Psychologists share dangers of Stanford Prison Experiment as controversial Netflix show airs
Psychologists have raised concerns about the ethics and scientific questions surrounding The New Stanford Prison Experiment, as Netflix revisits the controversial study in a new six-part series.
Netflix's latest series, The New Stanford Prison Experiment, sees 30 volunteers take on the roles of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison, decades after the original 1971 study, which became notorious for the brutal treatment of participants and the circumstances surrounding its early termination.
Speaking to UNILAD, psychologist Gwenhwyfar Henry believes examining the experiment's central themes remains important today, but argues that the focus of the Netflix series should extend beyond whether authority can encourage cruel behavior.
"I don't think we need another spectacle of people mistreating one another," she said. "I think we need to understand how we become capable of it, and importantly, how we stop it."
Advert
Medical contributor Dr. Wildaliz Caro, of Aura Recovery Center in Kentucky, has also highlighted concerns about the original research, including questions over its methodology and the need for stronger scientific evidence when revisiting controversial findings.
What happened during the original Stanford Prison Experiment?
The original experiment took place at Stanford University in California in August 1971, when 24 male college students were recruited for a study led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo - who died in 2024 and remained a divisive figure in the field.
The participants were assigned roles in a mock prison, with some acting as guards and others as prisoners. The research was intended to explore how people responded to authority and the social roles they were given.
While the study was planned to run for two weeks, it was stopped after just six days amid reports of psychological distress and increasingly abusive treatment of prisoners.
It subsequently became one of the most widely discussed examples of ethical controversy in psychological research, and it's scientific credibility has been challenged over the years.
Caro points to an archival analysis by researcher Thibault Le Texier, published in American Psychologist in 2019, which found evidence that guards had been coached and that data collection was biased and incomplete.
"Repeating the setup would not resolve the study's ethical and methodological problems," Caro said, before explaining that replicability - the ability to repeat research and establish whether its findings can be reproduced - is a crucial part of the scientific process.
"If scientists find a certain result from an experiment, but no one else is able to replicate it, that's a red flag," she added.
What are the concerns about Netflix's new Stanford Prison Experiment?
Netflix's new series places 30 volunteers in a decommissioned section of an operational adult detention center in Canton, Georgia. Eight participants are assigned as guards, while 22 take on prisoner roles.
The planned two-week experience includes prison intake procedures, fingerprinting, restricted recreation and scheduled phone access. Participants can leave at any time using the safe word 'pineapple'.
The series is overseen by behavioral scientist and Harvard professor Alison Wood Brooks, journalist Trymaine Lee and retired federal corrections officer Michael Cantrell.
Its format also introduces planned stages, including a role reversal and a final period in which prisoners govern themselves without guards.
Caro noted that six participants reportedly left because of the intensity of the experience, but stressed that this alone does not establish misconduct.
She also highlighted the role of participant safeguards and debriefing, which allows people to discuss and process their experiences, while cautioning that these measures cannot guarantee protection against psychological harm.
'Not repeating something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world'
Henry, meanwhile, believes the wider issue is how people can be persuaded to accept cruelty as justified.
"How do otherwise decent people come to see another human being as the problem?" she asked.
She argued that these dynamics are not confined to research settings, but can emerge in families, workplaces and communities.
"Not repeating something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world," Henry said, warning that people can be influenced to turn against one another without recognising they are being manipulated.
For Henry, the value of revisiting the study lies in understanding how people come to participate in harmful behavior - and how those patterns can be identified before they take hold.
UNILAD has contacted Netflix for comment.
Topics: Netflix, Film and TV, Science
Thomas Bamford