What Legal Torts Were Involved in Stanford Prison Experiment?

Explore what legal torts were involved in Stanford Prison Experiment, including abuse, negligence in this deep dive.

If there is one psychological experiment that always sends chills down my spine, it would have to be the Stanford Prison Experiment.

I was a college student in my psychology class, if I remember well, when the story hit my mind—or should I say my emotions—for which it has stuck with me ever since then. Carried out by Dr. Philip Zimbardo in 1971, what the experiment was to usher in was how power relationships pattern behavior. 

What happened instead was a horrific tale of abuse, psychological trauma, and ethical violation that would remain debated for decades. Being someone who loves unpacking how ethics and the law interact, I’ve long wondered: what legal torts were involved in Stanford Prison Experiment, especially in light of cutting-edge regulation? 

In the following paper, I will delve deep into this infamous experiment and discuss some of its legal and ethical dimensions. Along the way, I intersperse some personal reflections and break down complex legal concepts into bite-sized pieces.

A Quick Recap: What Happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

But before the nitty-gritty on the legal scenario, let me set the scene. The basement of the psychology building at Stanford University was made to act as the mock prison to which Dr. Zimbardo and his team recruited 24 male college students and then randomly assigned “guards” and “prisoners.”

Things started taking a serious turn very quickly in this experiment. The guards began to experience abuse of their power by psychological torment, humiliation, and physical discomfort to the prisoners. The prisoners exhibited extremely stressful traits, even displaying emotionally broken characteristics in several prisoners. This was to be a two-week experiment called off after six days due to how poorly the participants were taking the stress of their roles. Sitting in that lecture hall years ago, I couldn’t help but imagine myself as one of the participants. Would I have stood up to authority? Would I have succumbed to the pressures of my role? It’s a chilling thought—one that makes the legal and ethical implications all the more critical to understand.

Legal Torts: What is It?

Now, let’s get to torts. The legal term for tort is a civil wrong causing injury or loss and resulting in legal liability. Unlike criminal cases, which punish for wrongdoing, the goal of tort law is to compensate victims for injuries. In other words, the system says this: “You messed up; now, make it right.”

There are three main classes of torts:

• Intentional Torts : Calculated actions that result in harming another person.
• Negligence : Harm caused by carelessness.
• Strict Liability: Liability without fault. Usually applied to inherently dangerous activities.

In the context of the Stanford Prison Experiment, what legal torts were involved in Stanford Prison Experiment? Several torts might come into play. Let’s unpack them one by one.

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

The actions of the guards in this experiment are textbook examples of what could give rise to a claim for IIED. One will have committed the tort of IIED when one either intentionally or recklessly causes another severe emotional distress through extreme and outrageous conduct.

Just imagine yourself as an inmate, and you are subjected to:

• Sleep deprivation.
• Verbal abuse and insults.
• They were also forced to perform humiliating tasks, such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands.

If this is not extreme and outrageous, I don’t know what is. Even as a student watching grainy video clips of the experiment, my chest would tighten, and I wasn’t even there. Participants that afterward suffered trauma from the study would probably have an extremely strong case of IIED based on the facts.

2. False Imprisonment

Here is one legal concept which is very much more on a familiar note for the participants: the false imprisonment. This tort means the unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty to go as they intend.

Physical confinement to tiny cells and not allowing them to get out, even when the prisoners asked for a quit—as did one of the participants named Prisoner 8612, who begged for his release but was coaxed into staying on. Though they signed consent forms, the conditions and even coercion to stay could blur the lines with what is really meant by legal consent.

3. Negligence

Negligence occurs when a person does not act with reasonable care, causing harm to another. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, Dr. Zimbardo’s dual role as both the principal investigator and the prison superintendent raises serious red flags.

Let’s break it down:

• Duty of Care: As the leading figure in this experiment, Zimbardo had a duty of care to ensure that no harm came to the participants.
• Breach of Duty: He arguably breached this duty by allowing the abusive behavior to continue and, at times, encouraging it.
• Causation: The mental and psychic damages of participants due to negligence on the part of Zimbardo.

Thinking about this, it reminds me of group projects gone wrong—where the person in charge fails to step in when things get messy. Of course, in this case, the stakes were infinitely higher.

4. Assault and Battery

While most of the abuse within the experiment was psychological, physical abuse certainly occurred. The guards used physical force as a method of establishing power. The guards had been shoving the prisoners around and forcing them to complete exhausting exercises as punishment; these acts could be seen as assault and battery under tort law.

• Assault: Creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm (e.g., threatening gestures).
• Battery: Physical contact with another person without that person’s consent, which results in harm or offense.

Ethical Implications: Beyond the Legalities

While tort law provides an outline on how to approach civil wrongs, the Stanford Prison Experiment also raises profound ethical questions. It serves as a stern reminder of the responsibility that researchers have to protect their participants.

Key Ethical Failures

• Free and Informed Consent: The participants signed up for this of their free will; they should not have, in their wildest dreams, understood the extent to which they were being harmed. It would be like being signed up to run a marathon, only for it to turn out that it is an ultra-marathon—through obstacle courses!
• Lack of Oversight: Nothing was done to try and stop the experiment when it began to spiral out of control.
• Conflict of Interest: Zimbardo acting as both a researcher and a prison superintendent muddled his judgment.

Lessons Learned: A Personal Takeaway

Each time I think about the Stanford Prison Experiment, it strikes a chord. It is not only a tale of caution for psychologists or lawyers but also a lesson for all of us in the form of unchecked power and the importance of accountability. I have seen in my own life how little power imbalances can snowball—in the workplace, in group settings, even within families. The legacy of the experiment challenges me to think about how I wield my influence and to speak out when I see others abusing theirs.

 Key Takeaways

• The Stanford Prison Experiment remains a grim reminder of how easily things can go wrong when ethical boundaries are crossed. 

• Legally speaking, the participants could have sought claims against the researchers for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, negligence, and even assault and battery. 

• However, the greatest legacy of the experiment is from the ethical standpoint outside the courts. 

• In my view, understanding what legal torts were involved in Stanford Prison Experiment is not purely an academic exercise; it is a tribute to the participants who had to bear unimaginable distress and a way to make sure that history does not repeat itself.

•  Whether lawyer, psychologist, or curious reader, I hope that this exploration has shed light on the protection of human dignity in all walks of life.

Additional Resources:

1. The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment by Maria Konnikova: This article discusses the psychological impacts of the SPE and critiques its methodology, shedding light on the ethical and legal concerns related to the treatment of participants.

2. How to Get Out of The Stanford Prison Experiment: Revisiting Social Science Research Ethics: This paper revisits the ethical issues of the SPE, focusing on participants’ rights and the lack of oversight, which could be linked to legal torts such as negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

3. Landmark Stanford Prison Experiment Criticized as a Sham Prison Legal News: This article critiques the validity of the SPE and discusses the potential legal implications of the participants’ treatment, including possible violations of consent and exposure to harm.

4. 25 Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip G. Zimbardo: In this retrospective, Zimbardo reflects on the SPE, addressing criticisms and discussing the ethical and legal lessons learned, including considerations of liability and the duty of care owed to participants.