Dr. Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment on the behavior of guards and prisoners in 1971. The study ended after only six days, despite a planned course of 14 days. The film Stanford Prison Experiment was released in 2015 and provides an accurate depiction of Dr. Zimbardo’s experiment. This paper will outline and discuss ethical dilemmas occurring during the film utilizing different ethical approaches.
The Office of Naval Research funded the experiment to further knowledge of difficulties between guards and prisoners in both the United States Navy and Marine Corps (Stanford Prison Experiment, 2017). Students who responded to the newspaper ad offering $15 a day were screened for psychological issues, etc. Twelve each were chosen as
…show more content…
guards and inmates, respectively, nine with three alternates. A coin flip decided each group’s role. The local police department arrested the prisoners, booking them accordingly. The degradation ceremony began upon their arrival as they were strip-searched, deloused, and provided smocks adorned with a number. Subjects donned stocking caps to simulate shaven heads, and around one ankle they wore a length of chain and a lock, adding to the environment of confinement and the reaffirmation of prison as a total institution (Henslin, c2017, p.92). Relevant to ethical issues outlined later in this writing are the facts that: all participants signed an informed consent describing they could leave at any time (Stanford Prison Experiment, 2017). Dr. Zimbardo’s briefing to the guards included “under no circumstances are you to hit or physically abuse any prisoners” (Alvarez, 2015). There is a one-hour time limit for solitary confinement (Prisonexp.org, 2017). Continuing to conduct the experiment despite the behaviors and emotional damage that is occurring serves as the ethical dilemma. Notwithstanding the degradation of morality, mistreatment of the subjects, deviance from the contractual agreement and declining sanitary conditions Dr. Zimbardo allows the prison to function on its course. Research psychologists have set principles and a prescribed moral code, as a medical doctor does. (Criticaltherapy.org, 2017). In the end, the suffering of a few may benefit the overall good of many people, a consequentialist approach (Rosenstand, c2013 page 231). Any physical abuse of a prisoner is a clear violation of the guard’s standing order from Dr. Zimbardo (Alvarez, 2015). The physical abuse instances are many, the first occurring a few hours into the experiment. A scuffle between guards and prisoners awakens the two researchers. Prisoner 8612 attacks a guard, grabbing his throat, and pinning him against a wall. The guard reacts with his wooden baton, striking the prisoner in the face. Neither researcher acts to check on the prisoner or interrupts due to the physical abuse (Alvarez, 2015). Shortly afterward another scuffle ensues, this time Dr. Zimbardo is summoned. The question is raised whether to interfere or not, to which Dr. Zimbardo replies, “no, let’s wait and see where it goes.” Perhaps the assistants are themselves feeling an ethical dilemma early in the experiment, neither sure of the already emerging physical interactions between subjects. The physical torment continues after a prisoner refuses to put his stocking cap on, and finds himself “hog-tied”. Later in the day a prison break is attempted and thwarted as the subjects were unable to escape the realm of the experiment. Dr. Zimbardo and his assistants witness the escapees recapture and subsequent physical abuse and again do nothing to modify the guard’s behavior. (Alvarez, 2015). The emotional anguish first appears from the actions of prisoner 8612.
After being questioned as to his ailments, he asks that the guards improve their treatment. Prisoner 8612 is attempting to end his participation in the experiment, a right outlined in his contract. After his return to the yard, 8612 realizes his situation as real and screams at the camera that is monitoring the action, “I want out, I want out man, you have no right messing with my head.” (Alvarez, 2015). This outburst clearly demonstrates the possible mental breakdown and should have sparked some moral or ethical intervention from Dr. Zimbardo or the researchers. The researchers release prisoner 8612 during the night, as Dr. Zimbardo took his first leave from the experiment to rest. Perhaps the scientists realized the morality of the situation and seized the opportunity to make things “right” through the release of 8612. Taking the Kantian approach, they felt it was their moral duty (Rosenstand, c2013 p397). Perhaps they didn’t want their behavior, or the university’s behavior viewed as immoral, a virtues approach (Rosenstand, c2013 p …show more content…
391). Visitor’s Day is officially day three. Prisoner 819 meets with his parents, who are apparently concerned with the welfare of their son. He appears weak and exhausted, which is unlike his usual self. Afterward, 819’s mother expresses genuine concern for the well-being of her son. Dr. Zimbardo’s sole concern with the experiment continues. Dr. Zimbardo uses his mental prowess and immediately turns the attention to praise for their son, “he seems like a pretty tough kid.” The boy’s father returns with, “he is…he is a tough kid. C’mon, let’s go. We have wasted enough of the professor’s time already” (Alvarez, 2015). The lack morality blinds Dr. Zimbardo, as he is focusing on the positive outcome for many from the experiment’s findings. Consumed by the consequences or greater good, he takes the consequentialist approach (Rosenstand, c2013 p232). Assuming the experiment was still ongoing at this point, I would like to think I would have listened to the concerns of the parents, following up on the health of their son. Citing the Kantian approach, I feel it would have been my duty to act upon his parents’ concern (Rosenstand, c2013 p397). The mental anguish continues with each prisoner meeting with a priest, who plays along with the experiment. His unsolicited line of questions further places doubts into the minds of the prisoners. The priest asks each one what they are doing to improve their situation, and if they have lawyers. One prisoner responds with, “Why would I need a lawyer for an experiment?”. The priest’s twisted reply invokes confusion, “Son, I am unaware of any experiment.” Instead of realizing the reactions to the priest’s questioning, Dr. Zimbardo becomes obsessed with the idea the priest was going to contact a lawyer and sabotage the experiment and its results. The researchers are puzzled, as the priest went along with the experiment almost immediately. The disregard for the welfare of the subjects is still apparent, with Dr. Zimbardo consumed with continuing the research (Rosenstand, c2013 p232). Prisoner 819 remains in the room and hears the unified chants of the remaining population, “Prisoner 819 did a bad thing” over and over. The boy bursts into tears and begins sobbing as Dr. Zimbardo storms into the room alone. Dr. Zimbardo brings him back to reality, consoling him with the fact that this is not a real prison, he is not a real prisoner. Finally awakened from his nightmare, the boy is released. I am unsure what made the professor release 819 or why he insisted on entering the room alone. I can only imagine what serving over 16 years in San Quentin does to a person.
A consultant named Jesse assisted with the experiment. His experience with prison life was first-hand. Jesse serves as a member of the parole board and finds himself becoming what he hated the most. He tirelessly rants to prisoner 1037 about his charges, questioning his belief in justice and God and if he feels that assault is ok. After the hearings, Jesse is deeply troubled by his actions and 1037’s emotional state. The role of the parole board member consumed Jesse. He exhibited the same behaviors of the very people he grew to hate, and he enjoyed it. Jesse solemnly asks Dr. Zimbardo to parole 1037 (Alvarez,
2015). Christina Maslach replaced a researcher who departed due to a family emergency. Their heads covered with bags, the subjects are led down the hallway by the guards. Maslach becomes angry after witnessing this. Dr. Zimbardo’s infatuation with the experiment remains evident as he opens the door to find Maslach observing the prisoners shuffle down the hallway. He smiles and remarks how amazing it is to watch. During the argument that follows, Maslach points out Dr. Zimbardo’s consumption by his experiment, that he no longer views them as boys, but merely subjects. The argument ends with Maslach’s remark, “Those are boys, and you are harming them. You need to fix this now!” (Alvarez, 2015). The professor returns to the viewing room only to find the cruel treatment continuing. The emotional games carry on as does the mistreatment and violations of not only the contract but basic morals. Dr. Zimbardo enters the prison area and declares the experiment over, actually closing the Stanford County Jail after only six days. Months after its conclusion, Dr. Zimbardo commented about how he felt the research would be long and boring (Alvarez, 2015). I believe his conflict resulted from playing both roles. The role of the superintendent would take a common good approach as opposed to the role of the research psychologist assuming a Kantian approach to do no harm. A prison warden would need to maintain order and would focus on the needs of the community (prison population) vice one prisoner’s struggles. A research psychologist will express interest in the outcome (consequences) of the experiment, but upon the breakdown of human rights, the focus should shift to Kantian approach, remaining consistent with his moral duty as a psychologist to do no harm (Criticaltherapy.org, 2017). In response to the continued physical abuse; early on I would be shocked at how quickly the abuse started. I would honestly question the conduct of the experiment and if proceeding in this manner would even be possible. My concern would be for the individuals involved, a common-good approach or virtues approach (Scu.edu, 2017), as I do not want to be the person who allows this behavior to continue, knowing it will only become worse (Rosenstand, c2013 p391). Concerning 8612’s release; I would have done the same thing after debriefing him. Given the fact this was only the evening of day two, my concern would have been for the mental well-being of this subject (or at least I like to think so). The Kantian approach abhors experiments causing agonizing physical experiments for the sake of speculation. (Rosenstand, c2013 page 301). Possibly Dr. Zimbardo released 819 when his ethical reasoning returned for just a moment, choosing to do what is morally right, or perhaps he saw 819 as a threat to the experiment? At this point, I would have terminated the trial. Given the priest’s damaging line of questioning, the fact that prisoners are now referring to themselves as numbers, the physical abuse, and emotional outbursts the obvious choice would be to stop and debrief everyone. A former San Quentin inmate reacting as Jesse did would demonstrate an ethical reason to end the experiment. During the parole hearing, Jesse was reading a laundry list of charges while looking at a blank piece of paper. He was articulate and angry, his words biting and exact. Playing this role had an ill effect on Jesse, which Dr. Zimbardo failed to recognize. The harm was now spreading to others, and the morality of the experiment needs to come under greater scrutiny.
Then he was given his rights at the station and was fingerprinted. He was then taken to a holding cell to think about what he had done On the second day the guards' behaviour began to degenerate so by the sixth day the experiment was cancelled. Two prisoners were removed from the experiment in this time. The experiment obviously had a serious flaw; this is thought to be Dr Zimbardo's involvement (he acted as the superintendent).
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.
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
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.
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
Things have gotten too out of hand, and situations will get much worse. Ethically speaking, Zimbardo made the right call because if the experiment continues, it would have been detrimental to the prisoner’s psyche. Zimbardo explains the event that occurred by stating, “The power of this situation ran swiftly and deeply through most of those on this exploratory ship of human nature. Only a few were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency. Obviously, I was not among the noble class (171).” By saying this, Zimbardo is fully aware that he let things get out of hand too
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 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.
In August of 1971, American psychologist, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University studying the behavioral and psychological consequences of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. He wanted to observe how situational forces impacted human behavior. Zimbardo, along with prison experts, a film crew, and a former prison convict dramatically simulated a prison environment both physically and mentally in order to accurately observe the effects of the institution on its participants. This experiment later became known as the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment.
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.
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.
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