According to dictionary.com, the definition of conformity is compliance or acquiescence; obedience. One of the most questionable experiments that took place dealing with the emphasis of conformity was the Stanford Prison Experiment which took place on August 14-20 of 1971. The experiment was led by psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo who was a professor at Stanford in 1971, and still is today. Zimbardo took college students and randomly assigned them roles to play, prisoner or guard, which they would continue playing throughout the entirety of the experiment. The reason it is called the Stanford Prison Experiment is because Zimbardo took an old, vacant hallway of the college and turned it into a mock prison environment.The objective of the …show more content…
The mock prisoners were treated like real prisoners to make the experiment as real as it could possibly be. They were stripped naked, deloused and given numbers rather than being called by their names, which caused them to lose their sense of identity and become anonymous. All of the guards dressed in identical khaki uniforms and wore glasses so the prisoners couldn’t see their eyes; another psychological trick enforced by Zimbardo. Prisoners began to be insulted by the guards and were forced to carry out pointless tasks, they were also awoken in the middle of the night to do “counts.” They barely had any time to eat, and they weren’t allowed to talk during meal time as a “punishment” for previous rebellions. Add up the lack of sleep, the malnourishment and the stress of being in a sterile environment and you are going to have a mess. After the prisoners took so much, they decided to rebel. The first prisoner that began to act up was prisoner #8612 who had fits of uncontrollable fits of rage. Other prisoners tried to calm him down, assuring him that it was just an experiment but he demanded that he wanted out. It was at this point that psychologists knew what they had to do, let him go. From this point on, the experiment continued to go downhill. The guards became stricter, giving out more pointless punishments and dehumanizing the prisoners. At this point in time, the prisoners didn’t only begin to form more rebellions, but began to show more signs of unstableness. Zimbardo believed the experiment would last two weeks, but after only six days it had to be shut down. Ultimately, the Stanford Prison Experiment shows us that under roles of conformity, decent people can quickly turn into oppressors. The results of the experiment show us that cruel ruling does not flourish because the leaders are ignorant of their actions, it flourishes because they identify
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 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.
How would you act if you were locked up in a concentration camp and the guards made you suffer? If I were in there, I would listen to the guards because I want less suffered. In addition, I would not try to stand out in the crowed to receive punishment by the guards. In the Movie, The Stanford Prison Experiment, students were split to be two group, guards and prisoner. In the oppressive environment and authority to the guards, the guards were out of control, and they kept on punish prisoner until they broke down. The prisoners were treated as less than human, and they won’t get what they need. Furthermore, these guards will act more aggressive every day to try to force the prisoner to conform. In the film The Stanford Prisoner Experiment, the guards become immoral because they got
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
They obeyed every command given to them. According to Zimbardo and his team, “the prisoners sense of reality had shifted, and they no longer perceived their imprisonment as an experiment” (Zimbardo 32). The prisoners coped with their humiliation by either rebelling or breaking down emotionally. The effects of the Stanford Prison Experiment had more negative effects on it’s prisoners than anyone else. Evil seemed to prevail over the guards. Although they had only obtained a powerful role for a short time, they all went through extreme measures to enforce their power. The prisoners were demeaned, humiliated, dehumanized and lost their sense of control and power over their own
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.
The Stanford Prison Experiment, is "one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology." (Konnikova, M. (2015)) But really, it was a psychological study, in 1971, on the effects that a prisons can have on the individuals that inhabit there or the guards that guard those prisoners, for periods of time. In fact, it was a study to determine, understand, and gain knowledge on how an institution effected an individual or human 's behavior.
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.
In the film, The Stanford Prison Experiment, Phillip Zimbardo conducted a phycology experiment quite like no other, in which he demonstrated the methodology and ideals as presented in chapter two. He followed the scientific method rather than the ethnographic method throughout the experiment. In an ethnographic experiment subjects are observed in their natural settings rather than placed into a foreign setting and observing the changes that occur. The purpose of the experiment was to see how human behavior changes according to situational variables and to determine whether or not they are directly related. An ethnographic experiment involves surveys, existing information, and a control group. Zimbardo’s experiment did not consist of any of
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.
Deindividuation is the “tendency to engage in uncharacteristic behavior when stripped of unusual identities” and the failure to recognize and differentiate the self in large groups (O’Conner, 2017). It plays a vital role in the manipulation of one’s actions even if the behavior goes against one’s own moral values. Support for deindividuation can be seen when examining an experiment completed by Philip Zimbardo in 1970. Zimbardo wanted to understand the different effects that uniforms and concealing ones’ identity had on individuals’ behavior. He did so by setting up two groups of people; one group had a uniform which hid their faces and the other group wore what they showed up to the study in. A ‘learner’ was asked questions and each time