Phillip Zimbardo’s theory helps illustrate how and why ordinary people are capable of acts of terror against other human beings. Zimbardo believes that people are seduced into evil by dehumanizing and labeling others. In 1971 Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment where researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. They then selected twenty four ordinary students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The experiment was originally supposed to go on for fourteen days, it had to be stopped after just six days due to what happened to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety. Zimbardo states in his book The Lucifer Effect that, “Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency…” (Zimbardo). His experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Since the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they normally would not act in their everyday lives/situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control or power, became passive and depressed. Through his experiment he was able to conclude that even “good” people are capable of “evil” actions against mankind when put into certain circumstances. Zimbardo’s theory can be applied to literature, such as Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and current events like the Zimmerman Case, and the Sandy Hook Shooting. Zimbardo’s theory can be applied to Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. In Zimbardo’s theory he hypothesizes that there are t... ... middle of paper ... ...rces we have today. Some of these sources include literature, such as Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and current events like the Zimmerman Case, and the Sandy Hook Shooting. By understanding the three contributors to the transformation of human character, dispositional, situational, and systemic, readers are able to identify said influences. In order to stop these evils from happening people must understand that “the power of the system that creates the situation that corrupts the individual. If you want to change the person, you have to change the situation; if you want to change the situation, you’ve got to know where the power is in the system” (Zimbardo The Psychology of Evil). Without recognizing these contributors “bad apples” like Nurse Ratchet, Mr.Zimmerman, and Mr. Lanza are able to flourish because of their situational and systemic contributors.
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.
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.
He explores a multitude of concepts that revolves around the effects of situational factor on the behavior for an individual or group. In particular, a theory I wanted to explore is Zimbardo’s view on power and the impact of systematic structure. For instance, in Chapter 10, Zimbardo writes that “Power is a concern when people either have a lot of it and need to maintain it or when they have not much power and want to get more. However, power itself becomes a goal for many because of all the resources at the disposal of the powerful” (Zimbardo). In accordance to this view, power is desired by many, and often results in cases of struggles for power. In the instance of the Stanford Prison Experiment ,the struggle for power can be illustrated in the guard’s abusive behavior in order to establish and maintain power, and the prisoner’s rebellion as means to fight back against mistreatment. Beyond the scope of the experiment, an example of power can be seen in the monopoly of the pharmaceutical industry on the cost of prescription drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies create a monopoly on the basis of patent laws over specific drugs. Subsequently, these companies are able to set high prices in order to maximize profit margins. While this may be beneficial for the pharmaceutical industry, patients are
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.
Milgram and Zimbardo are classified in the same category as behaviorists. Although they are locked in the same category, they are famously known for very different experiments that have somewhat of the same idea. Zimbardo is widely known for his Stanford prison experiment, while Milgram is known for obedience to authority. The goal of both experiments was to prove like Haney has said that evil is most generally generated through evil situations. Zimbardo and Milgram’s experiments are examples of Psychological situationism, which is pretty important in the work of social psychology. Salamucha finds that Milgram and Zimbardo’s work demonstrates that, sometimes, the power of situations can be overpowering.
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.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, a study done with the participation of a group of college students with similar backgrounds and good health standing who were subjected to a simulated prison environment. The participants were exposed completely to the harsh environment of a real prison in a controlled environment with specific roles of authority and subordinates assigned to each individual. The study was formulated based on reports from Russian novelist Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky had spent four years in a Siberian prison and his view on how a man is able to withstand anything after experiencing the horrors of prison prompted Dr. Philip Zimbardo a Professor of Psychology at Stanford and his
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.
It explains how can good people become perpetrators of evil and commit dreadful crimes. In the book, Zimbardo highlighted three psychological truth. First is that the world full with both evil and good, the barrier between the two is absorbent, and angels and devils can switch. Zimbardo claims that the one easily switch from someone good to someone who can hardly recognize himself or herself. He suggest that the one must be watchful and be stronger that the circumstances. In military and especially during war, the have no time to watch himself and see the person that they are turning to because they think that this is their job and it is orders that they can not disobey. Zimbardo utter that when the one is believed that others will be responsible for his or her actions, the one believe that they can act incognito and thinking that they people who are suffering are not as important. According to Zimbardo the conditions of the situation is what influence personal
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
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.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perptrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp.21-50). New York: Guilford press.