The Film “The Stanford prison experiment” demonstrates evil in 3 specific ways: evil in authority, the Lucifer effect and mob mentality. All 3 of these types of evil can be examined throughout the film through the relationship of the guards and the prisoners. Guards represent evil in authority and mob mentality by their uniformity which made them represent power and authority over the prisoners, Guards also show the Lucifer effect as they start very easy going but become very brute near the end. The prisoners show us the mob mentality type of evil by rebelling against the guards and then later on complying with them. Evil in authority and mob mentality were shown by the guards when they were all given sunglasses and the same uniform to represent …show more content…
The guards also developed the mentality that they could make the prisoner do what they want and that they were like puppets. The mob mentality of the guards was not taken lightly by the prisoners, that same mob mentality of the guards lead the prisoners to also develop a mob mentality that they wanted to make the guard's jobs as hard as they could by starting a rebellion. In the climax of the film, one guard picks on prisoner 8612 which lead 8612 to reach his limit and attack the guard out of anger, the guard that was attacked acted on sheer instinct and hit prisoner 8612 which broke Phillip Zimbardo’s one and only rule. This lead to an uprising and rebellion from the prisoners, the prisoners all developed a plan to escape and some of the prisoner were even barricading themselves in their own cells. (The Stanford …show more content…
After the guards conceived that Zimbardo was not going to do anything to interfere with this experiment and was only going observe, they abused their authority and power and often became very physical with the prisoners and treated them as puppets that they can control. This authority and power ended up changing the way the guards engaged with the prisoners by making the guards more enforced which is different from how they treated the prisoners in the beginning of the film .(The Stanford prison experiment) The guards in the beginning of the film were not as harsh and respected that the prisoners were actual people, near the end of the film the prisoners were perceived as more of puppets to the guards, the guards became monsters as they tried to play the role of god in this prison, this relates to the Lucifer effect because it shows how the guards made the transition from good to evil and just as Lucifer wanted to play god, they all wanted authority and power but ended up becoming corrupt in the process of trying to obtain it without realizing it. The rebellion of the prisoners lead the guards to develop the Lucifer effect and act more harsh towards them, this also lead to the prisoners all having the mob mentality that they needed to comply with all the request of the guards to avoid
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 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.
By the flip of a coin, 12 members were assigned to act as prison guards and the other 12 members were assigned to act as the prisoners. According to the source Stanford Prison Experiment it states, “The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards.” The assigned guards were free at will, to do what they believed what needed to be done to keep order within the prison walls. The experiment contained three different types of guards that acted out in the experiment. One-third of...
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
The prisoners were given prison uniforms and number. The prisoners were subjected to numbers over their names and required to remember their names as ordered by the guards. When they reached the prison, they were blindfolded, stripped naked and forced to wear a dress as humiliation and entertainment
He observed many circumstances where the guards went too far, which began to confirm his hypothesis. Since the guards were viewed as authority
1. What happened in this film was a by-product of structural functionalism, behavioural psychology and anomic suicide. In structural functionalism, each institution in the society has a specific job or role to play and each role has a status attached to it. This can be presented in the film as the warden has full control of what happens in the prison and order the prison guards (who is below the warden) and the prisoners are below prison guards. There is a lot of corruption in these roles in the movie, the warden was corrupt because no one was there questioning his behaviour so he was able to get away with what he wanted to. The prison guards severely beat the prisons and sometimes killed them and were able to get away with it because they knew
...ion people based on the orders of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. In reference to the two situations, one participant of the study said that “anybody can be a guard, but not every one becomes sadistic.” This saying can be applied to real life situations, especially that of the New Jersey incident.
...ed 6 million people based on the orders of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. In reference to the two situations, one participant of the study said that “anybody can be a guard, but not every one becomes sadistic.” This saying can be applied to real life situations, especially that of the New Jersey incident.
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.
Volunteers were given diagnostic interviews and personality test prior to the experiment in order to eliminate confounding variables such as (psychological problems, medical disabilities, drug abuse etc...) Psychologist used random assignment which helped ensure that any differences between and within the groups are not systematic at the outset of the experiment. A group of 24 college students were divided into two groups’ guards and prisoners by flipping a coin. The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks but because of the extreme abusive/ submissive behaviors and unethical implications it was concluded after 6 days. The Stanford Prison Experiment is believed to be evidence that “with a little nudge, we could all become tyrants”.
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.
I think that the main reason the “good guards” did not object to the tougher guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment was because their brutal actions were not directed towards them, and they did not want to confront
Growing up we are often led to believe that we are a product of our own environment, but what happens to us when we are taken out of our environment and put in that of one with the presence of evil? In the summer of 1971 at Stanford University, three psychologists by the name of Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo, conducted a relatively simple experiment to test the question: what happens when you put ordinary people in positions of power? The experiment transformed a modern college and modern college students into “prisoners” or “guards” in a mock prison. The two week experiment was quickly shortened to a mere six days. The study found that when you put people into an environment as such they can quickly take on these newly assigned