More handpicked essays just for you.
Stanford prison experiment social psychology
Argumentative text essay
Stanford prison experiment behaviorism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1971, a social psychologist, Philip G. Zimbardo was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the inhuman personalities of the guards, or had more to do with the prison environment. Zimbardo thought of creating a simulated prison where he could see if it was the prison environment or inhuman personalities of the guards that caused their violence. He put up an ad for any college student, who wanted to make 15 dollars a day during the two week experiment, to stop by and get interviewed for the roles in the experiment. Out of the applicants they randomly picked eleven guards and ten prisoners and started what we now know it as the Stanford Prison Experiment. It ended in six days …show more content…
On one of the official websites of the Stanford Prison Experiment that Zimbardo kept it up to date, shared in his story.
…Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us – to fool us into releasing him.
This prisoner just wanted out because he couldn’t handle the psychological and physical abuse. You would think if you wanted out of an experiment then you should be able to walk out without trying to fight and plead your case on why they should release you. Instead of doing a simulated prison, Zimbardo started believing it was a real prison trying to keep all of his prisoners, not because they were bad but because he didn’t want to start over the experiment on a new prisoner. You could argue that Zimbardo was striving to keep the same prisoners to have a better result in his experiment, and by letting him go or any other prisoners go it would destroy his experiment and lose all that money. They ended up releasing prisoner #8612 but he had to suffer for a while before Zimbardo realized the prisoner wasn’t
…show more content…
He knew it too, but he loved psychology more than he cared about the safety of the participants. Plus, this breakthrough was history making, and he felt like it was good to put the college students through that ordeal for the sake of psychology. Sean shared in his article, “Zimbardo did conduct debriefing sessions [on the prisoners and guards] for several years afterwards and concluded they were no lasting negative effects.” That said I still am strongly agreeing it was unethical even if the participants didn’t suffer any psychological damage in the long run. You can’t treat people like a stray dog especially in a simulated prison that was worse than any prison in the U.S
Things have gotten too out of hand, and situations will get much worse. Ethically speaking, Zimbardo made the right call because if the experiment continues, it would have been detrimental to the prisoner’s psyche. Zimbardo explains the event that occurred by stating, “The power of this situation ran swiftly and deeply through most of those on this exploratory ship of human nature. Only a few 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 the noble class (171).” By saying this, Zimbardo is fully aware that he let things get out of hand too
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.
Every participant came from a relatively good background, with a college education, a clean legal record, and strong community ties because Zimbardo hypothesized that a good person could perform evil acts if they were given the opportunity. In the Stanford Prison experiment, Zimbardo’s hypothesis was reflected very clearly. The guards did absolutely terrible things to the prisoners, but in the end, the guards were good people, the situation stimulated bad ideas and evil
A local newspaper ad reached out for volunteers to participate in a Psychological study, created by Philip G. Zimbardo and his research team, which sounded interesting for many individuals. Was it the best option to follow through with it? Volunteers were given a promise of being paid fifteen dollars a day of the study. Multiple members probably considered this a once in a life time event that could result in quick, easy money. Many may have heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment, but may not have been aware of the scars that it left upon the participants. Taking a deeper look into the study and the impacted outcomes on individuals will be elaborated on (Stanford Prison Experiment).
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
Now sure, the Stanford prison guards didn’t go that far as the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib but the torture and abuse towards the prisoners became worse by the day indicating they could have gone as far as Abu Ghraib. However, in both cases there are unusual punishments and cruelty. This was due to the authority allowing it, ordering it, just didn’t care or didn’t know. Like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo didn’t do anything to stop the abuses at the mock prison but allowed it.
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.
Imagine that king have the power the control everything, and his man’s word can change his decision to treat his citizens. King will do everything to make himself satisfied, and people have no right than listen to what he say. Just as the King has the authority to control people; guards can do whatever they want to the prisoner, even though it will hurt them. In the movie, Zimbardo give power to the guards to use force to control prisoner, and wear sunglass and uniform to show their power against prisoner. Since the guard hide their feeling with the sunglasses, they keep on punish the prisoners, and take away their bed. Prisoners start to feel harsh to live in this place and want to protest, in order to get their right. It can clearly show that guards’ authority change their personality and they keep on torture these prisoners. In addition, living in a place which has no daylight and suffers every day, prisoners started to mental break down, and lose sense of time. Living without freedom and control by other will really affect prisoners’
Gray, P. (October , 2013 19). Why zimbardo’s prison experiment isn’t in my textbook the results of the famous stanford prison experiment have a trivial explanation. Retrieved from
In August of 1971, American psychologist, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University studying the behavioral and psychological consequences of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. He wanted to observe how situational forces impacted human behavior. Zimbardo, along with prison experts, a film crew, and a former prison convict dramatically simulated a prison environment both physically and mentally in order to accurately observe the effects of the institution on its participants. This experiment later became known as the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment.
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.
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
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
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.