More handpicked essays just for you.
Sociology essays on the movie the stanford prison experiment
Stanford prison experiment breakdown
Sociology essays on the movie the stanford prison experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Corruption is the overwhelming feeling of power and authority that cause people to abuse that power. In “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, psychologist, Philip Zimbardo and a team of researchers conducted an experiment using college students. However, the students who acted as prison guards became corrupt because of the power and authority they suddenly obtained. Therefore, the prisoners were abused and treated awfully even though they were just students. After six days, Zimbardo decided to stop the experiment because it got out of control and it also left the students psychologically damaged. “The Stanford Prison Experiment” illustrates how quickly people can become corrupt, abuse power, and forget their moral values.
Firstly, the corruption from power can affect people instantly. A real world example of this is dictatorships in countries such as Russia. Joseph Stalin was corrupted by the power and authority of
…show more content…
ruling the Soviet Union. He began a reign of terror for more than two decades. Additionally, in the experiment, the guards became corrupt with power and began to terrorize the prisoners. Provoking the guards to abuse that power and authority. Secondly, people use their position of power in an abusive way.
For instance, Emperor Caligula, out of boredom and because no one would say anything, gathered a crowd of people at the coliseum, cut off their tongues, and threw them to the animals. On the other hand, in the movie, the guards would compel the prisoners to do as they say. Moreover, they would physical, emotional, and psychological harm them to enforce their rules. Therefore, they would forget about their moral values.
Thirdly, power and corruption will cause a person to neglect their moral values. In reality, people who lack moral values are contempt with inadequate notions such as greed and racism. In the “prison”, the guards did unbelievable and gruesome things to the prisoners, as side from abusing them, like throwing them in “the hole” for hours. However, after the termination of the experiment, the guards couldn’t believe how they could do such things. Furthermore, there was a guard who tried to stay in connection with his moral values but was not able to stand up for the
prisoners. Overall, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, conveyed how rapidly one can befall corruption, misuse power, and overlook moral values. To summarize, corruption can lead a person to do unexpected things. The abuse of power can cause a person to harm others in multiple ways. Furthermore, neglecting moral values can provoke a person to do incompetent deeds. Power has a tendency to make even the nicest people evil. Additionally, people do not know what they are capable of until they are provoked or persuaded to reveal that side of them.
Political corruption can lead to the downfall of societies because when citizens find out, they won’t have any respect for their government/leaders because of the bad things they do. Lack of respect can cause riots/outbreaks in cities.
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 people that participated in the Stanford Prison Experiment as prisoners and the people that suffered through the Cultural Revolution have many things in common, both suffered through extreme acts of inhumane treatment and humiliation. But both also accepted their fate of deserving the treatment they received. Hsaio Wu and the guards shared in common the overwhelming quench for power and control and it eventually led both to perform acts that they may not do without a leader’s guidance to stop the acts from happening. Without a true leadership perspective, humans may be more than capable of the most extreme and inhumane acts thinkable.
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.
Twenty-four average men were entered into a fake prison setting, twelve of which who had been given the role of prisoner and twelve with the role of guard. Throughout the course of the experiment we see the environment effect negatively on the actions of the group of guards, clearly demonstrating that situational forces can force a person to cross the line between good and evil. We see this heavily embodied in the guard Dave Eshelman AKA ‘John Wayne’ – nicknamed by the prisoners in the study – the most brutal guard of them all, the one who demonstrated all the findings on the influence of power and authority and human behaviour. “I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, “How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, ‘knock it off?'” But the other guards didn’t stop me.
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).
Obedience has always been a trait present in every aspect of society. Parents have practiced enforcing discipline in their homes where children learn obedience from age one. Instructors have found it difficult to teach a lesson unless their students submit to their authority. Even after the adolescent years, law enforcement officers and governmental officials have expected citizens to uphold the law and abide by the standards set in society. Few will understand, however, that although these requirements for obedience provide positive results for development, there are also dangers to enforcing this important trait. Obedience to authority can be either profitable or perilous depending on who the individual in command is. In the film, The Crucible,
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
Obedience is a widely debated topic today with many different standpoints from various brilliant psychologists. Studying obedience is still important today to attempt to understand why atrocities like the Holocaust or the My Lai Massacre happened so society can learn from them and not repeat history. There are many factors that contribute to obedience including situation and authority. The film A Few Good Men, through a military court case, shows how anyone can fall under the influence of authority and become completely obedient to conform to the roles that they have been assigned. A Few Good Men demonstrates how authority figures can control others and influence them into persuading them to perform a task considered immoral or unethical.
Power is the source of all corruption as supported by Dickens’s novel A Tale of Two Cities. The characters Monseigneur, Marquis of Evermonde, and the revolutionaries all become corrupt in the end because of the power they possessed. If they did not possess power, they would not have been able to complete the actions they had planned to. Then, if they’re actions did not occur, the corruption they caused would cease to exist
When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.
We see that the author’s purpose is to allow the readers to understand that the prisoners were not treated humanly, and allows us to see the negative attitudes the authority had towards the prisoners.
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.
This experiment was supposed to last for 14 days and only last up to six days. This experiment caused the students to show extreme signs of anxiety and depression. Not only did these students suffer from mental issues they also became very aggressive and hostile towards one another the prisons and the guard had this very thick tension between one another. This all became a very bad situation when the guards over use their power. In this cause violence was triggered because of emotion when these students were chose to this experiment they were chosen because they were very laid back with personalities. The men that were the guards began to show violent behavior first because they had control over the prisoners. This experiment we learned that People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study) They were all just fine until they felt as if they were placed in a situation that made them show violent behavior. Therefore, the roles that people play can shape their
We have been taught that we should always follow our priorities, whether it is dealing with jobs, families, education, or faith. Ethical egoism teaches us that if our interests are any one these or something else, we should put it first because these are our values. But how far should we go in protecting our values? Is there a limit of how they should be protected? Am I doing what’s best for my priorities or for me? Although we should protect our values, there needs to be a limit and a focus of how I should protect my values with the best intentions. The film, Prisoners, presents this moral dilemma of torture through the characters’ decisions and emotions.