Stanford Prison Experiment
In 1971 an experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment took place to study the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or guard induced into stressful situations. The questioning of the experiment was this: What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does their humanity win over evil or does evil triumph? Social psychology professor Phillip G. Zimbardo was the opposing psychologist who headed the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo based his social interest off of the Milgram experiment; the experiment was carried out by psychologist Stanley Milgram who conducted an experiment by focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Zimbardo used the Milgram experiment
…show more content…
as a guide line to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo proceeded by placing an ad in request to anyone who wanted to participate in the experiment, he agreed to pay 15 dollars a day as payment.
Once he gathered participants he made them take a test to screen out anyone who had any psychological abnormalities. After Zimbardo collected all his volunteers he proceeded with the experiment. The selected guards brought down the prisoners blindfolded to the basement of Stanford university where they altered the room to make it look as if it was really a prison. The guards began to de-cloth the prisoners and started making fun of their genitals, which Zimbardo referred it as a degradation process. By the second day things began to stir up in the prison, the guards found that multiple prisoners barricaded themselves in their room using their beds. Prisoner 8612 was looked at as an infectious ring leader who persuaded the others to follow in his footsteps, as punishment prisoner 8612 was placed in solitary confinement. Soon after the prisoners began to degrade the cops by verbally abusing them directly, by doing this the guards felt as if they needed to provide more authority towards the prisoners. The guards began by waking the prisoners up in the middle of the night making them do medial tasks like cleaning toilets with their bare hands, exercises, and verbally harassing them. Prisoner 8612 finally had enough of the guard’s harassment and told Zimbardo that he no longer wanted to be involved with the …show more content…
experiment. Instead of Zimbardo responding to prisoner 8612 through the views of a psychologist he answered as the prison super intendent. At this moment in time Zimbardo was effected by the experiment making his judgment on situations clouded. He asked prisoner 8612 if he could provide information about what is happening within the prison, at the time prisoner 8612’s mentality is on the brink of breaking down. Zimbardo offered him a resolution but in the end he said you could still leave, doing this made prisoner 8612 believe he could leave at all. Doug Korpi also known as prisoner 8612 became distressed and made myself believe if he acted crazy he would be set free. Eventually he was released and roomers were spread saying prisoner 8612 was returning with liberators to release them from prison. Zimbardo began to dive even deeper into the experiment causing him to become paranoid of the so called liberators. The prison was dismantled and moved into a separate room. Zimbardo waited outside expecting prisoner 8612 to arrive with the liberators, instead Zimbardo was approached by another psychologist asking questions about the purpose of the experiment. By the 4th day the guards took their frustration out again on the prisoners, forming a new rebellious leader 819. Bracketing himself if his room he no longer wanted to participate in the experiment and refused to get out. The guards continued to degrade each prisoner and their mental state was beginning to develop making them believe they are losing their identity. This truly showed how much power corrupts, and how difficult it is for the victims of abuse to stand up for themselves. By the end of the 5th day four more prisoners finally broke down and were released. Professor Christina Maslach was the breaking point for the experiment, when she visited Zimbardo’s study and made a point to his attention that when he was doing to these young men was wrong. Zimbardo ended the experiment the very next day, he failed to realize he could be both warden and stay objective as a psychologist which caused the experiment to turn out the way it did. The Bystander Effect The Bystander effect follows as this: “when you are in a larger crowd you are less likely to receive aid and assistance”. This idea was derived from a tragedy that took place March 13th 1964, Queens, NY. A twenty-eight-year-old girl named Catherine Genovese was gruesomely murdered. There were people around who heard miss Genovese crying for help but no one answered. NY times then posted an article saying “37 WHO SAW MUDER DIDN’T CALL THE POLICE”. Psychologists began to worry about this strange occurrence and began to research it, one of the famous studies was ran by John Darley and Bibb Latané. First, they recruited university students and told them that they will be participating in a discussion about personal problems. Each participant will be talking to other participants of varying number in a discussion group but each of the participants has separate rooms. This conversation will take place over microphones and speakers just so the participants will not be able to physically see the other participants that they are talking to. The topic upon which the conversations will revolve is their college lives. Each participant will be given two minutes to speak during their turn. All the microphones of other participants will be turned off. The subject is unaware that all the voices that he will hear are all pre-recorded voices. The number of voices that the subject will be 'talking to' depends on the treatment condition that he is in. There are five treatment conditions. First is a solo, one-on-one conversation and the last is a group of six participants (1 subject and 5 pre-recorded voices). One of the pre-recorded voices is that of an epileptic student who is having seizures. The voice will first confess to the group that he is prone to seizures and it could be life-threatening during its first turn. During its second turn, the seizure will start. The real subject can only hear the event and he cannot see the actual participant who is having the seizures. The actual response that the experimenters will be measuring during this event is the time it will take for the subject to stand up, leave the room, look for the experimenters and ask for help. "I'm... I'm having a fit... I... I think I'm... help me... I... I can't... Oh my God... err... if someone can just help me out here... I... I... can't breathe p-p-properly... I'm feeling... I'm going to d-d-die if…". This was information pulled from the Bystander Apathy journal compiled together to research the findings of the outcome. In conclusion the Bystander effect influences everyone’s lives every day, to overcome these obstacles we must come together as a community, instead of waiting for someone to respond be the first to reach out. Unfortunately, we as humans do not think this way, sitting in uncertainty seems to always cloud our judgment. It is up to you to make the difference, when you do others will follow. The Steubenville Rape Case August 11, 2012 in a small town on the Eastern border of Ohio known as Steubenville; where two high school football players are accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl.
The uproar of this case caused activists to separate the small town into opposing sides. Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter defended the alleged rape victim in court arguing the fact that the defendant was substantially impaired, so she was unable to resist and give consent. Beyond the courts control social media took a play into stirring up the facts of the night in question. The two defendants Trent Mays, 17, and Ma'lik Richmond, 16 were defended and accusesed through videos and photos released showing both alleged rapists “carrying the alleged victims body” while she was unconscious. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine was conflicted in trying to figure out the truth behind the story. Ma'lik Richmond continued to plead his innocence, he stated the victim was awake and willing to consent. An ABC news reporter spoke with Ma’lik about the photo arising suspicion about him and Trent Mays carrying the victim out. Ma’lik spoke on his behave just saying the photo was just a “in the moment funny thing to do”. Ma’lik’s attorney, Walter Maddison explained that the photo does not have proof that she was unconscious do to the fact she was able to “unlock her phone” later on that night. Brian Duncan which is Trent Mays’ attorney stated that they even have witnesses who would testify to prove the photo was just a
joke. Both the boys attorney’s try to change the minds of everyone by explain she was in fact conscious and responsive. On March 17, 2013, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond were convicted of rape after the trial judge found they had used their fingers to digitally penetrate the victim's vagina and that it was impossible for the incapacitated girl to have given consent. This is a perfect link to the bystander effect that I wrote about above. Everyone knew something was happening yet no one chose to reach out and help. Why? Because we lack the psychological understanding of just how powerful our words and actions can be. *Sorry if this is not my greatest work. I am still adjusting to my time zone. Im 8 ½ hours ahead of North Carolina. Thank you again for being an awesome teacher, you’re the only one out of all my teachers that has left positive and influential notes to boost the moral of their students. It’s just like the Bystander effect, more teachers need to reach out and lead like you.
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.
Every participant came from a relatively good background, with a college education, a clean legal record, and strong community ties because Zimbardo hypothesized that a good person could perform evil acts if they were given the opportunity. In the Stanford Prison experiment, Zimbardo’s hypothesis was reflected very clearly. The guards did absolutely terrible things to the prisoners, but in the end, the guards were good people, the situation stimulated bad ideas and evil
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.
Milgram and Zimbardo are classified in the same category as behaviorists. Although they are locked in the same category, they are famously known for very different experiments that have somewhat of the same idea. Zimbardo is widely known for his Stanford prison experiment, while Milgram is known for obedience to authority. The goal of both experiments was to prove like Haney has said that evil is most generally generated through evil situations. Zimbardo and Milgram’s experiments are examples of Psychological situationism, which is pretty important in the work of social psychology. Salamucha finds that Milgram and Zimbardo’s work demonstrates that, sometimes, the power of situations can be overpowering.
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.
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
How would you act if you were locked up in a concentration camp and the guards made you suffer? If I were in there, I would listen to the guards because I want less suffered. In addition, I would not try to stand out in the crowed to receive punishment by the guards. In the Movie, The Stanford Prison Experiment, students were split to be two group, guards and prisoner. In the oppressive environment and authority to the guards, the guards were out of control, and they kept on punish prisoner until they broke down. The prisoners were treated as less than human, and they won’t get what they need. Furthermore, these guards will act more aggressive every day to try to force the prisoner to conform. In the film The Stanford Prisoner Experiment, the guards become immoral because they got
In the summer of 1971, at Stanford University, Philip G. Zimbardo developed The Stanford Prison Experiment to test his theory on the Lucifer Effect. The idea that good people can become evil when placed into an atrocious situation or a position of authority over others. For this experiment they set up a simulation prison in a corridor of Stanford University, they collected 24 average, male, volunteer, undergraduates who were all tested previously for psychological abnormalities, and split them up into two groups, guards and prisoners (Stanford Prison Experiment) All guards wore identical khaki uniforms and aviator shades to de-individualize them and hide their emotions. Also, they had been given no training or instruction on how to be a prison guard, and were given free reign to do whatever was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison. Whereas prisoners were forced to wear thin paper gowns with nothing underneath to humiliate them, and a metal chain on their ankle to constantly remind the prisoners of the...
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.
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.
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
The Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo was a psychology professor at Stanford University who was interested in finding out what happens if we “put the good people in an evil place”. He questioned whether the situation outside one's control (the institution) or inside of an individual (attitude, belief, values) allows one to rise above a negative environment. To test this he set up a study he called the “Stanford Prison Experiment” which is now known as one of the most notorious experiments. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate “how readily people would conform to the role of a prisoner and guard in a role playing experience that stimulated prison life”.