Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stanford prison experiment impact
Stanford prison experiment essay
Stanford prison experiment essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stanford prison experiment impact
Gandhi once said “Our thoughts become our words, our words become our actions, our actions become our character, our character becomes our destiny.” That very quote was proven in the 1973 Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo placed an ad in the newspaper asking for young males to par take in his experiment with in return getting paid $15 a day. Out of 75 volunteers 24 were chosen as participants. Zimbardo randomly selected the males to be either the prisoners or the guards. The prison stimulation was kept as close to real life as possible, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The Stanford Prison experiment was to test if people would fall into the roles that they were told to be. The results that followed were astounding, neither Zimbardo or his colleges expected the outcome.
To start the experiment Zimbardo arrested the “so-called” prisoners, he did this without warning and had them taken to their local police station. Once there they were treated as any other prisoner would be, they were fingerprinted, photographed, and booked. The prisoners were then blindfolded and driven to the Stanford University in other words the prison. The University was converted into a very realistic prison complete with barred doors and windows, bare walls, and small cells. Once the prisoners entered the doors they not only lost their freedom but also their own reality. They were stripped naked, deloused, all their personal possessions were taken from them and locked away. The prisoners received a uniform with a number on it, from that point on there referred to only by their number. There were 3 guards to the 9 prisoners, switching off every 8 hours.
Within ...
... middle of paper ...
...to us. As soon as we begin to see ourselves as something else, we begin to act as one.
Works Cited
Marla Popva. (n/a). The Stanford Prison Experiment: History’s Most Contoversial Psychology Study Turns 40. Retrieved from http://brainpickings.org/index.php/
Romesh Ratnesar. (July-August 2011). The Menace Within. Retrieved from http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page Saul McLeod. (2008). Zimbardo-Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved from http://simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html Marla Popva. (n/a). The Stanford Prison Experiment: History’s Most Contoversial Psychology Study Turns 40. Retrieved from http://brainpickings.org/index.php/
Romesh Ratnesar. (July-August 2011). The Menace Within. Retrieved from http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page Saul McLeod. (2008). Zimbardo-Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved from
http://simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
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).
People will do some of the craziest things when any level of force is placed upon them. People will succumb to the pressure of doing things they had never imagined they could do. Just recently people can look at the events of the revolts in Northern Africa and the extremes the people did to over throw their governments, events at Abu Ghraib, and the recent riots in Missouri. When mass hysteria or force from others is involved people will succumb to the situation and may do things they would normally deem immoral.
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.
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
“Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks.
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.
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
P. Alvarez (2015), more ethical issues have been displayed. Primarily, professor Zimbardo was supposed to intervene once the situation degenerated, but he did not in order to analyse the developments of the events. He allowed guards and prisoners to establish a conflictual environment which led to distress. Secondarily, although prisoners had the chance to meet their relatives during the imprisonment, they were strictly forbidden to divulge any information about their life in prison. To encourage them not to complain about the way the experiment was carried on, Zimbardo and his team, previously to the visit, made the prison environment seem pleasant and benign.
Recognizing who we are not is good in knowing who we are, but it is only the first step