The first part of the article was about a soldier named Sergeant John M. Russell that had served in the Military for twenty years. He lived a normal life without any prior incidents in his military career. During his third deployment in six years, to Iraq, he started experiencing odd behavior. This alarmed his fellow teammates. This behavior included suicidal thoughts which lead him to talk to several Military doctors and visiting the hospitals four times before the shooting. The doctors angered him and he felt that they wouldn’t listen. They basically blew him off with one doctor in particular, even mocking him. Five days later he ended up shooting five American Military soldiers. Before and after he had plead guilty several diagnoses had …show more content…
In The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo clearly explains at the outset that his intent is to "understand the processes of transformation at work when good or ordinary people do bad or evil things ( ). The experiment was called The Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment included fifteen normal healthy male college students that was paid 15.00 a day for participation. He placed six of those students as guards and the other nine as prisoners in the prison. He gave them little to no training other than offering the option to quit the experiment at anytime they felt they needed too. The guards was giving permission to create real life situations that may occur in a prison atmosphere which included boredom, fear, frustration, and arbitrariness. The prisoners also was very little trained and told they was able to quit at anytime they felt they needed too. The experiment showed that as soon as the guards took charge their behaviors were different. They began humiliating prisoners, physically assaulting, and even sexual assault for their own pleasures. None of the prisoners or guards stopped in this experiment because they also wanted to know how they would react to different situations. The important lesson in all of this is not only do individuals internalize roles but they also can undergo significant transformations when caught up in social …show more content…
I feel that people adapt to what surrounding them. When I was in my twenties I actually was in a prison. It was my first time ever being in trouble with the law. Once I entered the gates of the prison I felt a sense of powerlessness. The guards pretty much did the same thing as the in the experiment. They humiliated us for their own personal pleasures. This even included sexual acts on other inmates. Once you 're in a surrounding like a prison, your instant survival comes into play. You do what you have to do to survive. If that includes criminal acts, then you do them. The stress of being in a different area with gates all around is stressful. You can’t rely on anyone but yourself. You become depressed and suicidal. That’s why a large amount of individuals in prison are on some type of medication to help decrease these thoughts. I feel that if individuals don’t get the help they need, more serious incidents would occur. Sort of like the Sergeant in this article. If he would have received the correct care, then the shooting more than likely would have not happened. My husband was in the Military and he himself was in great health before leaving. Once he was over there in active war, it messed up his head. Seeing the things that happened over there made him depressed and want to kill himself. They placed him in the hospital with no treatment and he ended up escaping, and being brought back over here. Still to this day he has several mental issues
In the Lucifer effect, there were many questionable things that occurred involving the Stanford Prison Experiment. The Stanford Prison experiment, which was created by Philip Zimbardo himself, involved the division of young college age men to perform the task of guard or prisoner. He gave each job a particular uniform that they had to wear and minimal training, so that he could observe what the guards would do. He aimed to prove the hypothesis that good people are willing to do bad things if they are in certain situations.
...of real-life prisons can encounter the same behavior, as the volunteers in just a Psychological study. Many may not know about the scars that were left upon the individuals in this study, but take a look at how a fake study can reenact such a real life experience for most.
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
Stanley Milgram conducted the experiment to put participants into immoral situations to obey an authority figure of some measure, and he tested their performance and willingness, to participate in acts that strayed away from their belief of right and wrong. Zimbardo conducted an experiment in some ways similar. He conducted an experiment to see if people would assume the expected normal roles of what a prisoner is expected to do and what an authority figure like a prisoner guard is supposed to do. So both Zimbardo and Milgram at this point are trying to prove that authority and the social norm of how authorities should act generates psychological effects on their performance, as well as people who are expected to be below and obey an upper hand.
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.
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.
Today’s correctional institutions, policy makers, and supreme courts still continue to ignore the studies displaying the psychological effects of prisons. For example, in recent case challenges against the eighth amendment over solitary confinement have rarely succeeded. This is due to the regulation that conditions must deprive prisoners of at least one identifiable human physical need to be declared unconstitutional. Studies have shown that depriving proper mental stimulus results in extreme mental harm, but because it’s not physical damage courts rarely recognize the extreme mental harm in conditions retaining to confinement. Many court cases related to the psychological damages were inspired by the famous Stanford Prison Experiment that
So, as the studies prove, restricting and putting in solitary confinement the prisoners don’t make them better than what they were but impact their behavior for the worse; some cases start harming other inmates for fantasies because there is no emotion left to show what is right or wrong. Making the prisoners psychopaths don’t help anyone but create more dangerous people and after they are released they will be more likely to re-offend for a crime. It doesn’t fix the prisoner behavior. The results of the solitary confinement indicate that a weak developmental for youth, extreme loneliness that can put a prisoner’s mental health at risk, and as a matter of fact that as human beings we strive to be loved not tortured.
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.
An experiment by Zimbardo provided insight on how a regular person changes roles when placed within a specific social setting. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Zimbardo strictly on a volunteer basis “to study the process by which prisoners and guards ”learn” to become compliant and authoritarian (732).” The study was intended to be done over a two week period however the volunteers became so caught up in being a prisoner or a guard that it was actually cut short. Both prisoners and guards jumped immediately into the roles given. The guards set out to prove their superiority and the prisoners after a brief attempt to overthrow the guards fell into obedience. Guard A originally states that he is a “pacifist and nonaggressive”, but by day three he portrays just the characteristics he claims to have none of (Zimbardo 741). The guards in the experiment were told to keep the prisoners in-line, they did so to their own accord. The prisoners in the experiment also in the end gave in to the rules of the authoritarian figures. Both the guards and the prisoners did what they felt they needed to do to survive throughout the experiment. So even though t...
The idea of experimentation of prison life achieved by the Stanford University students was intriguing and the results were interesting. Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo’s study due to a result of their curiosity of the reactions of subjects when placed in prisoner or prison guard roles. Their inspiration for the study was somewhat unclear; however, hypothetically reasoning was placed on determining aspects of the actual reality of incarceration. The experimenters also strived to test the theory on whether prisoners face abhorrent conditions due to their interpersonal evils, or do to the aggressive and deviant behaviors of prison guards (Haney, Banks, Zimbardo, 1973).
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
We as a society have been forced to think that everyone in jail deserves what they get, we over look the fact that some have a mental illness that they can’t control over their actions .Taken all we have learned, this information has let me see what goes on, not only in jail, but in society. In this article it talks about people who have mental illness being treated improperly in jail and the rate of suicides is high do to the fact that people are not able to care for himself and feel that they do not belong there. When looking at videos in class I was able to understand why some people do what, some people hurt others and themselves without their control. The main issue of the article is that people with mental illnesses are being sent to jail for crimes that they may not have control over as they are sent to jail they are treated inappropriate by other inmates and guards that don't know how to handle them. The fact that some inmates ha...
The Prison Simulation, studied by Haney, Banks & Zimbardo is quite impressive as to how extensive the study actually is. Due to lack of length in this paper the synopsis dealing with this study will be brief. The experiment consisted of 24 voluntary men who were divided into two groups: Guards and Inmates. Both groups were given uniforms to encourage their roles in the prison scenario. The subjects immediately began to take on rolls as to how they thought they should act. The prison had a much greater impact on all persons than could have been anticipated. The study was supposed to last 14 days, but due to extreme emotional depression the study ended after 6 days. In the spring of 1998, my Law a...
This experiment gathered twenty-one young men and assigned half of them to be “prisoners” and the other half to be “guards”. Simply put, the point of the experiment was to simulate a prison and observe how the setting and the given roles affected the behavior of the young men. The men who were given the roles of guard were given a position of authority and acted accordingly. This alone strongly influenced the behavior of both the guards and the prisoners. The guards had a sense of entitlement, control, and power, while the prisoners had a feeling of resentment and rebellion. Social pressure also played a crucial role in the experiment. Many of the guards began to exploit their power by abusing, brutalizing, and dehumanizing the prisoners. Some of the other guards felt wrong about this abuse, but did nothing to put an end to it. Finally, the situation and setting of the experiment immensely altered the conduct of both the prisoners and guards. The setting of being in a prison caused many of the volunteers to act in ways that they may have normally not. Even though the setting of being in a prison was essentially pretend, the volunteers accepted the roles they were given and acted as if it was all a reality. The prisoners genuinely behaved as if they were indeed real prisoners, and the guards treated them likewise. The situation these volunteers