In Chapter 7 of The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo uses a form of logos called inductive reasoning as means to present a conclusion based from his observations in the experiment. He present this, when he writes, “Role playing has become role internalization; the actors have assumed the characters and identities of their fictional roles” (Zimbardo). In particular, he draws from specific examples of the participants’ behavior, and concludes the subsequent changes in behavior as the byproduct of role internalization. As described, the participants have become so engrossed in their roles, they have literally become the characters themselves. This fulfills the logical appeal as he uses specific cases in order to illustrate a generalization. Furthermore, …show more content…
He portrays Christiana as a credible and reliable individual, and one who is knowledge in the psychological practice. As a result, any perspective that Christiana may argue for or against can be seen as justifiable and legitimate. Thus, the audience should see Christiana as a valid source for information. In Chapter 8, Zimbardo also uses a form of pathos, when he presents a quote from Christiana, in which he writes, “What you are doing to those boys is a terrible thing!” (Zimbardo). From the above quotation, Christiana’s statement explicates on the ethical and current standing of the experiment. Her words appeal to the emotions of the audience, and how the experiment has caused harm to the well being of the participants. In essence, Christiana’s role in the study allowed Zimbardo to see how unethical his study has become and why it must be …show more content…
He explores a multitude of concepts that revolves around the effects of situational factor on the behavior for an individual or group. In particular, a theory I wanted to explore is Zimbardo’s view on power and the impact of systematic structure. For instance, in Chapter 10, Zimbardo writes that “Power is a concern when people either have a lot of it and need to maintain it or when they have not much power and want to get more. However, power itself becomes a goal for many because of all the resources at the disposal of the powerful” (Zimbardo). In accordance to this view, power is desired by many, and often results in cases of struggles for power. In the instance of the Stanford Prison Experiment ,the struggle for power can be illustrated in the guard’s abusive behavior in order to establish and maintain power, and the prisoner’s rebellion as means to fight back against mistreatment. Beyond the scope of the experiment, an example of power can be seen in the monopoly of the pharmaceutical industry on the cost of prescription drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies create a monopoly on the basis of patent laws over specific drugs. Subsequently, these companies are able to set high prices in order to maximize profit margins. While this may be beneficial for the pharmaceutical industry, patients are
While having lunch at Guantanamo Bay, Kaffee directs a question towards Jessup in an informal way compared to military standards. Jessup immediately becomes angered and demands that Kaffee rephrase his question in a more respectable form because he feels entitled to respect due to his many achievements. Zimbardo would start the conversation off with the matter of a man in a uniform. Being put in a uniform and blatantly told that one is above others and can give orders consequently results in entitlement as seen in Zimbardo’s experiment. As the students are given uniforms and put above the prisoners, Jessup is promoted to the head of Guantanamo Bay and is assured that he is above other soldiers on his compound (Zimbardo 118). Zimbardo would effectively emphasize this parallel association and state how they both resulted in entitlement to command freely what they wanted to command. Nisbett and Ross would agree and logically focus on an additional parallel of the change of environment of the two examples. The students went from a mainly submissive state as a student to professors and then were jumped to a position of such authority and command over the “prisoners.” Likewise, Jessup went from an under ranking officer to the a major commander in the military with lesser officers suddenly at his exposal. Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, M.D. is a psychiatrist that states, “Entitlement resembles a right, something
During the Stanley Milgram Experiment, many subjects were uncomfortable doing the shock, all 40 subjects obeyed up to 300 volts. If the subject asked who was responsible if anything happen to the learner, the experimenter answered “I am responsible”. This gave the subjects a relief and many continued, and making it more authoritarian for each time the subject contacted the experimenter. Zimbardo, on the other hand, believes that social and ideological factors determined how both guards and prisoners behaved, with individuals acting in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own
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.
For this experiment we asked Norma Tapia to interview her to find out where exactly she lies in Kohlberg and Piagets moral stages. She is a seventeen year old high school senior who
Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the prison guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment. "Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class," Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect (Zimbardo, 2007). According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not normally act in their everyday lives or in other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control, became passive and
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading routines. In Romesh Ra...
Zimbardo acts like an eye in the sky knowing what happens to everyone and the outside voice is neutral. Zimbardo does not have limit on what he saying, so this makes him the expert. The voice is more like to fill in the blanks and therefore it reverts the attention to Zimbardo as the voice of knowledge. The guard and the prisoner seem to have a lot to say but in reality they do not, Zimbardo does most of the speaking. They are both included for the emotional aspect of the experiment and make it seem more interesting. Zimbardo also expresses emotions but a lot less than the two emotional appeals and tries to keep a curiosity tone towards the part he explains how he should have not been playing a role in the prison. That’s where we have another logos attempt. He “should have of had a collage looking overseeing the experiment”. Someone who could have ended the experiment or if he was main researcher he should not have had role in
It is only natural to dismiss the idea of our own personal flaws, for who with a healthy sense of self wanders in thoughts of their own insufficiency? The idea of hypocrisy is one that strikes a sensitive nerve to most, and being labeled a hypocrite is something we all strive to avoid. Philip Meyer takes this emotion to the extreme by examining a study done by a social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, involving the effects of discipline. In the essay, "If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably", Meyer takes a look at Milgram's study that mimics the execution of the Jews (among others) during World War II by placing a series of subjects under similar conditions of stress, authority, and obedience. The main theme of this experiment is giving subjects the impression that they are shocking an individual for incorrectly answering a list of questions, but perhaps more interesting is the results that occur from both ends of the research. Meyer's skill in this essay is using both the logical appeal of facts and statistics as well as the pathetic appeal to emotion to get inside the reader's mind in order to inform and dissuade us about our own unscrupulous actions.
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.
Zimbardo, Philip G. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House, 2007. Print.
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
As shown in literature, corruption and the abuse of power is an ongoing discussion. When it comes down to the point where people are being used and abused physically and psychologically, it creates a hostile environment for both the subjects and the abuser. As represented in the two similar texts Lord Of the Flies and “I Only Came to use the Phone”, corrupted authority and abuse of power usually end up leading to the collapse of a society or a world of chaos and violence.
In this essay the main character from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevski, Rodion Raskolnikov, is broken apart to show how Psychoanalysis and Cognitive therapy deal with narcissistic clients. Cognitive therapy focuses on how the client categorizes experiences in his/her head leading them to have a unique set of ideals relating to the world.. This type of thinking will allows us to better understand why Raskolnikov, the main character of Crime and Punishment, views the people around him to be inferior in intellect. Psychoanalysis therapy’s main goal is to insure that patients become aware of themselves and their surroundings by digging deep into their unconscious mind. Both therapies work on making the client change their way of thinking by showing them how to think differently. These two therapies will be used to find a way to understand why Raskolnikov acts in impulsive ways causing others around him trouble.
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading ro...
The book displays two social concepts, conflict theory and structural-functionalism. Conflict theory is defined as “a theory propounded by Karl Marx that claims society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition