A recent Netflix series presents a simulation of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE).

There are some similarities between the new Netflix reality show and the original SPE.

The reality show explores how identity intersects with power, leadership, and perceptions of authority.

Contestants' awareness of being on TV complicates authenticity and ethical validity.

This is Part 2 of a two-part series. Read Part 1 here.

While I attempted to approach "The New Stanford Prison Experiment," a newly released Netflix reality television series, with an open mind, I couldn’t help but identify from the start significant distinctions between the study originally conducted by Philip Zimbardo and his graduate students in 1971 and the conditions the architects of this reimagining put in place.

As I reflected on in Part 1 of this series, this show in no way meets the scientific criteria for sanctioned research. The fact of its being produced and recorded for television—and presumably, for entertainment purposes—introduces the fraught variable of how individuals recruited will react knowing it will be viewed by the larger public, in addition to the obvious lack of any IRB approval regarding the ethics of this simulation.

While Zimbardo screened prospective volunteers for his study in an effort to ensure they could handle the potentially stressful 14-day interval of the simulation, it remains unclear how individuals were recruited for this show, and dubious that random assignment was used to decide who would play the role of guards versus prisoners. In fact, at least two of the “inmates” on this show share in their self-narrations having had brushes with the law, with at least one reporting having been incarcerated. This individual clearly shows signs of being retraumatized by the conditions of the simulated prison in Episode 1, which is actually filmed in a real prison.

One of the dimensions of this reality show that distinguishes watching it........

© Psychology Today