| Course | EDP 814 The Social Psychology of Groups |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Doctoral critical review |
| Length | About 1,014 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 814 Module 8
Roles Do Not Act on Their Own: The Stanford Prison Study and Its Critics
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 814: The Social Psychology of Groups
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Roles Do Not Act on Their Own: The Stanford Prison Study and Its Critics
After two delayed submissions, the composite medical device company created a new role: a quality gatekeeper who must approve all test data before submission. Within months, engineers complained that the gatekeeper, a capable but newly promoted specialist, delayed approvals over small points and seemed to enjoy the power. One engineer said, "It's the Stanford prison experiment; give someone a role and they turn into a guard." Hana wanted to know whether the comparison held. Gatekeeper, engineers and company are all fictional.
The Study and Its Classic Lesson
In August 1971, Philip Zimbardo and colleagues set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford's psychology building. Male student volunteers were split at random into two roles, guard and prisoner. The study was planned for two weeks but stopped after six days, after guards subjected prisoners to humiliation and several prisoners showed signs of distress. For decades, the study was presented as showing that ordinary people placed in a powerful role would become abusive, that the situation, not the person, explains cruelty.
What the Archives Show
Le Texier (2019) examined the study's archives, including recordings, notes and documents. He found that guards were briefed before the study on how to create an atmosphere of fear and powerlessness, and that the research team, including Zimbardo as prison superintendent, encouraged them to be tough when some were not. Several guards later said they had acted the part they believed the researchers wanted. Le Texier argued that demand characteristics, participants' sense of what the researchers expected, shaped much of the behavior, and that the study does not support the claim that guards became cruel spontaneously because of their role.
A Study Designed to Test the Claim
Reicher and Haslam (2006) conducted a prison study with the British Broadcasting Corporation, under ethical oversight, in which the researchers did not tell guards how to behave. Guards did not spontaneously become tyrannical; many were uncomfortable with their power and failed to form a cohesive group. The prisoners, in contrast, came to see themselves as a group and began to resist the guards' authority. The system then moved toward a self-governing commune, and when that failed, some participants began to support a harsher, authoritarian regime. The authors concluded that tyranny arises not from roles themselves but from group processes, especially when groups fail and people look for strong leadership.
A Shared Reinterpretation
Haslam and Reicher (2012) argued that the Milgram and Stanford studies have been misread in the same way. In both, people acted harshly not because they mindlessly conformed to orders or roles, but because they identified with leaders and causes they believed in, Milgram's science and Zimbardo's prison project. They called this identification-based followership. On this view, harmful behavior requires leadership that cultivates identification with a harmful cause, and people remain responsible for their choices.
| Classic claim | Revised by | Revised view |
|---|---|---|
| Roles alone make people abusive | Le Texier (2019) | Guards were instructed and encouraged; demand characteristics shaped behavior |
| Guards naturally become tyrannical | Reicher and Haslam (2006) | Guards did not spontaneously abuse; tyranny grew when groups failed |
| People conform mindlessly to situations | Haslam and Reicher (2012) | People follow leaders and causes they identify with |
| The situation explains everything | All three | Leadership, identity and group functioning shape how power is used |
Ethics
The Stanford study caused real distress to participants, and Zimbardo's dual role as researcher and superintendent compromised his ability to protect them; he later acknowledged that he became absorbed in the role. The BBC study shows that a prison study can be run with independent ethical oversight and with the right to stop it.
Applying the Lessons
The engineer's comparison is half right. The gatekeeper role does carry power, but the evidence suggests that how the role is used depends on how it is defined and led. The gatekeeper received the role with little guidance beyond "make sure nothing goes out wrong," a message that, like the guards' briefing, encouraged a harsh reading. The company will redefine the role around a shared goal with engineering, successful first-time submissions, set clear criteria for approval and response times and have the gatekeeper meet engineering leads weekly. The vice presidents of both departments will present the role as part of a joint effort rather than a check on engineering.
The Gatekeeper's View
Hana spoke with the gatekeeper, who described the role differently from the engineers. She had been told after the second delayed submission that "the next failure is on you," and she had no criteria for what counted as acceptable data, so she treated every small question as a reason to hold. Her behavior was less a taste for power than a response to how the role had been framed and to fear of blame. Reicher and Haslam (2006) found that guards uncertain of their role and lacking a cohesive group often failed to use their power well; the gatekeeper's situation resembled theirs more than the Stanford story.
Four Experiments, One Theme
The course's four classic experiments, Milgram's obedience studies, Elliott's exercise, Robbers Cave and the Stanford prison study, were long taught as showing that situations overwhelm individuals. Later research reads them differently. In each, what people did depended on which group they identified with and how leaders framed the situation. Milgram's participants obeyed when they identified with science; Sherif's boys cooperated when their goals were joined; Stanford's guards were guided by a superintendent's vision. Haslam and Reicher (2012) argued that this shared theme restores human agency to the studies: people act through their identities, and leaders shape those identities. For organizations, this means that the most important situational factor is leadership.
Conclusion
Le Texier showed that the Stanford guards were guided toward toughness, Reicher and Haslam found that tyranny grew only when groups failed and Haslam and Reicher linked the Milgram and Stanford studies through identification with leaders and causes. For the company, the lesson is that roles carry the meaning leaders give them, so a power role should be defined around shared goals and clear criteria.
References
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), Article e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823-839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000401
Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998
EDP 814 Module 8 instructions, in plain terms
The final module of EDP 814 typically asks for a critical review of the Stanford prison study. Use your Aspen course's Module 8 instructions; the organizational case is a composite. Describe the study and the conclusion traditionally drawn from it. Review later evidence, including archival critiques and studies designed to test the conclusion. Examine the ethics. Apply the lessons to roles and power in a group or organization. Use APA 7, and end with a judgment of your own about the study's real lessons, backed by the evidence you reviewed. Where your case involves a power role, consider how the role was introduced and explained, since that framing shapes how people use it.
How this EDP 814 Module 8 example is built
A composite quality gatekeeper at the device company has begun to delay approvals in ways engineers see as power for its own sake. Le Texier's American Psychologist article uses Stanford archives to show that guards were briefed and pushed toward toughness and that demand characteristics shaped behavior. Reicher and Haslam's British Journal of Social Psychology article reports a prison study in which guards did not spontaneously become tyrannical and in which tyranny became attractive when groups failed. Haslam and Reicher's PLoS Biology essay links Milgram and Zimbardo through identification with leaders. A table revises the classic claim, and an application redesigns the gatekeeper role. The paper closes the course by linking the four classic experiments through the theme of identification.
Where the marks sit in the EDP 814 Module 8 rubric
A strong review of the Stanford prison study engages the archival critique and later empirical tests rather than repeating the classic claim. This example describes the original study, then shows what the archives revealed and what a designed replication found. The reinterpretation links back to the Milgram module, showing integration across the course. The application avoids the simple lesson that roles corrupt, focusing instead on leadership, identity and group functioning. The paper reaches its own judgment. The closing section draws the four classic experiments together through the theme of identification, which shows integration across the course. The application treats the gatekeeper as a person responding to how the role was framed, avoiding the trap of blaming either the role or the individual alone.
Common EDP 814 Module 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Papers on the Stanford prison study often repeat that roles alone make people cruel. Engage the archival evidence and the BBC study. Discuss the ethics, including the distress caused and the researcher's dual role as superintendent. Connect the reinterpretation to Milgram. Apply the lessons with care: leadership and identity, not roles alone, shape how power is used. Reach and defend your own conclusion. Consider how a role was introduced, since framing shapes behavior. Link the study to the other classics in the course where the prompt allows. Avoid blaming either the role alone or the person alone; the evidence points to leadership and group processes. State your own conclusion.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 814 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 814 Module 1: The Self and the Self in Groups
- EDP 814 Module 2: Group Formation, Norms and Roles
- EDP 814 Module 3: Group Performance
- EDP 814 Module 4: Culture, Gender and Groups
- EDP 814 Module 5: Idea Generation and Creativity
- EDP 814 Module 6: Obedience: The Milgram Experiment
- EDP 814 Module 7: Prejudice and Intergroup Conflict
- EDN 812 Module 4: Informed Consent Across Languages
- EDO 820 Module 5: Rule-Breaking and Exceptions
- EDN 820 Module 8: Evaluating Improvement Results
- EDN 818 Module 8: Ethics of a Health Care Innovation
EDP 814 Module 8 questions, answered
What does EDP 814 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 814 ends with roles and power and the Stanford prison study, so a critical review using later critiques and an application is typical. See your Module 8 prompt.
What did the Stanford prison study claim?
It was long presented as showing that ordinary people assigned to the role of guard would become abusive simply because of the role and situation.
Was the Stanford prison study flawed?
Le Texier's archival research found guards were instructed and encouraged toward toughness, and the study had demand characteristics that undermine the classic interpretation.
Where can I find a free EDP 814 Module 8 sample paper?
Here, in full: the Stanford study and its critics, the BBC prison study, a shared reinterpretation of Milgram and Zimbardo and an application to roles at work.
What did the BBC prison study find?
Reicher and Haslam found guards did not spontaneously become tyrannical; tyranny gained support only after the groups' attempts at self-government failed.