On the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) bombshell:
I also attended Haslam's excellent talk and heard the tapes; indeed, they’re shocking. It's clear the SPE was an elaborate production; "subjects" were coached on how to act and informed about the intended results.
1/7
I also attended Haslam's excellent talk and heard the tapes; indeed, they’re shocking. It's clear the SPE was an elaborate production; "subjects" were coached on how to act and informed about the intended results.
1/7
BUT, I don’t think it’s scientific fraud in the typical sense.
The SPE was never considered to be scientific. It’s typically presented in classrooms as a demonstration, not an experiment, and as a notorious case of ethical malfeasance.
2/7
The SPE was never considered to be scientific. It’s typically presented in classrooms as a demonstration, not an experiment, and as a notorious case of ethical malfeasance.
2/7
Also, the SPE report was not published in a reputable psychology journal; it came out in the obscure Naval Research Review. Apparently, peer review did its job.
3/7
3/7
So, this is a case where the bad science was initially caught (presumably by peer review) and kept out of a scientific journal. Yes, it is presented in many textbooks, but with a huge asterisk. And so I don't think the fraud is with the field itself.
4/7
4/7
The serious fraud seems to have occurred between Zimbardo and a complicit audience in the media, policy makers, and general public. Zimbardo couldn’t convince his scientific peers in social psychology, so he circumvented the field and went straight to the people.
5/7
5/7
This, to me, is a very different kind of fraud—it’s not about a breach in scientific practice, but in how science is communicated and consumed. This aspect of scientific fraud deserves more attention.
6/7
6/7
Btw, the effects of the SPE fraud are far more devastating than any Stapel finding; it’s given leaders cover for human rights violations, oppression, and discrimination—they can point to a broken system or “bad apples.” I hope this side of the SPE case gets attention, too.
7/7
7/7
To clarify: the normal scientific process didn’t fail here (e.g., stats/inference/review—they were moot, since the study wasn’t published in a reputable journal). It was with how it was presented, consumed, and perpetuated in the field and public, despite known problems.
It’s true that students have learned about the SPE in different ways. I learned it as a controversial demo, not rigorous science. But many were taught about it as legit science, largely b/c of its portrayal in textbooks (Zim's is one of the most popular!). That should change.
Of the 2 social psych texts on my shelf: One (2013) mentions SPE in passing in opening remarks, leaving it out of the Sherif-Asch-Milgram sequence. The other (2008) describes it in detail, but hastens to note criticisms (Haslam & Reicher; Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975; Savin, 1973).
