Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects stereotypes have on people
Function and dysfunction of conflict
Explain the formation of stereotypes and their effect on behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects stereotypes have on people
We all come into the world is an empty as a blank sheet of paper but we all know that there are certain things that just come natural as we grow. As we are nurtured there are certain things that stimulate our emotions such as our connecting to other human beings. There are certain connection that we get from people or other materialistic things. Yes humans are biologically predispose to be violent. There are certain situations and environments that will trigger certain emotions that will make us humans be violent towards one another. Human society and the relationships that they have amongst each other sometimes create conflict and tension amongst each other. One things for sure there are some things that make humans become more violent than …show more content…
This experiment was supposed to last for 14 days and only last up to six days. This experiment caused the students to show extreme signs of anxiety and depression. Not only did these students suffer from mental issues they also became very aggressive and hostile towards one another the prisons and the guard had this very thick tension between one another. This all became a very bad situation when the guards over use their power. In this cause violence was triggered because of emotion when these students were chose to this experiment they were chosen because they were very laid back with personalities. The men that were the guards began to show violent behavior first because they had control over the prisoners. This experiment we learned that People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study) They were all just fine until they felt as if they were placed in a situation that made them show violent behavior. Therefore, the roles that people play can shape their …show more content…
Most human who sometimes display violent behavior most of the time do it out if or for a reaction. There is no one thing that can tell how or why human are violent, but we know that they are and sometimes it stems from their child and a lot of time it just happens but we know from certain situations such as the one like the Stanford prison experiment that human can be violent. Humans can, and do, engage in a wide variety of aggression. However, being aggressive is not our the first behavior that comes to mind. There is insufficient evidence to argue that we have evolved a suite of specifically aggressive behaviors to succeed in the world. Dr. J Archer says that In fact, it is largely our abilities to get along and to negotiate complex social problems, with and without aggression, that make humans one of the most successful species on this planet. If you really want to think deeply about aggression, violence, abuse, warfare, and human
Do you believe violence is rooted into human nature?
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.
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 this article two experiments were mentioned; the Milgram's Experiment and the Stanford Experiment supporting that “people conform passively and unthinkingly to both the instructions and the roles that authorities provide, however malevolent these may be”. However, recently, the consensus of the two experiments had been challenged by the work of social identity theorizing. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Zimbardo. This experiment included a group of students who were “randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners”. It was conducted in a mock prison at the Stanford Psychology Department. Prisoners were abused, humiliated, and undergone psychological torture. In the experiment the guards played a very authoritarian
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.
15 men participated in The BBC Prison Study. At the beginning of the experiment there was a possibility for the prisoners to be promoted to guards, therefore, prisoners did not identify with their group. After 3 days, prisoners started to work together, they noticed that guards could not agree on decisions and prisoners overthrown guards. Guard groups had a deviant – the over-disciplined guard. Then everyone came up with an idea of equality, but that did not work either and the experiment was stopped. This experiment’s conclusions differ from Stanford’s Experiment and therefore it opened up a discussion once
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...
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.
An experiment by Zimbardo provided insight on how a regular person changes roles when placed within a specific social setting. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Zimbardo strictly on a volunteer basis “to study the process by which prisoners and guards ”learn” to become compliant and authoritarian (732).” The study was intended to be done over a two week period however the volunteers became so caught up in being a prisoner or a guard that it was actually cut short. Both prisoners and guards jumped immediately into the roles given. The guards set out to prove their superiority and the prisoners after a brief attempt to overthrow the guards fell into obedience. Guard A originally states that he is a “pacifist and nonaggressive”, but by day three he portrays just the characteristics he claims to have none of (Zimbardo 741). The guards in the experiment were told to keep the prisoners in-line, they did so to their own accord. The prisoners in the experiment also in the end gave in to the rules of the authoritarian figures. Both the guards and the prisoners did what they felt they needed to do to survive throughout the experiment. So even though t...
Stanford Prison experiment demonstrated the psychology of police brutality. In the experiment, normal college students who acted like guardians were given clothes, sticks and sun glasses.They easily adjusted their roles and began humiliating , abusing the prisoners. Mean while the prisoners became submissive. Consequences of Stanford Prison experiment showed us how quickly normal people can become aggressive and act violently when they are given authority over others. Furthermore the experiment displayed the effects of the uniform, jobs and handcuffs. In conclusion just like Stanford Experiment showed, the more authority is given to police , the more they will be aggressive. We can see this in riots and protests. If government gives authorization
There are many views as to whether video game violence causes children to behave violently. Many children play violent games because that is what most people are playing and they feel that they need to do so as well. Violence is not only in video games but also in all other forms of media because that is what sells and what will make entertainment companies more money.
The Prison Simulation, studied by Haney, Banks & Zimbardo is quite impressive as to how extensive the study actually is. Due to lack of length in this paper the synopsis dealing with this study will be brief. The experiment consisted of 24 voluntary men who were divided into two groups: Guards and Inmates. Both groups were given uniforms to encourage their roles in the prison scenario. The subjects immediately began to take on rolls as to how they thought they should act. The prison had a much greater impact on all persons than could have been anticipated. The study was supposed to last 14 days, but due to extreme emotional depression the study ended after 6 days. In the spring of 1998, my Law a...
Ordinary people can be violent as an act of self defense. Take Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs in which safety comes in as the second fundamental need following the physiological needs.Safety is crucial to the lives of the people and therefore needs to be obtained all the time. If humans aren’t safe, they tend to forget everything that comes after that, such as love, esteem, etc. In the study of the Hierarchy of needs, Gwayne states that “people who are deprived of lower needs such as safety may defend themselves by violent means. (Gwayne, 1999) This explains that violence comes in necessary because it is the initial reaction on
Some believe it’s biological, we are born with an intrinsic need for violence. Others believe it’s an unexpected by-product of society. Without being physically present during the pre-civilization era we can’t be certain of the answer. But using Ockham’s razor, a problem solving method whose main principle involves choosing the answer with the fewest assumptions, and archeological findings we can deduce that people have been killing each other since the dawn of man. Several discoveries of cave paintings indicating acts of violence towards one another and excavated remains support this hypothesis. But unlike conflicts in the civilization era, these were not large organized states fighting each other. Most of these killings occurred during raids. During these times, the main purpose of prehistoric people were to pass their genetics and in order to accomplish this task they needed to protect their own kin. Altercation were a response to the lack of resources i.e. food. In order to get this they needed to take it from other tribes. Conflict was an evolutionary necessity. Today, because of advances in modern science and technology food and other resources are more readily available. So why do we still
To begin, many people in todays society are violent. If you take a step back and analyze our civilization, you will notice the violence humans have towards other humans; humans that are just like themselves. But why this violence is arising? Throughout our childhood we tend to get the indication violence is the easiest way to solve our problems with other people. We think that if we just "beat someone up" we will be superior over that individual. Or if we punch and kick them, they will no longer bother you. That is not the way it is, in reality, these actions just provoke more anger and lead to additional violence and