Philip G. Zimbardo reflects upon his classic study in “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation.”  He begins with a brief description of previous related social science studies.  He mentions his inspiration from Lord of the Flies that led to his experiment on the weight of different factors in deciding behavior, specifically one’s inner morality against “an evil situation” (388).  Zimbardo goes on to give details of the experiment and a short summary, including the role others’ played in their viewing of the experiment in progress.  He describes the participants’ abusive treatment of others when detached from their real identities and in positions of power as prison guards in the study. In the end, Zimbardo concludes that society needs to recognize the great weight of situational influence.  He hopes people will use understanding of it to counter such influence.

Zimbardo’s description of methods used to choose participants hurts his credibility.  He leaves relevant questions unanswered, such as why did only men participate in the experiment?  His experiment is “good people” (388) against challenging situations- what defines a “good” person?  Zimbardo chose healthy male college students “with no history of crime or violence” (388).  While criminal history may be relevant to the moral goodness that a person lives by, being in college proves nothing about one’s “goodness”.  Zimbardo chose “the best and brightest” (388) - why does one’s academic intelligence correlate to their goodness as a person?  Did he have participants of varied racial backgrounds?  What was their socio-economic status?  One’s background impacts their actions, so these are all aspects that should have been addressed to conduct such an experiment if one hopes to form any conclusions from it.  In addition, the experiment should be done on a greater scale to be significant- there were 24 men to begin with in the experiment, half of which were put in positions of power, meaning twelve men of limited demographics became abusive.  However, this experiment turned out to be unethical, so to retest such results would require big changes, if even possible.  Zimbardo repeatedly mentions conclusions about human nature found through his experiment, but his experiment ultimately lacks great enough significance to apply such conclusions.

Zimbardo’s essay is easier to follow with concise bold subtitles within it, which assist in the essay’s organization and may be attention-grabbing as well.  An example of this is “Terminating the Torment” (389).  Zimbardo utilizes alliteration and powerful word choice here to seize readers’ focus.  In addition, the title effectively captures the essence of the passage that follows.  However, these language techniques are somewhat irrelevant compared to the ideas within the essay.

Zimbardo explains the present importance of his study, and although his study may not hold as much scientific significance as he believes, the ideas behind it are as important.  Zimbardo has a relevant message about raised consciousness: If people were more aware of the influence of the situation in their decisions, they might be more capable in staying true to their own morals and beliefs in their decision-making.  People may also use this awareness to limit the negative potential such situations may hold, relevant especially to the military.  He is effective in naming recent atrocities that involved potentially dangerous situations of power and other factors. 

            When Zimbardo gives his conclusions and his role in allowing the abuse in his experiment to continue for six days, it sounds like an ineffective defense of his actions.  He concludes, “There should have been someone with authority over mine…who surely would have blown the whistle earlier” (390).  The problem is consciousness and personal vigilance.  How would he determine someone to be such an authority over him?  With his understanding of situational influences, why would he not wish that he had simply been more conscious and questioned the ethics of continuing the experiment sooner?

            Zimbardo raises relevant questions, like, “How can situational influences be countered in the military?” and many others.  However, his Stanford prison experiment is lacking elements to give it as much scientific importance as he believes, although it has been influential by suggesting the powerful influence of situations.  His essay shows his subjectivity and creative subtitle use, but needs further development to keep from taking away from a positive message with his fallacies.