The experimental study that I chose to write about is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was run by Phillip Zimbardo. More than seventy applicants answered an ad looking for volunteers to participate in a study that tested the physiological effects of prison life. The volunteers were all given interviews and personality tests. The study was left with twenty-four male college students. For the experiment, eighteen volunteers took part, with the other volunteers being on call. The volunteers were then divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, randomly assigned by coin flips. The experiment began on August 14th, 1971 in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. To create the prison cells for the prisoners, the doors were taken off of laboratory rooms and replaced with bars and cell numbers. There was a room especially made for solitary confinement referred to as “the hole”. There was a camera at the end of the hall to record everything that happened as well as intercom devices in the cells in order to listen in on what the prisoners were saying and make announcements to the prisoners. Upon arrival, each prisoner was searched and stripped naked. Next came a degradation procedure that was designed in order to humiliate the prisoners and make sure they weren’t bringing in any germs. Next came the uniforms, which consisted of a smock-like dress with a prisoner identification number. The prisoners had to wear a heavy chain on their ankle at all times and they were given rubber sandals for footwear. The goal of their attire was to embarrass the prisoners and make them feel emasculated. The purpose of the heavy chain on their ankle was to be a reminder of their oppression. The prisoners were to remain anonymous and only refe... ... middle of paper ... ... 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.
The men who played the role of prisoner, like the guards, were selected at random. The harassment they endured, while all voluntary, was by any means less than humane. They were treated with very little respect, and denied basic rights, such as use of the restroom, and were forced to sleep on cold concrete floors for many nights as a form of punishment. When they arrived to the prison, they were stripped down, and given a change of clothes, but the “change of clothes”, was anything but what they expected to receive. They were actually dresses. The dresses were meant to emasculate the men even more than what they had been already. Rendered powerless, with lack of control of their environment, what other choice did they have than to accept what
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.
...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
The prisoners were given prison uniforms and number. The prisoners were subjected to numbers over their names and required to remember their names as ordered by the guards. When they reached the prison, they were blindfolded, stripped naked and forced to wear a dress as humiliation and entertainment
Cherry, K. (n.d.). The stanford prison experiment an experiment in the psychology of imprisonment. Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
The day before the experiment, the researchers held and orientating session where they instructed the guards not to physically harm the prisoners but said them to create atmosphere in which the prisoners feel
Social psychology is an empirical science that studies how people think about, influence, and relate to one another. This field focuses on how individuals view and affect one another. Social psychology also produces the idea of construals which represent how a person perceives, comprehends or interprets the environment. Construals introduce the idea that people want to make themselves look good to others and they want to be seen as right. It is also said that the social setting in which people interact impacts behavior, which brings up the idea of behaviorism. Behaviorism is the idea that behavior is a function of the person and the environment.
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.
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
To begin the experiment the Stanford Psychology department interviewed middle class, white males that were both physically and mentally healthy to pick 18 participants. It was decided who would play guards and who would be prisoners by the flip of a coin making nine guards and nine prisoners. The guards were taken in first to be told of what they could and could not do to the prisoners. The rules were guards weren’t allowed t o physically harm the prisoners and could only keep prisoners in “the hole” for a hour at a time. Given military like uniforms, whistles, and billy clubs the guards looked almost as if they worked in a real prison. As for the prisoners, real police surprised them at their homes and arrested them outside where others could see as if they were really criminals. They were then blindfolded and taken to the mock prison in the basement of a Stanford Psychology building that had been decorated to look like a prison where guards fingerprinted, deloused, and gave prisoners a number which they would be calle...
They were all charged with armed robbery and burglary, told their legal rights, handcuffed, and shoved into a police to be taken to the police station. There the suspect went through the entire system. According to Zimbardo in his journal, they were booked, warned of their rights, finger-printed, identified, taken to a holding cell and blindfolded until they were transferred to the mock prison. There, each prisoner is brought in to be greeted by the warden one at a time. Being strip searched and then issued a uniform. The uniforms consisted of a dress, and heavy chain for the ankle, sandals, and stocking caps, each crucial to the emasculation and reality of the prison. In addition, prisoners were stripped of their real world identification and given numbers to be identified as. Combined with a disgracing uniform, this made prisoners lose all individuality, especially after having their heads shaved.
Prisoners must always address the guards as "Mr. Correctional Officer," and the warden as "Mr. Chief Correctional Officer."
There are five main ethical guidelines used by the IRB when determining if an experiment is ethically correct; respect for persons, fidelity and responsibility, justice, beneficence/nonmaleficence, and integrity (Hackathorn 2014).
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.