(1973) 上发表过关于SPE实验的文章。尽管布卢姆因此而批评我，但我这么做的主要目的，是让公众关注到这一现象，让关注不仅仅局限于学术界。

SPE是一部由一群男孩扮演的戏剧，他们没有剧本，没有台词，连续数小时、数天没有观众。大家都知道那只是一出戏剧。因此，我认为剧作家路伊吉•皮兰德娄(Luigi Pirandello)的描述极为精准，即现实与幻觉、表演与真实、角色扮演与角色成为自我，这之间的界限往往十分微妙。大家都知道这只是一个心理学实验; 他们住在精神科的地下室里，而不是真正的监狱; 他们都没有犯过罪; 狱警们只要把囚犯锁在牢房里，在狱警室里打牌，就可以按照8小时轮班的形式挣到薪水。但在相对较短的时间内，这个心理学实验变成了“监狱”——逃离地牢的方式只有两种：假释委员会宣布释放，或者，患有/假装患有严重的精神或身体疾病（比如囚犯8612，和其他四位囚犯）。

从视频纪录和文字纪录来看，不仅大部分实验人员都认真地扮演了角色：就好像他们真的被监禁，或者真的是带薪狱警。而且，几乎每个参与者都用行动表明，这好像是一个真正的监狱。最典型的例子是天主教神父，我邀请他用他在真正监狱里的经历来评估这个实验的情况。他采访了所有的囚犯。然而，他很快就成为了“囚犯安慰者”——他打电话给一个囚犯的母亲，告诉她，她的儿子需要一名公设辩护律师帮助他出狱。这位公设辩护律师也知道SPE只是一个实验，但当他与绝望的囚犯会面时，他仍然保持着自己在法律层面的客观角色，来尽可能地帮助他们。

Carlo Prescott也完全沉浸在假释委员会委员长的角色中，以至于他开始惩罚和言语虐待许多请求被赦免的囚犯。直到一些囚犯哭着乞求他理解自己的处境。后来，他说自己不知不觉地变成了自己曾经最讨厌的模样，因为假释委员会也曾多次过拒绝了他的请求。后来，他报告说自己常因为发现自己变成了这样而感到反胃，而且他再也不想扮演那个角色了。

然后是我。我以首席研究调查员的身份参与了这项实验。我主要负责我的学生团队，他们都非常有兴趣共同研究我们创造的独特环境背后的动机。正如所有的实验研究人员一样，我最初也为这项实验制定了观察和研究协议、录像作业和数据收集程序。然而，在很短的时间里，我变成了一个全职的监狱管理者。这是SPE实验的主要缺陷，即人们没有在尚未开展的实验中保持独立的科学观察者身份。而我的日程安排，与其说是收集实验数据，不如说是安排日常工作人员、记录用餐时间、与担忧的父母会面、参加假释委员会会议、安排狱警轮岗、与囚犯申诉委员会会面、处理囚犯精神崩溃等等。

有一幕可以最直接地展示这一错误，在一个周四晚上，也就是研究开始的第五天，在每天晚上10点的固定厕所时间（囚犯们当天最后一次上普通厕所的时间，而不是在牢房里用便桶如厕。）。夜班狱警们利用了这个时间，以各种方式折磨和玩弄了囚犯。这时，我也已经对囚犯们的痛苦熟视无睹。这样的虐待行为也变成了我每天日程上的常规项目，和计划中的厕所时间一同照常进行。

也是在那时，我遇到了一个意想不到的挑战：一位参观者观察到了狱警们是怎样变得人性泯灭，并开始折磨囚犯的。那时，我正在与加州大学伯克利分校(U.C Berkeley)的心理学教授克里斯蒂娜•马斯拉奇(Christina Maslach)约会，她来约我出去吃晚餐。然而，当她看到那些戴着兜帽、绑着镣铐的囚犯的待遇时，突然泪流满面地跑了出去。我们大吵了一架。她明确表示，这个实验使我从一个热爱学生的老师，变成了一个对学生的痛苦漠不关心的人。她接着说，如果我不醒悟过来，她会和我分手。那件事为我敲响了警钟，使我脱离了监狱管理者的躯壳，回到了我原有的身份。随后，我决定终止SPE实验。

那么，在SPE实验的五天里到底发生了什么? 这是一部展现人性丑陋的戏剧？还是孩子们仅仅为了取悦导演而做的角色扮演游戏? 我坚信是前者。

历久弥新的宝藏

我认为我对心理学和对社会的三大贡献，都来自我从SPE实验中提取出来的思想延伸。它们是：了解和治疗害羞; 了解并利用时间观的力量，来改善生活品质和治疗创伤; 最后，创造“英雄想象工程”，以激发社会上由同情引发的助善惩恶行动。

害羞。1972年，我第一次将害羞概念化：害羞实质上是一所自我压迫的心理监狱，在这个监狱里，害羞的人扮演了狱警和囚犯的双重角色。狱警限制着囚犯的言论自由和社交自由，而作为抗拒的囚犯，他们又屈从于这些限制，丧失了个人尊严。随后，我继续在这个话题上做了许多开创性研究，创建了第一家治疗羞怯的诊所（仍在帕洛阿尔托大学继续营业中），并公开出版了几本受欢迎的书籍和几篇杂志文章。因此，我对这种普遍存在的个人和社会现象，做过综合了解、调查、治疗和公众意识研究。

时间观。我对时间观心理学的研究兴趣，或者对于研究我们无意识生活的时区的兴趣，部分来源于我们在SPE实验中所经历的时间扭曲感。没有了时钟和窗户，地下室监狱里的时间流逝取决于狱警的轮岗交替。当狱警不停地骚扰囚犯时，囚犯们会感到被困在了一个漫长的时区内。而当囚犯们所做的事情对他们的待遇毫无影响时，囚犯们会感觉他们处在宿命的生命时区内。因此，我创立了一个量表，用来衡量时间洞察力的个体差异，叫做津巴多时间量表（ZTPI）; 我对该课题进行了原创研究; 我出版了几本关于时间透视和时间透视在治疗创伤和提高生活品质方面的应用书籍。此外，我还发起了一场全球范围内的运动，让全球的研究人员和实践者研究、使用和扩展那些我在SPE实验期间的个人经历中所产生的想法和程序。

创造生活中的英雄。在《路西法效应》(Lucifer Effect)的最后一章中，我将重点由试图理解为什么好人会变成坏人以及好人是如何变成坏人的，完全转移到了普通人是否可能受到鼓舞并接受训练，成为日常生活中的英雄。在那之后，在同事们的支持下，我在2007年的TED演讲中，就该主题发表了题为《邪恶心理学》的演讲。在学术研究和个人生活方面，我致力于创立非盈利基金会——“英雄想象工程”（HIP）。它的使命是激励和训练普通人，特别是年轻人，使他们在生活中面临挑战的情况下，随时做好准备，并展现他们美好的同情心。除了科学研究，我们还开发了一个独特的教育项目，培训人们在面临困难时勇敢地思考和做出行动。这些课程已经在高中生和大学生群体，以及商业环境中做过试验，都达到了一定效果。现在，HIP已经成为了全球性的运动，在几个大洲的十几个国家内都有着活跃的实践项目，还有更多的项目即将加入。想了解更多信息，请访问http://www.HeroicImagination.org

结论

关于SPE实验的合法性的批判和长期价值的质疑，我希望我的这一回答，能够证明那些偏见性的结论是错误的。尽管该实验有许多缺陷，我仍然相信“斯坦福监狱实验”做出了许多有价值的贡献，帮助心理学研究了解人类行为及其背后的复杂动机。人类行为是由多种因素促成的，这些因素可能来自内在或外在，可能来自自身基因或外在因素，可能来自历史或当代，可能来自文化或个人。我们越是了解这些动机，越能更好地发扬人性中最美好的魅力。这是我现在的人生使命。

Courtesy of Jenny Maher @Jenny蔡健玲

我是一个半路转进认知神经科学，而且把这一行当数据科学做的人。其实跟社会心理学接触不多，也没什么见识来回答这个问题。个人意见不吐不快，仅供参考。

不专门说Zimbardo了，因为类似的爆发近年来并不少. 我从good faith的角度相信大家都是值得尊敬的研究者，所以对事不对人，主要说问题。

古老一点的，Stanley Milgram (服从)和Walter Mischel (延迟满足) 的东西; 新一点的，Power stance (做强势动作让你更自信)，"高处更有道德感"之类的embodied cognition，或多或少可能都有下面列到的问题。一层一层说。

图片都来自Chris Chambers的<The 7 deadly sins of psychology>.

第一层: 不要造假

此图中的Diederik Stapel就落在这一层。此人曾经是社会心理学界叱咤风云的大佬。特别喜欢搞一些embodied cognition风格的东西。很有名的一个例子是，他"发现"，当地铁站中的垃圾桶更干净时，周围的人会有更强烈的种族歧视倾向(表现为，在地铁的长椅上会坐得离黑人实验者更远)。

后来东窗事发，调查委员会找原始数据，发现他描述的地铁站，垃圾桶与长椅根本不存在。实验根本没有做过。他后来自己承认，所有的"数据"都是自己坐在办公椅上，在Excel里面生成的。

这是很脏的一层了。讽刺的是，此君之后大量接受采访，出书写自己造假的事，居然还过得不错......

第二层 : 可重复性

必须提到2015年Science上那篇Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science [1]. 这篇文章本身争议很大，以至于后来有人说它本身的统计方法都有问题。但它反应出来的问题是不可忽视的。

难以重复的实验中，社会心理学是重灾区。

我想说的是，社会行为很复杂。很难研究。所以给它设定的bar暂时可以低一些。如果要求这个领域像learning, memory甚至vision那样robust, 从研究对象的性质来看是不公平的。但很多时候问题在于，大家在讨论某一个课题的时候，是在自说自话：同一个社会现象，定义不清楚，实验的范式也不尽相同。这样发生replication crisis是迟早的事情。

数据可以重复才是好的科学。

第三层 "隐藏的灵活性"

"给数据施以酷刑 - 它们可以招供出任何（你想要的）东西。"

去年有人到这边讲一个Mturk上的研究，讲到一半，故事说得很开心，Antonio Rangel突然问: "Why are your sample sizes so different in the two groups?"

不要有目的地地筛选数据。不要采数据采到自己满意为止。

更加微妙的是，不要选择性地采取"对假设方向有利"的数据处理方法，搞data fishing. 这是真正考验科研人员品格的一层。

最后: (可能的)救赎

• 更加严格的实验，数据审查。
• 更良好的科研社区风气。
• Data sharing. 特别是原始数据(打个广告，希望大家支持OpenfMRI) 。
• Pre-registar. 在做实验之前，注册自己想要进行的数据分析手段。 Nature human behavior就在搞。

都是陈词滥调了，希望有朝一日能够变成行业准则。

最后: 即使如此，某些公众号文章的吃相未免太过难看。请不要拿一些显然错误的概念来蹭热度。

References

[1] Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.Science,349(6251), aac4716.