| Course | PS 303 Social Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Conformity and obedience paper |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 303 Unit 4
Six Days in a Basement Corridor, Reread: The Stanford Prison Experiment as a Contested Study, From What It Measured to the Methodological Critique, the Ethical Objections and the BBC Prison Study
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 303: Social Psychology
Instructor Name
June 2, 2026
Six Days in a Basement Corridor, Reread: The Stanford Prison Experiment as a Contested Study, From What It Measured to the Methodological Critique, the Ethical Objections and the BBC Prison Study
The Study as Reported
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in August 1971 by Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Philip Zimbardo and reported by Haney et al. (1973). Twenty-four male college students, screened as psychologically healthy and paid for their time, were randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners in a mock prison built in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The study was planned to run for two weeks. It was ended after six days. The authors reported that guards became increasingly hostile and degrading toward prisoners, and that several prisoners showed acute distress, with some released early.
The interpretation the authors offered, and that textbooks repeated for decades, was that the situation itself, the roles and the institutional setting, produced the abusive behavior, and that ordinary people placed in a guard role would come to behave cruelly without being told to. That interpretation made the study a centerpiece of teaching about conformity to social roles and the power of situations.
What the Study Actually Measured
The study was not an experiment in the usual sense. There was no comparison condition; guards and prisoners were assigned to different roles, but there was no group of participants in a different situation against which to compare their behavior. The main data were observations, recordings and participants' reports, interpreted by the researchers, who were also running the prison: Zimbardo acted as its superintendent. What the study can be said to have measured is how one group of young men behaved over six days in a specific simulated prison run by the investigators. What it could not measure, without a comparison condition, was what caused that behavior.
The Methodological Critique
Le Texier (2019) examined archival material from the study, including recordings and documents, and argued that the standard account misrepresented what happened. He reported evidence that the guards were given instructions and expectations by the researchers about how to treat prisoners, rather than developing their behavior spontaneously, and that the guards knew the researchers hoped for particular results. He also argued that the experimenters' own roles in running the prison made it impossible to separate the effect of the situation from the effect of the researchers' direction. If his reading is correct, the study demonstrates something closer to compliance with an authority's expectations than the spontaneous effect of a role.
Earlier commentators had raised related concerns, including demand characteristics, the possibility that participants acted out what they believed the study required. A study whose central claim is that behavior arose from the situation alone is especially vulnerable to evidence that the behavior was guided.
The Ethical Objections
The ethical criticisms are separate from the methodological ones. Participants experienced real distress, and some were released early because of it. The principal investigator was also the prison's superintendent, which compromised his ability to judge when harm outweighed the study's value. By the standards that developed in the following decade, the absence of an independent monitor with authority to stop the study, and the difficulty participants faced in withdrawing, would both be serious problems. The study is often cited as one of the cases that made such protections seem necessary.
The Replication Record
The study has not been replicated in its original form, and an exact replication would not be approved today. The closest large-scale attempt was the BBC prison study, reported by Reicher and Haslam (2006), which assigned men randomly to guard and prisoner roles in a simulated prison built for a television documentary, with an independent ethics committee able to intervene. Its results did not resemble the Stanford account. Guards did not spontaneously become abusive; many were reluctant to use their authority. Prisoners developed a shared identity and challenged the guards, and the group dynamics shifted over the study. Reicher and Haslam concluded that behavior depended on whether people identified with their group and its norms, not on roles automatically producing tyranny.
The BBC study had its own limits, including the influence of filming and its own small sample, so it does not settle the question. But it shows that putting people into prison roles does not reliably produce what the Stanford account claimed.
Why the Original Account Lasted
It is worth asking why a study with no comparison condition held its place in textbooks for so long. Part of the answer is that its conclusion was memorable and seemed to fit later events, such as reports of prisoner abuse in military detention, so it was retold as an explanation of real cruelty. Part is that the original publication was not in a mainstream psychology journal and the detailed records were not widely examined until decades later, which is what allowed Le Texier (2019) to raise new questions from the archive. And part is that the study was usually taught alongside obedience research, which made its claim about situations seem part of a larger, well-supported story. None of these reasons concerns the strength of the evidence. A useful habit for reading classic studies is to ask, separately, how well a study is known and how well it was designed, because the two can diverge sharply. For this study, the gap between fame and design is unusually wide, which is why it is a good case for learning to read the classics critically.
Can the Study Still Be Cited?
It can, as long as it is cited accurately: as a dramatic demonstration, conducted without a comparison condition, in which researchers who ran the prison reported abusive behavior by guards, and whose interpretation has been seriously challenged on methodological grounds and not supported by the closest replication. Citing it as proof that ordinary people automatically become cruel in powerful roles goes beyond the evidence. The study remains important for what it shows about research ethics and about how a vivid story can outlast its evidence. A student citing it today should name the critique and the BBC study in the same paragraph, so that a reader meets the claim and its problems together.
References
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823-839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000401
Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998
The Herzing PS 303 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 of PS 303 asks students to examine one classic conformity or obedience study as contested evidence. Expect to name and date the study, report what it actually measured and how, then carry it through methodological criticism, ethical objections and the later replication record. The classic studies can still be cited, but accurately and with their criticisms. Criticism and replication work are usually found through recent review articles and the citing literature of the original study. Personal experiences of workplace pressure are better kept out, because the paper is about evidence. Choosing a study less often analyzed can make the paper stronger. Ethical objections should be kept separate from methodological ones throughout.
Inside the PS 303 Unit 4 example
The paper opens with the study as originally reported: participants, assignment, planned length and the authors' interpretation. A section on what the study measured explains the absence of a comparison condition and the researchers' dual role. Methodological critique follows from Le Texier's archival work and earlier concerns about demand characteristics. A separate section addresses ethical objections. The replication record reports the BBC prison study with its own limits. A section explains why the original account lasted in textbooks, and the close sets out how to cite the study accurately today. Each body of criticism is attributed to its source and weighed rather than repeated.
Reading the PS 303 Unit 4 rubric
The rubric for the conformity and obedience paper typically rewards an accurately reported study, a clear account of what it measured, fair treatment of methodological criticism, separation of ethical from methodological issues, an honest replication record and a reasoned conclusion. The report earns credit when names, date and design are accurate. Measurement scores when the paper distinguishes the study's design from its famous interpretation. Criticism earns points when attributed and weighed. Separating ethics from method is often credited because the two are frequently confused. The replication criterion rewards reporting later studies with their own limits. Explaining why the study's famous version lasted, despite its design, is often credited as critical reading.
PS 303 Unit 4 help before you submit
Classic study papers lose points by retelling the famous version of the study without checking what was measured. Another common weakness is treating criticism as gossip rather than evidence. Students often mix ethical objections with methodological ones. Some report a replication as definitive without noting its own limits. Others choose the most overused study and add nothing new. Personal stories of pressure at work distract from the evidence. Leaving out why a weak study stayed famous misses a chance to show critical reading. Citing only secondary summaries, never the original report, is another weakness markers notice quickly. Writers also forget that a replication carries its own limits. Naming the authors and the year of publication, rather than calling it a famous study, is a basic expectation.
Get a PS 303 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Hand over the Unit 4 instructions with your PS 303 rubric and whichever study your section assigns. The example identifies it precisely, states what the procedure measured, carries the methodological and ethical criticism, and reports the replication record in both directions. Your first custom sample is free and takes 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 303 papers and psychology samples
- PS 303 Unit 1: Social cognition paper
- PS 303 Unit 2: Attribution analysis
- PS 303 Unit 3: Attitudes and persuasion paper
- PS 303 Unit 5: Group processes paper
- PS 303 Unit 6: Prejudice and stereotyping paper
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
- PS 303 Unit 8: Applied social psychology paper
- PS 323 Unit 4: Socialization paper
- PS 350 Unit 4: Long-term memory and encoding paper
- PS 101 Unit 4: Learning and conditioning application
- PS 105 Unit 4: Middle childhood application
PS 303 Unit 4 questions, answered
Can I still cite the classic studies at all?
Yes, and most sections expect you to. What changed is how they are cited: with the date, with what the procedure measured, and with the criticism and the replication record attached. A writer who reports a classic as contested is doing what the field now does, while one who reports it as a settled demonstration is repeating a version the literature moved past.
Where do I find the criticism and the replication work?
Start with your assigned readings, which in a course framed this way usually include at least one piece examining the classics. From there, review articles and later published replications are the standard route, and some of the original archives have themselves been examined and written about. Cite what you read rather than what a summary says about it.
Should I write about pressure I have felt at work?
Keep the paper on the literature. A workplace situation brings identifiable colleagues into a graded document and shifts the writing toward grievance, which the criteria do not reward. If your instructions invite an application, a constructed situation tests the same concepts, and you can say what the research would and would not predict about it without putting anyone real on the page.
Where can I find a free PS 303 Unit 4 sample paper?
Every part of the PS 303 Unit 4 paper on the Stanford Prison Experiment is free on this page, with the critique, the ethical objections, the BBC study and margin notes. Examining a different classic? Forward the prompt and a contested-study paper is drafted free, usually within 48 hours.
Can I still cite the classic studies in PS 303 Unit 4?
Yes, if you cite them accurately with their criticisms. The sample shows how to describe the prison study as a demonstration without a comparison condition whose interpretation has been challenged.