More handpicked essays just for you.
Stanford prison experiment ethical issues summary
Stanford prison experiment criticisms
Stanford prison experiment criticisms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stanford prison experiment ethical issues summary
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
time of day it is and are physically tired.
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
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
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
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The purpose of the experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo explored the moral impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram who conducted his own obedience experiment (The Milgram Obedience Study), looked to expand upon Milgram's research. He sought to further investigate the impact of situational variables on human behavior. The main question the researchers asked was, how the participants would react when placed in a simulated prison environment. The participants that were chosen were undergraduate students who were physically healthy with no history of mental illness or a criminal record. They would be selected to fill either the role of prisoner or prison guard. The main question was “Would those good people,
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
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.
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
Today’s correctional institutions, policy makers, and supreme courts still continue to ignore the studies displaying the psychological effects of prisons. For example, in recent case challenges against the eighth amendment over solitary confinement have rarely succeeded. This is due to the regulation that conditions must deprive prisoners of at least one identifiable human physical need to be declared unconstitutional. Studies have shown that depriving proper mental stimulus results in extreme mental harm, but because it’s not physical damage courts rarely recognize the extreme mental harm in conditions retaining to confinement. Many court cases related to the psychological damages were inspired by the famous Stanford Prison Experiment that
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.
One major flaw in the ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment was Zimbardos involvement as the warden. He was involved in the experiment yet he was overlooking the entire event as well. There was no one who was impartial with no emotional or psychical involvement in the actual experiment. This caused Zimbardo to not judge the situation in an ethical way and see that the treatment of the poisoners was not okay. One thing that Zimbardo did ethically was he did not permit physical violence in this experiment and released the people playing the prisoners when they reached extreme distress. I would say that the Stanford Prison Experiment was not ethical due to many factors. The lack of separation between warden and researcher caused Zimbardo’s
Prisoners must always address the guards as "Mr. Correctional Officer," and the warden as "Mr. Chief Correctional Officer."
The ethical theory of utilitarianism and the perspective on relativism, of prison labor along with the relativism on criminal behavior of individuals incarcerated are two issues that need to be addressed. Does the utilitarianism of prisoner’s right laws actually protect them? Or are the unethical actions of the international and states right laws exploiting the prison labor? Unethical procedures that impact incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, the relativism of respect as people and not just prisoner’s; the safety of all inmates and correctional staff, are all issues worth continuous reflection.
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.