Skip to content 
What is the new Stanford Prison Experiment about?
The first Stanford prison experiment was conducted in 1971 by Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. In this experiment, male college students were divided into two groups, with some assigned as guards and others as prisoners. Participants were placed in a mock prison in the basement of a university building, where they had to perform their assigned roles. The experiment was scheduled to continue for two weeks, but was stopped after just six days as the guards’ behavior became increasingly extreme.
The study was widely publicized as a clear demonstration of how quickly people can adopt abusive behavior when they are in positions of authority. However, the method and conclusions have since been subject to considerable criticism. As more information about Zimbardo’s involvement and how the experiment was conducted came to light, its credibility as a scientific study was undermined. Nonetheless, the experiment has continued to have a place in popular culture, often serving as an example of how power can influence human behavior.
The New Stanford Prison Experiment attempts to reexamine the central question of the original study: Does power corrupt?
The Netflix series brings together 30 participants from different backgrounds and places them in real-life housing at a correctional facility in Georgia. Unlike the original experiment, in which college students responded to an advertisement for a psychology study, this version included people of different ages and experiences. Some of the participants had difficult childhoods, some had families, and some had previously been incarcerated. They engage in experiments for a variety of reasons, including a desire to challenge themselves, try something new, or a desire to prove something about themselves.
However, they are not entering the facility without any expectations. Contestants are aware that they are taking part in a television series, and this perception influences how they approach their roles. Some people take experiments seriously, while others are more interested in challenging the rules or testing how far they can push things.
The series also introduces three experts who observe and comment on the participants’ behavior. They are Alison Wood Brooks, behavioral psychologist and Harvard Business School professor; Michael Cantrell, a federal corrections expert with decades of experience; and journalist Trymaine Lee, who has covered topics including Hurricane Katrina and black voters. Their role is to provide context to the events inside the facility and help viewers understand the participants’ decisions.
How is the experiment conducted?
Unlike the original Stanford Prison Experiment, which was shut down after six days, the Netflix series organizes the experiment into four planned stages: transition, hierarchy, role reversal, and autonomy. Each stage changes the situation inside the facility and presents participants with new challenges to tackle.
During the transition phase, participants settle into their assigned roles as guards and prisoners. They begin to understand the rules of the environment and how much control the guards have over the inmates. As the experiment progresses into the hierarchical stages, differences in leadership styles become more evident and participants begin to respond to the authority exercised over them.
Security guards do not all approach their responsibilities the same way. While Chris Lee believes that leadership comes from inspiring people and getting their cooperation, Chet Hudson takes a more rigorous approach and likens prisoner management to breaking horses. Their contrasting methods create different environments for those they control, demonstrating how authority can be exercised through encouragement or strict discipline.
Prisoners also react differently depending on their circumstances. While some accept the rules and try to make the best of their situation, others become frustrated with the hierarchy and begin to look for ways to challenge it. Pete Zaremba, a fifth-grade social studies teacher who becomes one of the show’s central participants, publicly expresses his intention to stop following the rules and begin testing the experiment itself.
His attitude points to one of the central questions of the series. If participants understand that the entire situation is constructed, how much power do their assigned roles actually exert over them? Security guards may be granted authority, but the experiment only works if everyone agrees to participate.
In the role reversal phase, a major change occurs as the positions of the male guards and the most rebellious prisoners are swapped. These changes allow former guards to experience the restrictions they previously imposed on others, and give former inmates the opportunity to exercise authority.
This change becomes one of the most revealing aspects of the series. Hudson, who previously supported a strict hierarchy, begins to talk about the importance of people uniting to take back control. He eventually decided to leave the experiment early, claiming that he had nothing to learn as a prisoner. His response raises the question of whether those who benefit from hierarchy only recognize its problems when they lose their positions within it.
In the final stage, self-governance, the experiment progresses to a situation in which prisoners take responsibility for their own situation. By removing the guards, the series attempts to examine what happens when participants no longer operate under the same authority structure.
What does this show explore about power and leadership?
One of the main themes explored in The New Stanford Prison Experiment is the difference between having power and knowing how to use it. Participants show that authority does not automatically make someone a good leader and that not everyone wants to control others simply because they are given the opportunity.
Some guards try to maintain order by encouraging cooperation and building relationships with prisoners. Some people think that controlling people requires strict rules and regulations. These differences affect how inmates react and how tensions grow within the facility.
This experiment also shows how people can challenge the system by refusing to follow its expectations. Some participants are more interested in testing the limits of the experiment than performing their assigned roles. Their behavior suggests that the authority generated by the experiment depends to some extent on the participants’ willingness to accept it.
But the series never arrives at a single explanation of human behavior. Instead, it shows that people respond to power in different ways depending on their personality, attitudes, and approach to leadership. Some people seek control, some resist it, and others attempt to find ways to cooperate despite the conditions imposed on them.
How does the series explore gender and race?
While the show attempts to examine the power of different backgrounds, its handling of gender and race is one of its most notable limitations.
Of the 30 participants, only 3 are women, and all are initially assigned to the security unit. Because the series does not include women as prisoners, it is unable to examine how women experience the other side of the hierarchy. It also does not meaningfully address the experiences of transgender, non-binary, and queer people in prison.
The women eventually transition to an all-female shift, and based on her leadership experience, Laura Berens is selected as chief security guard. Behrens proves to be an effective leader, maintaining rules while treating the prisoners humanely. Her approach shows that authority need not rely on threats or excessive control.
She later reflects on her experience having 22 men listen to her and ponders whether more women could lead effectively through kindness, humor, and mutual respect. However, this series does not address these questions in sufficient detail. Little explanation is given about how gender affects the way people exercise authority, or how men respond to women in power.
Treatment of race is similarly limited. Racial differences were sometimes visible in participants’ responses to authority, including one black inmate’s account that resisting authority put him at risk for accidental shootings in his community. But the show doesn’t examine these experiences in depth or meaningfully connect them to the broader criminal justice system.
As a result, the series raises important questions about inequality without sufficiently exploring it.
What conclusions does the new Stanford Prison Experiment offer?
Ultimately, The New Stanford Prison Experiment struggles to justify its attempt to reexamine controversial psychological research. Although it provides some examples of how people respond to authority, it does not establish a clear theory of why power changes some people while others resist it.
The focus on leadership, conflict, and changing roles has made it a compelling reality TV series, but the psychological and social issues it addresses at its core remain limited. Experts provide commentary, but their observations rarely develop into detailed discussions of the issues raised by the participants’ actions.
The series also falls short in examining broader questions surrounding prisons, inequality, and the criminal justice system. Although its setting and premise suggest it will explore these themes, it ultimately spends more time observing the participants’ personal conflicts than examining what their experiences may reveal about society.
Until the guards were fired and the inmates were left to manage their own situations, the experiment showed that people had different ideas about leadership, authority, and cooperation. But it did not provide a definitive answer to the question that inspired it.
The main limitation of The New Stanford Prison Experiment is that it wants to be both an entertaining reality show and a serious examination of human behavior. It draws viewers in with the original’s reputation and promise to explore power, gender, race, and inequality. But it does not fully develop many of the questions it introduces.
Ultimately, the series suggests that people respond to power in different ways, but offers little explanation as to why those differences exist. Rather than reaching meaningful conclusions about human behavior, it leaves viewers with the same questions that have surrounded the original experiment for decades. That is, how much can we really learn by placing people in artificial systems of power?