More handpicked essays just for you.
How the media affects public opinion
Media influence on public opinion
Stanford prison experiment summary essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Stanford Prison Experiment It’s August 17th, 1971. A young Stanford student in Palo Alto is spending time with his family when the police knock on the door. A family member answers, and through the door steps the local police, armed with an arrest warrant. They arrest this Stanford student in front of his family and parade him out the front door in sight of his neighbors for armed robbery and burglary, cuffing him and putting him in the back of a squad car. The offender is transported to the local police station, where he is booked and fingerprinted before being moved to a holding cell. After some time he is pulled from his cell and transported to his final destination – not just any prison, but Stanford County Prison. He is in fact not …show more content…
Like Zimbardo, Milgram invited participants to take part in a memory study through a newspaper ad. When the participants arrived they were introduced to a supposed fellow participant who was in fact a plant and part of the experiment. Both were asked by a man in a white coat which of them would like to be the teacher, and which would like to be the learner. The participant would unknowingly always be chosen to be the teacher. The teacher was then made to strap the learner into an electric chair, then told by the man in the white coat to secure nodes to the learner’s body that would act as a conduit for electricity to flow from the teacher’s switch to the learner’s body. The teacher was then led into a separate room and was only allowed to communicate with the learner through an intercom system, preventing any visual communication or observation. The experiment called for the teacher to recite words to the learner in a specific order. The learner would then recite them back perfectly, or suffer the consequences of an electric shock with any mistake made. All would go well the first few rounds; the teacher reciting the words, the learner reciting them back, a rhythmic sort of contentment developing between them. Finally, however, the learner would inevitably make a mistake. This is …show more content…
The prison experiment was meant to function in much the same way, the prevailing idea being that with no direction, the guards would become the teachers and begin to wield their inherent authority and power over the prisoners, or learners. To essentially prepare both sides for the roles they would play in the prison, Zimbardo instructed the guards to strip the prisoners naked on arrival to the prison before being fitted with chains and given a simple one piece prison gown to wear, with no underwear provided. This humiliation perpetrated by the guards and accepted by the prisoners set the tone for the experiment. The guards wore khaki pants and official looking uniforms, were geared with night sticks and whistles and as a finishing touch wore mirrored sunglasses to hide their eyes from prisoners. (Konnikova, 1) The guards worked in shifts of 8 hours and maintained constant watch on the prisoners. All of this created a sense of authority for the guards both in the eyes of the prisoners as well as their
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
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.
By the flip of a coin, 12 members were assigned to act as prison guards and the other 12 members were assigned to act as the prisoners. According to the source Stanford Prison Experiment it states, “The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards.” The assigned guards were free at will, to do what they believed what needed to be done to keep order within the prison walls. The experiment contained three different types of guards that acted out in the experiment. One-third of...
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
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.
Before commencing the study all participants were briefed on the roles pertaining to the experiment without actually being assigned roles. Once roles were determined and assigned each participant was given specific instruction to their roles whether it be the role of the Guard or Prisoner. The group assigned to the prisoner role were greater in number and were instructed to be available at a predetermined time, this was done to maintain the reality of the simulation. The prisoners were arrested and escorted by real-life law enforcement officials and processed as any detainee would be in a real situation. Upon completing the processing part of the experiment the students were then transferred to the simulated prison, which was housed in the basement of the university, and assigned identifying numbers, given demeaning clothing as uniform and placed in barren cells with no personalized
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.
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.
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.
These strict guidelines along with over 10 others helped shape the prison. The guards at the beginning of the experiment formed these guidelines. Their authority, from the start, was absolute. They did not allow prisoners to speak, eat or even use the restroom without permission. Sometimes, unimaginably, the inmates were not granted permission. Day one of the experiment was full of confusion and learning for everyone involved. The events
... this was a mock prison ( Zimbardo 36). The lack of clear disobedience to authority needed, resulted in this being one of the most controversial experiments of our time, leaving behind an example of blind obedience and negative results.
The original study took place at Yale University. Milgram came up with an advertisement to gain participants to contribute to his study. He offered them four dollars and told them it was a study about memory. Three people took place during each experiment. The three subjects were the experimenter the “learner” and the “teacher”. The experimenter was a dressed as a biology teacher and the “learner” was trained to act out his role. Of the three participants the teacher was only person that didn’t know about the actual study. The “teacher” and the “learner” were placed in separate rooms so that they were unable to see one another. The teacher’s role was to ask the “learner” a number of questions and punish the “learner”” for answering incorrectly. The “teacher” was advised to issue a shock to the “learner” each time he answered incorrectly. The participant was also told to administer +15-volts of shock for each additional question answered incorrectly.
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.