Introduction Psychology is an abstract scientific discipline that coherently explores the behaviour of individuals and their mental processes (Whetham, et al., 2003). Past studies have been conducted by psychologists to understand and make comparisons between these behaviours and mental processes that the individuals pose. These studies require test subjects therefore, ethics play a major role in ensuring that the participants are not impacted by the study (Whetham, et al., 2003). Ethics are moral principles that are developed to ensure rights and responsibilities of the psychologist are retained throughout the research design (BBC UK, 2014). Over the last 100 years, ethics have been modified to be conveyed most effectively. Therefore, this The study was conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University from 14th through to 20th in August 1971, to investigate the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. This experiment provided an insight into prison life when Zimbardo grouped twenty-four participants with assigned roles of the prison guard and prisoner. Zimbardo’s experiment shares similarities with the above Milgram’s study as both of them investigate the effect of superiority on obedience. In addition, the guards adapted to their roles by enforcing authoritarian measures and producing extremities that led to the psychological torture of the prisoners. The experiment ended early after only six days due to the intervention of psychologist, Christina Maslach, after witnessing the appalling situation in the Stanford Mock Prison. The significance of this study in the field of psychology was high because it demonstrated the psychological effect of what occurs when moral guidelines are not considered. The positive impact of this research is allowing more psychologists to understand the importance of using ethical frameworks to ensure that the participants are least affected by the study. During this study, many psychological ethics were breached. One ethical principle was ‘the harm to participants’ because they were physically, sexually and psychologically abused during the six days. The According to Jeremy Stevenson, a clinical PhD student in the area of post-traumatic stress at Flinders University (2016), “It will be harder to get ethical approval in the future”. This quote provides evidence that in the future the ethical guidelines will become stricter to maintain responsibilities of the researcher in ensuring that the participant is not harmed, distressed and can withdraw at any point. Another clinical PhD student in the area of social anxiety, Marja Elizabeth (2016) added: “There is a low and high-risk chart that needed to be completed before studies can be done”. This addition provides further enrichment on the modification of ethics in the future. Therefore, in the future, ethics will more likely to become an essential part of conducting any research using animals and humans as test
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.
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.
The study was based in a mock prison, and the main purpose of the study was to see if the participants would conform to their assigned roles (Haslam, 2014). As the experiment went on the participants reacted to their roles in predict, and unpredicted ways. The “prison guards” began to believe they were indeed in that role, and would become physical with the “prisoners”. The mental being of the prisoner participant’s began to diminish, and the experiment was then forced to finish before completion. This experiment shows how quickly the behaviors conformed to their roles, and caused the experiment to become unethical due to the fact the participants were than facing physical and mental harm as a result. Again we see here, the Stanford students conforming to an authoritarian role, and not following their own personal morals almost as if they were brainwashed into their new
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.
Zimbardos Experiment was designed to discover how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated being in prison. He wanted to discover whether guards in American prisons had sadistic qualities or whether it was the role and environment that impacted their behaviour. In order
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...
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...
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.
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.
The debate over prison systems in the United States has been a long controversy. The question as to; if stuffing a facility full with convicted criminals to be guarded by a flock of civilian employees will foster progress. But a main factor that contributes, is the line between guard and civilian. A guard, while trained, is not a military personal. The power given to them over the lives of others when they are simply a citizen is not normal for everyday citizens. This is one of the things Dr. Phillip Zimbardo wanted to test in his prison experiment at Stanford University, working on staff. Zimbardo created a mock prison in the basement, drawing psychologically fit young gentlemen to see what would happen. In a short
In 1971 a group of researchers came together headed by a Stanford University psychologist named Philip Zimbardo performed an experiment called The Stanford Prison Experiment. Using a mock prison setting in the basement of one of the campus buildings at Stanford University, with young college students roleplaying as either a prisoner or guard to determine the psychological effects in a particular social situation. His hypothesis being that social roles can influence and change the behavior of those given that particular role.
In Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study, Zimbardo was interested in finding out how voluntarily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a stimulated role-playing experiment. Participants were picked to be either a prisoner or a guard and were placed in a prison environment for six days before Zimbardo had to shut the experiment down (Cherry, 2014). For the IRB ethical guideline respect of persons, each participant was given an informed consent about the study. Participants also had a preliminary interview in which participants with anxiety issues were told not to participate due to effects of the study. However, consent could not be fully informed because even Zimbardo himself did not know what was going to happen in the study (McLeod, 2008). Participants in this study also had the right to withdraw although they felt like they could not because they were being conformed to a prison environment. Confidentiality was also included in the study because participants had to complete a release form for their video footage to be used. Participants were also given an ID number during the experiment, therefore, remaining anonymous not only to other members of the study, but also anyone who watched the footage (McLeod, 2008).
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.
Maureen H. Miner recommends in his article that any training in ethics will be judged by the quality of ethical choices made by those who complete it. If psychologists are to be recognized as professionals who are committed to best practice, then we should take ethical training very seriously. (Miner, 2005)