More handpicked essays just for you.
Social psychological theories of aggression
Social psychological theories of aggression
Aggression and biological factors
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal
One of the ways that the Stanford Prison Experiment was different than the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal is that in the Stanford Prison Experiment they had roles. Half of the boys were given, the role of prisoners and the other half of the boys was given the role of the prisoner guards. This meant that the half that was guards had the power, whereas the prisoners were powerless because they had to do whatever the guards told them to do. Therefore, since the guards in the experiment knew that they had a lot power, they then began to eventually abuse their power as the experiment went on against the prisoners. For example, in the experiment the guard hit the prisoner with a nightstick out
…show more content…
Whereas, in the Abu Ghraib, they used all types of people to study from mentally unstable to mentally stable people. The fifth way, that The Sanford Prison Experiment was different than the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal was that the prisoners in the experiment had a chance to go home to be with their families but the ones in the Abu Ghraib couldn’t leave because they were captured prisoners. Another, way that the experiment differed from the scandal was that the prisoners in the experiment were so conditioned to being a prisoner that when the guards asked them if they would forfeit the money that they had earned from the experiment to use to gain parole, the prisoners said that they would. However, if they would’ve just quit the experiment they would’ve came out with the same outcome. But the prisoners in the experiment didn’t because they felt powerless to resist. Then again, in the Abu Ghraib Scandal the American Soldiers abused the prisoners purposely by inflicting humiliation and pain as a punishment for their behaviors. Aside, from that the Sanford experiment had …show more content…
For example, in both events the guards would strip their inmates of their clothes, and take their beds out of their cells because of their rebellious behavior. Also, they both had laws that were established by the prison directors and enforced by the guards. Conversely, both these events went through a period of psychoanalysis where they were presented a problem and had to use free association and resistance to get info out of the prisoners. For example, in both these events the prison had people to come and talk to the prisoners about what was taking place. They also did this to prove their theory that different environments influence the behavior of people, whether you are mentally sane or not. Similarly, the attitudes towards between the guards versus the prisoners in both cases were the same. The guards attitudes were as if they were untouchable only because they knew that the prisoners couldn’t do anything about what was taking place inside the prisons. Moreover, in both the Sanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal the prisoners experienced the bystander effect. This is because a higher authority inside the prison just sat there and watched the prisoners get tortured, beaten, humiliated, raped, and abused without trying to interfere to try to stop or calm the reckless behavior. Nevertheless, the motivation levels in both the experiment and the
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).
Many ethical boundaries were crossed in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Abuse was not limited to physical, but also psychological (Burgemeester, 2011). In the movie The Stanford Prison Experiment, which depicts events that actually occurred, the guards played physiological tricks on the prisoners. The prisoners were lead to believe that they actually committed crimes and couldn’t leave the experiment. One main thing that the guards did to physically and psychologically harm the prisoners was to tamper with their sleeping schedules. They would wake the prisoners on the middle of the night and have them do exercises, and once they were done they were permitted to go back to sleep (Ratnesar, 2011). By doing this the prisoners lose sense of what
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
In the Stanford Prison Experiment many of the prisoners obeyed the guards even though they were in such extreme discomfort mentally to not have to face the harsher treatments of not obeying them. However, not all of them followed their order and kept protesting their inhuman orders, even knowing with the harsh treatment that came afterwards. Like the Milligram Experiment, the teachers understood the harsh pain they were enlisting into the students, they continued the orders of the experiment to increase the shocks after every wrong answer. Then again, like the Stanford Experiment, not all of them followed the order of guards as did a few of the teachers in the Milligram experiment. Two prisoners left the Stanford experiment and presumably the same could be said for the Milligram
Before commencing the study all participants were briefed on the roles pertaining to the experiment without actually being assigned roles. Once roles were determined and assigned each participant was given specific instruction to their roles whether it be the role of the Guard or Prisoner. The group assigned to the prisoner role were greater in number and were instructed to be available at a predetermined time, this was done to maintain the reality of the simulation. The prisoners were arrested and escorted by real-life law enforcement officials and processed as any detainee would be in a real situation. Upon completing the processing part of the experiment the students were then transferred to the simulated prison, which was housed in the basement of the university, and assigned identifying numbers, given demeaning clothing as uniform and placed in barren cells with no personalized
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
To begin the experiment the Stanford Psychology department interviewed middle class, white males that were both physically and mentally healthy to pick 18 participants. It was decided who would play guards and who would be prisoners by the flip of a coin making nine guards and nine prisoners. The guards were taken in first to be told of what they could and could not do to the prisoners. The rules were guards weren’t allowed t o physically harm the prisoners and could only keep prisoners in “the hole” for a hour at a time. Given military like uniforms, whistles, and billy clubs the guards looked almost as if they worked in a real prison. As for the prisoners, real police surprised them at their homes and arrested them outside where others could see as if they were really criminals. They were then blindfolded and taken to the mock prison in the basement of a Stanford Psychology building that had been decorated to look like a prison where guards fingerprinted, deloused, and gave prisoners a number which they would be calle...
Would you go into prison to get paid? Do you believe that you will come out the same or become different? Do not answer that. The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment that was conduct in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. Seventy applicants answered the ad and were narrowed down to 24 college students, which half were assigned either to be guards or prisoners by random selection. Those 24 college students were picked out from the of 70 applicants by taking personality tests and given diagnostic interviews to remove any candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The experiment lasted six days but it was supposed to last two weeks, it was so traumatizing that it was cut short. Zimbardo was the lead researcher and also had a role in pretend prison. Zimbardo’s experiment was based on looking
In Abu Ghraib, the prisoners’ faces were covered with hoods and the prison was covered up with walls that made the prison an island where morality was no longer there due to the three traits that the soldier went through. To understand how individuals can kill innocent children, women, men, and elders, Philip G. Zimbardo did The Stanford prison experiment. In the book, Zimbardo highlighted three psychological truths. The first is that the world is full of both evil and good, the barrier between the two is absorbent, and angels and devils can switch.
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.
These strict guidelines along with over 10 others helped shape the prison. The guards at the beginning of the experiment formed these guidelines. Their authority, from the start, was absolute. They did not allow prisoners to speak, eat or even use the restroom without permission. Sometimes, unimaginably, the inmates were not granted permission. Day one of the experiment was full of confusion and learning for everyone involved. The events
In conclusion, correctional officers such as Ted Conover may think they hold all the power but due to the sudden increase in prisoners and not enough staff, the officers are starting to see how difficult it is to obtain power. The Stanford Prison Experiment also gives us a good sense of the change of power that goes on in a correctional facility and how sometimes the prisoners hold power over the guards. And lastly, inmate power can be seen through the contraband that is made/ brought in on a regular basis.
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
This experiment gathered twenty-one young men and assigned half of them to be “prisoners” and the other half to be “guards”. Simply put, the point of the experiment was to simulate a prison and observe how the setting and the given roles affected the behavior of the young men. The men who were given the roles of guard were given a position of authority and acted accordingly. This alone strongly influenced the behavior of both the guards and the prisoners. The guards had a sense of entitlement, control, and power, while the prisoners had a feeling of resentment and rebellion. Social pressure also played a crucial role in the experiment. Many of the guards began to exploit their power by abusing, brutalizing, and dehumanizing the prisoners. Some of the other guards felt wrong about this abuse, but did nothing to put an end to it. Finally, the situation and setting of the experiment immensely altered the conduct of both the prisoners and guards. The setting of being in a prison caused many of the volunteers to act in ways that they may have normally not. Even though the setting of being in a prison was essentially pretend, the volunteers accepted the roles they were given and acted as if it was all a reality. The prisoners genuinely behaved as if they were indeed real prisoners, and the guards treated them likewise. The situation these volunteers