Philip George Zimbardo is an American psychologist whose most famous work is the prison study, “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison”, in 1973. This experiment has had an exceptional change in social psychology. In this experiment Zimbardo, Banks, and Haney set out to create a mock prison in order to record and analyze the environment on a person’s overall social behavior as well as how the sample would react socially to being guards or prisoners. Because of the unexpected nature of this experiment, there was no hypothesis formulated (Banks Haney Zimbardo, 1973, p. 72). Introduction Zimbardo, Banks, and Haney were inspired in 1972 by Dostoevsky’s account on how if humans can endure a prison setting, then they can withstand anything life has to through at them (p. 70). However, experimenters want go deeper into the study to assess if prisoners as well as guards are affected by “dispositional hypothesis” in that character traits affect an overall environment. In other words experimenters wanted to test whether or not the traits of the prisoners and guards heavily influence the state of a prison environment. Zimbardo, Banks, and Haney created an imitation prison and were going to simulate prison life for two weeks however because of the intensity of the experiment it only lasted six days. Method Advertisements were put out all of a college campus of monetary compensation in exchange for study participation. There were initially 75 answers to the advertisement and after interviews/surveys/ about background information 24 were chosen to be the most socially and mentally constant. Personality tests were also given. They were then randomly assigned into either a guard or prisoner group. They were all males and predominantly w... ... middle of paper ... ...ticipants were in college, male, from the same economic background, and nearly all the same ethnicity. The validity of the experiment can be questioned as well. Guards were encouraged to be harsh with prisoners which may have influenced their behavior. Also since both guards and prisoners were being paid for their participation they may have acted differently than if they weren’t actually getting paid. Therefore causation cannot be as clearly determined as should be. However healthy participants were chosen to give the experiment for validity. The experiment is also hard to redo. Because civil rights were taken away and experimenters lost control the ethics in this experiment are to be questioned. Works Cited Banks, C., Haney, C., Zimbardo, P., (1973). Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
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 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
He “wanted to be sure to simulate a real prison experiment.” (Zimbardo, 5th paragraph) This reveals that within the fake prison environment, it created a deindividuation adjacent to the loss of self-awareness of one's self and self-restraint in a definite group, for the guards.
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
This was done by “simulating prison life” in which he created a mock jail house and randomly assigned the role of either prisoner or guard to volunteers (McLeod, 2008). The study resulted in the participants almost immediately conforming to their assigned roles. The ‘prisoners’ became submissive and subordinate, showing high levels of obedience towards the prison guards (McLeod, 2008). In a short period of time the ‘prison guards’ displayed abusive behaviour, with their behaviour being described as “brutal and sadistic” (McLeod, 2008). In order to conform to an submissive and obedient role of a prisoner, the volunteers were essentially “dehumanized” being strip searched and identified by number only (McLeod, 2008). The study found that the ‘prisoners’ “started taking the prison rules very seriously”, as they were fearful of punishment from the ‘guards.
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
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 ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
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.
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
Zimbardo’s prison experiment was made to see the the psychological effects of prison life on both the guards and the prisoners. So, they recruited volunteers and they set up a mock prison to monitor their behavior and how they react to being in a institution.
Zimbardo, PhD. argues that the prison in Abu Ghraib was psychologically changed due to their abuse. Zimbardo says, “The line between good and evil is permeable.” Situations will pull people into acting ways they never have imagined before. The Stanford Prison Study was a film that brought college students in to play roles of prisoners and guards. After only six days the guards became abusive and brutal towards the prisoners. Zimbardo put on this experiment and found that “institutional forces and peer pressure lead normal student volunteer guards to disregard the potential harm of their actions on the other student
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo set out to study the roles/ behaviors that random people would play if they were to be a prisoner/ guard. This experiment went into effect in 1971 and is called: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. The participants that he had chosen were randomly assigned as either a guard or a prisoner. The goal of this research was to observe their behavior towards one another. The guards were supposed to treat the prisoners like prisoners, but not harm them, vice versa with the prisoners to the guards. As the experiment went on for a couple of days, their behavior changed towards one another. As the prisoners became more dependent on the guards, the guards began to show more signs of aggressive behavior towards them. They