More handpicked essays just for you.
The critique of the Stanford prison experiment
Consequences of the Stanford prison experiment
The stanford prison experiment flashcards
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The critique of the Stanford prison experiment
Factors that affect good people developing bad behavior is too much power and generalizing a group. In the Stanford Experiment the guards had the power to do what was necessary to maintain order in the prison. The psychologist never told them what they could and couldn’t do to the prisoners. This reminds me of when I was younger and my parents would put me in charge of my sister when they had to leave the house. I thought that I could tell her what to do and she had to listen to me because i’m in charge. This is the same for the guards in the experiment, no one was telling them how to discipline the prisoners so they thought they could make them do whatever they wanted them to do and they would get away with it. Another factor that affects
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
You may have always wondered if there was a correlation between social behaviour and biological functioning. At the back of my mind I am reminded of the almighty biblical “freewill” as a tool to readjust the resultant antisocial behaviour. With the human species it is difficult to assume 100% causal relationship hence it is safe to look at mediating factors that result in a person's antisocial behaviour. Barnes et al (2016) suggests that if one is to gain a greater understanding of Antisocial behaviours one must look at several domains and they include Evolutionary criminology, Biological criminology, Behaviour genetics, Molecular genetics and Neurocriminology. However, on the predictive side, increasingly, studies are examining whether the
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.
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 ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
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.
It is only corrupt institutions that make them venal,” human nature is neutral, but seeing cruelty can negatively impact person’s psyche. Modern life offers plenty of various examples supporting the idea. People returning from wars, for instance, some American soldiers who came back to their homes from Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, could not sometimes forget the horrors of the war that continued constantly torturing their mind. Society also did not pay enough attention to their problems and was not supportive enough, so they were quite likely to become aggressive or, on the contrary, close themselves from the outside world and look for relief in alcohol or drugs. However, it does not tell anything about their “basically bad” nature, but only proves that the fact that pain and suffering are very powerful negative factors significantly damaging the human psyche. Wells shows that when the narrator, Pendrick, returns to England, he cannot recover from shock and becomes afraid of people, so he goes to the countryside where he may devote his life to science and experiments (161). The examples of American soldiers and Pendrick show that people turn to be immoral because of social ignorance. So, I believe that people have bad behaviors because of negative outside forces. They do not have constant personalities, because they can be changed easily by their
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
The experiment took ordinary college students and had some agree to be prisoners and the rest would be guards for the prisoners. Both groups received no training on what to do or act like. They had to get all of their knowledge of what to do from outside sources, such as television and movies. The guards were given uniforms and night sticks and told to act like an ordinary guard would. The prisoners were treated like normal criminals. They were finger printed and booked, after that they were told to put on prison uniforms and then they were thrown into the slammer (in this case a simulated cellblock in the basement was used). All of the participants in this experiment at first were thought to be similar in behavior but after one week, all of that changed. The prisoners became "passive, dependent, and helpless." The guards on the other hand were the exact opposite. They became "aggressive and abusive within the prison, insulting and bullying the prisoners."
Deviance can be describes as a departure from social norms, it could be beliefs rather than actual behavior, and what is considered deviant can vary throughout societies. Furthermore, evil acts are considered deviant, but deviant acts are not always considered evil. With these facts, my mindset of what deviant behavior was changed, from an association of deviant equaling bad to deviant equaling something abnormal and not necessarily a bad thing. Also, like the paragraph above, my hypothesis about people being born good or evil was further debunked with the slide describing how deviance can vary and things that may cause and effect deviant behavior. Some of these things include circumstances, time, age, and mental health of a person. This statement shows that besides the actual person’s choices, outside forces can help deter or enhance one’s deviant behavior. Also, who the person surrounds themselves with is a catalyst for positive or negative deviance. Ultimately, the notes for this chapter was a great help in me understanding the basic knowledge of deviance and it gave me clearer grasp of what external or internal factors can or cannot affect one’s deviant
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
Morals are what distinguish humans from other animals. People are capable of understanding the complex network of emotions and relationships between each other and making choices that benefit themselves as well as others. However, the greatest phenomenon in human psychology is why people are also capable of doing bad things. We used to believe that some people are inherently bad. However, in recent history, the Zimbardo uncovered that in most cases, evil is "rarely . . . done by ‘bad apples' or rogues" (Aron). Philip Zimbardo's research reveals that good people are capable of doing bad things through conformity, blind obedience, and anonymity; these ideas can be proven by looking back at our history.
The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest and most controversial issues in psychology. The debate is concerned with whether heredity or the environment most impacts human psychological development. So, which possesses a more substantial role in creating a villain? Some may state that a villain is born inherently evil in their nature. However, many studies in sociology and psychology suggest an opposing view; almost any of us can be nurtured into an evil being. People often find themselves being nurtured through the influence of social roles. Social Roles refer to the expectations, responsibilities, and behaviors we adopt in certain situations. The ideas for expected or “normal” behavior are reinforced both by the individual and
Human beings are clever creatures. This is proven in everyday life, but they also have a horrible side. People aren’t necessarily evil by choice, but rather are, whether they want to be or not. Certain traits can cause this change in other people. Without these traits, humans wouldn’t be as bad as they are now, but because these traits do exist, humans behave without truly thinking of the long-term effects, or of the affect they have on other people’s lives.