More handpicked essays just for you.
Stanford prison experiment research paper
Stanford prison experiment research paper
Major components of the Stanford prison experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Based on a true story, the movie, The Stanford Prison Experiment, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, tells a story of Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychology professor who inspects the source of abuse in the prison system and the affects a prison system can have on human behavior. Although the findings of the experiment shocked the world, there were many ethical issues surrounding the study which will be examined in greater detail for the duration of this paper. For his study, Zimbardo casts twenty-four male students to take on the role of prisoner and guards in a simulated jail setting. Within a few days, participants took on their roles to new levels with guards being power stricken and prisoners being submissive. The movie started out with Zimbardo having a relationship with a past student, which is ethically unjust because of the student professor dynamic. Referring back to the study, there was nothing legitimate about the “experiment.” Zimbardo brings in his old friend, and when questioned by his graduate students about the authority of his friend, Zimbardo replies, “He has experience.” Well, the friend’s experience was that he was a prisoner himself a long time ago. In addition, he deceives the participants by stating that the guards were chosen based on their exemplary actions during the screening process, when …show more content…
There were countless times, prisoners were having meltdowns and needed to be seen by doctors. Instead, Zimbardo continued his study to further his findings, even when told by a graduate student that they have enough footage to answer the original question they set out to answer. When prisoners were physically hurt by the guards, Zimbardo egged on the experiment by stating, “let’s see what happens.” In addition, in a way, Zimbardo encouraged the violence by scolding the guards when they were unable to keep the peace in the
He observed many circumstances where the guards went too far, which began to confirm his hypothesis. Since the guards were viewed as authority
The Implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment In 1971 Dr Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in the basement of Stanford University. This involved imprisoning nine volunteers in a mock up of Stanford prison, which was policed by nine guards (more volunteers). These guards had complete control over the prisoners. They could do anything to the prisoners, but use physical violence.
On August 14, 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment had begun. The volunteers who had replied to the ad in the newspaper just weeks before were arrested for the claims of Armed Robbery and Burglary. The volunteers were unaware of the process of the experiment, let alone what they were getting themselves into. They were in shock about what was happening to them. Once taken into the facility, the experimenters had set up as their own private jail system; the twenty-four volunteered individuals were split up into two different groups (Stanford Prison Experiment).
In this study Zimbardo chose 21 participants from a pool of 75, all male college students, screened prior for mental illness, and paid $15 per day. He then gave roles. One being a prisoner and the other being a prison guard, there were 3 guards per 8 hour shift, and 9 total prisoners. Shortly after the prisoners were arrested from their homes they were taken to the local police station, booked, processed, given proper prison attire and issued numbers for identification. Before the study, Zimbardo concocted a prison setting in the basement of a Stanford building. It was as authentic as possible to the barred doors and plain white walls. The guards were also given proper guard attire minus guns. Shortly after starting the experiment the guards and prisoners starting naturally assuming their roles, Zimbardo had intended on the experiment lasting a fortnight. Within 36 hours one prisoner had to be released due to erratic behavior. This may have stemmed from the sadistic nature the guards had adopted rather quickly, dehumanizing the prisoners through verbal, physical, and mental abuse. The prisoners also assumed their own roles rather efficiently as well. They started to rat on the other prisoners, told stories to each other about the guards, and placated the orders from the guards. After deindividuaiton occurred from the prisoners it was not long the experiment completely broke down ethically. Zimbardo, who watched through cameras in an observation type room (warden), had to put an end to the experiment long before then he intended
Now sure, the Stanford prison guards didn’t go that far as the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib but the torture and abuse towards the prisoners became worse by the day indicating they could have gone as far as Abu Ghraib. However, in both cases there are unusual punishments and cruelty. This was due to the authority allowing it, ordering it, just didn’t care or didn’t know. Like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo didn’t do anything to stop the abuses at the mock prison but allowed it.
Stanley Milgram conducted the experiment to put participants into immoral situations to obey an authority figure of some measure, and he tested their performance and willingness, to participate in acts that strayed away from their belief of right and wrong. Zimbardo conducted an experiment in some ways similar. He conducted an experiment to see if people would assume the expected normal roles of what a prisoner is expected to do and what an authority figure like a prisoner guard is supposed to do. So both Zimbardo and Milgram at this point are trying to prove that authority and the social norm of how authorities should act generates psychological effects on their performance, as well as people who are expected to be below and obey an upper hand.
The Stanford Prison Experiment commenced in 1973 in pursuit of Zimbardo needed to study how if a person are given a certain role, will they change their whole personality in order to fit into that specific role that they were given to. Zambrano significantly believed that personality change was due to either dispositional, things that affect personal life and make them act differently. Or situational, when surrounded by prisoners, they can have the authority to do whatever they want without having to worry about the consequences. Furthermore, it created a group of twenty-four male participants, provided them their own social role. Twelve of them being a prisoners and the other twelve prison guards, all of which were in an examination to see if they will be able to handle the stress that can be caused based upon the experiment, as well as being analysis if their personality change due to the environment or their personal problems.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, a study done with the participation of a group of college students with similar backgrounds and good health standing who were subjected to a simulated prison environment. The participants were exposed completely to the harsh environment of a real prison in a controlled environment with specific roles of authority and subordinates assigned to each individual. The study was formulated based on reports from Russian novelist Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky had spent four years in a Siberian prison and his view on how a man is able to withstand anything after experiencing the horrors of prison prompted Dr. Philip Zimbardo a Professor of Psychology at Stanford and his
...ed 6 million people based on the orders of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. In reference to the two situations, one participant of the study said that “anybody can be a guard, but not every one becomes sadistic.” This saying can be applied to real life situations, especially that of the New Jersey incident.
After only six days the Stanford Prison Experiment was stopped, after they originally planned it to last for two weeks. This was not because Zimbardo thought it should be, of the guards out of line behavior, or because outsiders thought so. The experiment finally stopped because of a graduate student was helping Zimbardo told him that it was out of control. I am very surprised from the results of the experiment. The power of situations was shown to be much more powerful than I ever would have thought. Because of the way the prisoners were treated, I do not think there will ever be another experiment like this ever again, even though a lot of valuable information was attained for conducting it.
Zimbardo acts like an eye in the sky knowing what happens to everyone and the outside voice is neutral. Zimbardo does not have limit on what he saying, so this makes him the expert. The voice is more like to fill in the blanks and therefore it reverts the attention to Zimbardo as the voice of knowledge. The guard and the prisoner seem to have a lot to say but in reality they do not, Zimbardo does most of the speaking. They are both included for the emotional aspect of the experiment and make it seem more interesting. Zimbardo also expresses emotions but a lot less than the two emotional appeals and tries to keep a curiosity tone towards the part he explains how he should have not been playing a role in the prison. That’s where we have another logos attempt. He “should have of had a collage looking overseeing the experiment”. Someone who could have ended the experiment or if he was main researcher he should not have had role in
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment Directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez in 2015 follows the horrific experience of a handful of college students trying to make a quick buck through a physiology experiment gone awry. (2,5) For me the shot that contains the essence of the film visually has nothing to do with the film, but for me was key to understanding the motivations of the man driving the story to bitter completion was the shot where Dr. Zimbardo is moving in with his girlfriend, fellow colleague, and former student. I feel this change in his life is what lead the project to become so cruel. Zimbardo felt his own masculinity threated by Dr. Christina Maslach a female who was gaining success in his field. Losing his own masculinity due to not feeling like the
One inmate suffered from a physical and emotional breakdown. The conditions became so severe that he was released. Zimbardo later stated that, “we did so reluctantly because we believed that he was trying to ‘con’ us.” Clearly Zimbardo was overreacting and should have seen that his actions and choice of experimentation caused the man to spiral out of control. By day 4, a rumor was going around that they newly sprung inmate was planning another revolt. As a result, they moved the entire experiment to another floor of the psychology building, and yet again another inmate suffered a breakdown. Soon after, he was released, and over the next two days, two more inmates would do the likewise. A final example of the effects of this experiment is shown when a fifth inmate is released. This time, the man developed a psychosomatic rash over is entire body. These are usually caused or aggravated by a mental factor such as internal conflict or stress, similar to all of the conditions faced inside the mock prison. After the fifth grueling day, Zimbardo finally thought his experiment was a success. The events inside the prison walls were occurring just as Zimbardo had planned. He was finding success and joy in these grown men’s emotional breakdown, and many thought this experiment could be considered ethically
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading ro...