More handpicked essays just for you.
Implications of the Stanford prison experiment
Stanford prison experiment introduction
Effects of science on daily lives
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Psychology, the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, has been giving us information regarding human behavior and decision-making since the late 1800’s. The field itself is one of the most controversial in all of science, especially when it comes to the morality behind psychologist’s experiments. Morality is the distinction between what is considered to be right or wrong behavior. The famous psychology experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment is notorious for being considered an “immoral” trial; however, it was accepted by society because it was conducted in the name of science. This raises one question: should science trump morality even if it means putting some people at risk? The Stanford Prison Experiment …show more content…
The guards were reported to have been “disappointed” in having to leave, while the prisoners left with severe psychological damage. The Stanford Prison Experiment is known as one of the most controversial tests in all of psychology. Researchers were fascinated with the results and the study provided an unbelievable amount of information regarding human behavior; however, it raised a lot of issues to the public dealing with the morality of the situation. People were very alarmed by Zimbardo’s willingness to put young students in such a harsh situation while he sat back and observed, not even stepping in to calm the guards when things got too intense. The prisoners were subjected to long-term mental problems, which Zimbardo had to know was a possibility from the start, but the experiment happened …show more content…
In no way should it be morally acceptable for scientists to be able to alter other people’s realities, yet Professor Zimbardo was never charged with anything because he was allowing people to be tortured in the name of science. If any normal person from the street tried to conduct a similar experiment on their own time, authorities would never accept it. What Philip Zimbardo did was completely immoral but was considered okay because it was for science, but I guarantee that none of the participants who played prisoners would say the experience was fine because the professors got good research. In the words of Ghandi, “There are Seven Deadly Sins: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Politics without principle, Worship without sacrifice, Commerce without morality, and Science without
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.
Many ethical boundaries were crossed in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Abuse was not limited to physical, but also psychological (Burgemeester, 2011). In the movie The Stanford Prison Experiment, which depicts events that actually occurred, the guards played physiological tricks on the prisoners. The prisoners were lead to believe that they actually committed crimes and couldn’t leave the experiment. One main thing that the guards did to physically and psychologically harm the prisoners was to tamper with their sleeping schedules. They would wake the prisoners on the middle of the night and have them do exercises, and once they were done they were permitted to go back to sleep (Ratnesar, 2011). By doing this the prisoners lose sense of what
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
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
“Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks.
... abusive behavior in prison. Zimbardo designed the experiment in order to induce depersonalization, disorientation, and deindividualiztion in the volunteers. This experiment does not fit in with other work in the field of psychology because the conditions the participants were living in was inhumane and the experiment leaders didn’t realize this until someone outside of the experiment pointed it out; it was an extremely unethical experiment. This experiment left many of the participants emotionally traumatized and it is often compared to the Milgram experiment, which was performed a decade earlier. As a result of the layout of the experiment, Zimbardo found it difficult to keep conventional scientific controls in place and did not remain a neutral onlooker. One of the critics of this experiment, Eric Fromm, challenged the generalization of the experiment’s results.
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.
Would you go into prison to get paid? Do you believe that you will come out the same or become different? Do not answer that. The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment that was conduct in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. Seventy applicants answered the ad and were narrowed down to 24 college students, which half were assigned either to be guards or prisoners by random selection. Those 24 college students were picked out from the of 70 applicants by taking personality tests and given diagnostic interviews to remove any candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The experiment lasted six days but it was supposed to last two weeks, it was so traumatizing that it was cut short. Zimbardo was the lead researcher and also had a role in pretend prison. Zimbardo’s experiment was based on looking
Another benefit to society was also the impression this experiment left on the prison system in America at the time, and some aspects of this were changed as a result. Therefore in conclusion, in these two experiments alone, the unethical methods used can be justified as they have helped to profit humanity by providing insight into how humans behave when put into certain social situations. Without these ethical guidelines being broken, both experiments would have lacked ecological validity and the results would not be legitimate.
In August of 1971, Stanford began an experiment on 21 middle-class males in the basement of a Stanford Psychology building trying to determine how good people adapt to different roles. The two different roles that were assigned were that of a guard and that of a prisoner. As me being a female being put in the situation that the male prisoners went through I would not be able to handle it. If a police officer showed up at my house without warning me and taking me to the police station I would have a complete panic attack. You have to be strong to go through an experiment like that. Yes, I like to believe that I am a strong independent woman, but I would never be able to live in a prison cell with two other prison mates.
...been outdated in psychology. Studies like Stanford prison experiments should be conducted more to promote a sense of personal responsibility and liability for every action of a person to make people aware that conditions of dispersed concern disguise their own role in the outcomes of their actions. Further, to distinguish between authority and to whom respect may be suitable and unjust authority as in the Stanford prison life study, to which disrespect and disobedience are necessary to oppose. It is vital to support critical thinking in a child’s life from the very early stages and maintain it throughout life. Asking for evidence to support declaration, demanding that ideologies be adequately elaborated to separate rhetoric from reality-based conclusions and to determine independently whether specific means justify imprecise and destructive ends of the actions.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism and the perspective on relativism, of prison labor along with the relativism on criminal behavior of individuals incarcerated are two issues that need to be addressed. Does the utilitarianism of prisoner’s right laws actually protect them? Or are the unethical actions of the international and states right laws exploiting the prison labor? Unethical procedures that impact incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, the relativism of respect as people and not just prisoner’s; the safety of all inmates and correctional staff, are all issues worth continuous reflection.
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
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.