More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of stanford prison experiment
Effects of stanford prison experiment
What is the importance of situational leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study put together by Phillip Zambardo to test the psychological effects of a prisoner and guard scenario in a mock prison setting. The experiment lasted approximately fourteen days and was comprised of twenty-four male students, all of whom were picked at random to take part in the experiment. Each individual was also randomly given the role of either guard or prisoner. The mock prisoners were subjugated to psychological abuse, harsh authoritarian rule by the guards, and intense living conditions to ensure maximum results were met. Due to the intense amount of stress brought on from the ordeal, a few prisoners were unable to continue and the experiment concluded prematurely. Everything about this observation …show more content…
At last the experiment can proceed. Nothing will go wrong; after all, it is only an experiment. None of it is real. This is what Slater must have been repeating continuously to bring him some form of comfort. Contemplating all the possible failures he could endure as the experiment progressed. It may have been a good thing he did, it prepared him for what was about to happen. In this case, day two began as a horrible realization for Zimbardo. The inmates were blocking their cell doors with the beds provided and revolting against the guards. This forced overtime for many of the guards and caused them to retaliate by using fire extinguishers on the inmates. One guard came up with the idea to push a wedge against the opposition. “Privilege cells” were set up to give prisoners higher quality food and special items, if they did not riot with their peers. Unfortunately for the guards, this olive branch was rejected and anarchy continued. Prisoner #8612 was the first to lash out in a furious mental breakdown and removed only after 36 hours into the …show more content…
Christina Maslach, a UC-Berkeley psychology professor addressed in a formal conference amongst her peers how participants she became familiar with were dramatically changing before her very eyes. Maslach agrees when she states, "This man had been transformed. He was talking in a different accent. A Southern accent, which I hadn 't recalled at all. He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners. It was like seeing Jekyll and Hyde. . . . It really took my breath away" (Maslach). In other words, Maslach believes a good person can walk into any situation with a clear mind and good intentions, but the weight of the environment can be too strenuous and will cause the subject to adapt. Men with the ability of self control abused their privilege and became dictators. The authoritarian environment was so traumatic; it caused each role to slowly be developed, even without the need to push the participants. This particular guard went as far as to develop an accent which wasn’t his, because it was the best suited for his placement in that
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
Phillip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford experiment where 24 physiologically and physically healthy males were randomly selected where half would be prisoners and the other half prisoner guards. To make the experiments as real as possible, they had the prisoner participants arrested at their homes. The experiment took place in the basement of the Stanford University into a temporary made prison.
He “wanted to be sure to simulate a real prison experiment.” (Zimbardo, 5th paragraph) This reveals that within the fake prison environment, it created a deindividuation adjacent to the loss of self-awareness of one's self and self-restraint in a definite group, for the guards.
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
These occurrences can be analyzed using social psychology because the environment, the situation, and those holding the authority influenced the behavior of others. Due to these influences, prisoners and guards acted on the roles they were given, in the way that society sees them. The description, in itself, is the definition of social psychology.
These occurrences can be analyzed using social psychology because the environment, the situation, and those holding the authority influenced the behavior of others. Due to these influences, prisoners and guards acted on the roles they were given, in the way that society sees them. The description, in itself, is the definition of social psychology.
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
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.
In both the Milgram Obedience Study and the Stanford Prison Experiment, people were subjected to two different types of “social pressure.” They both involved a random selection of participants who were tested on how far they would obey certain instructions, but the way the instructions were given and the atmosphere was different. During the Milgram study, two people were given different roles, a “teacher” and a “learner.” The teacher had to teach the learner a list of words and the learner had to repeat them back. If the learner got one incorrect, the teacher had to administer a small shock to them.
In my opinion, there was a definite benefit to doing the experiment. Although, the participants of the Stanford Prison Experiment went through trauma during the six days; the video we watched said they learned a lot about themselves and they didn’t have long term effects. Although, when the participates met with each other year later they still took on their roles to some extent. The guard male was more dominant than the prison male in their conversation. According to the participants, some even benefitted from the experiment in the long run because they learned about
The Stanford Prison Experiment violates research methods in several ways. Both the ethics to protect research participants and to avoid the harming of research participants was violated during the experiment on many instances. For example, researchers did not fully disclose the purposes nor the nature of their research. The participants were not made aware of the conditions and procedures in which they would endure. Researchers also failed to protect participants.
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