Netflix has launched a new reality series based on one of psychology's most controversial studies, the Stanford Prison Experiment, to examine how people respond when placed in positions of authority.
The six-part programme, titled The New Stanford Prison Experiment, follows 30 volunteers inside a decommissioned section of the Cherokee County Adult Detention Center in Georgia. Participants are assigned guard and prisoner roles and are filmed as they follow rules, manage competing interests and adapt to changing power structures.
The series has prompted questions about how readily individuals may become punitive when given control over others, after some participants were shown opting for punishment over more moderate responses.
It has also renewed debate about whether recreating such an experiment for television can yield meaningful conclusions about human behaviour.
Producers of the series face scrutiny over whether a study of human behaviour can be considered credible when all participants are aware they are taking part in a television programme.
What Happened in the Original Stanford Prison Experiment?
The original experiment was conducted in 1971 by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Twenty-four male college students were selected and assigned roles as guards or prisoners in a simulated jail constructed in the basement of a university building.
The researchers initially intended the exercise to last up to two weeks. However, it was stopped after six days as the situation deteriorated. Some guards began imposing humiliating punishments, while prisoners experienced distress as their treatment became increasingly difficult to tolerate.
Former participant Dave Eshelman, who played a guard, later described how he deliberately tested the limits of the prisoners' reactions. Speaking to Stanford Magazine in 2011, he said: 'I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, "How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, "knock it off?"'
He added that the other guards did not stop him and appeared to join in. Accounts of the study also describe prisoners being stripped, deprived of sleep and forced to use plastic buckets as toilets.
The experiment became widely discussed as an example of how institutional roles and authority might influence individual behaviour. However, the extent to which its findings demonstrated that power causes cruelty remains disputed.
One criticism concerns Zimbardo's own involvement. He acted as the prison superintendent and was later criticised for influencing the guards rather than remaining a detached observer.
Netflix's New Experiment Faces Questions About Human Behaviour
According to executive producer Jane Lipsitz, the team spent more than a year developing the project and introduced safeguards that were absent from the original study.
Participants underwent psychological screening before entering the facility. They also had access to psychologists around the clock, medical support and a safe word, 'pineapple', which allowed them to leave whenever they wanted. Producers and psychologists were responsible for monitoring their wellbeing and intervening if necessary.
In her review for The Stanford Daily, Jenin Al Shalabi questioned whether these safeguards made it possible to recreate prison-like power dynamics. She pointed out that participants could leave by using the safe word, while scheduled changes between guard and prisoner roles prevented the hierarchy from developing without interference.
The programme also follows four planned phases: transition, hierarchy, role reversal and self-governance. These stages introduce changes to participants' positions rather than allowing the original power structure to develop without scheduled intervention.
Al Shalabi also questioned the casting, arguing that the participants appeared more like reality television personalities than an ordinary cross-section of people. Only three of the 30 participants were women, and all three remained in guard roles throughout the programme. All 22 prisoners were men.
Stanford Prison Experiment's Scientific Credibility Remains Disputed
A 2019 paper published in American Psychologist by researcher Thibault Le Texier examined archival material and interviews with 15 former participants.
The paper identified problems with the way the experiment was conducted, including instructions given to guards about how they should treat prisoners, incomplete data collection and the influence of researchers on participants.
These findings challenged the popular account that the situation alone caused ordinary people to become abusive. However, the interpretation and wider implications of the original study have continued to be debated by researchers.
In his 2007 book The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo also acknowledged his role as the prison superintendent and his involvement in directing aspects of the experiment. Critics have argued that this level of involvement compromised the study's objectivity and may have influenced the behaviour it was supposed to observe.
TV or Test Tube? Critics Ask What Netflix Is Really Measuring
Reviews of Netflix's version have raised concerns about the difference between scientific research and entertainment. The Guardian argued that participants were constantly aware of the cameras and the programme's format, making it difficult to establish whether their actions reflected genuine responses to authority or decisions made for television.
The Washington Post's Monica Hesse raised another concern about the production's psychologists. She criticised a psychologist for repeatedly introducing variables and then reacting with apparent surprise when participants responded to them.
Hesse also questioned why individuals chose punitive behaviour over reasonable judgement when nothing was forcing them to act that way.
The Los Angeles Times questioned how much could be concluded from a production that combines planned stages, interviews and entertainment-driven storytelling.
There has also been criticism from within Stanford. Student Anh-Thu Dang told The Stanford Daily that the programme risked giving the university's psychology department an unfair reputation, particularly given the work researchers have done to promote ethical and open scientific practices.
For Netflix, the series offers viewers an opportunity to examine how people respond when authority is placed in their hands. Its central question is whether a television production can demonstrate anything reliable about human nature.
