THE EXPERIMENT The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in August of 1971 by Dr. Zimbardo. Zimbardo chose 24 male Stanford University students out of over 70 applicants that went through a series of personality tests to determine which participants were the most psychologically healthy. The 24 participants were randomly assigned to role play as prison guards and inmates in the schools basement and were reimbursed $15 a day for participating (“The Story” n. d). The experiment of a simulated prison was supposed to last two weeks, but only lasted six days. The prisoners were to participate as prisoners 24/7 and the prison guards rotated in 8 hour shifts. The results of the experiment showed that individuals will settle into social roles an authoritative figure has given them making behavior based on situational and environmental factors and not based on personalities of the guards. …show more content…
The independent variable was said to be the personalities of the prison guards and prisoners. The participants all varied in their personality types. The dependent variable was said to be the resulting behavior from the prison guards and prisoners. This was observed by how the prison guards and prisoners respond to one another.
Zimbardo did not use a survey as his research method because he may not have been able to get accurate results. Surveys cannot provide an accurate view of how someone would react or behave in a position of absolute authority or a position of absolute compliance. The advantage of Zimbardo’s experiment was that it showed us that environmental situations change our behaviors in roles of power and authority. This gives us a better perspective of human behaviors and social
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.
On August 14, 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment had begun. The volunteers who had replied to the ad in the newspaper just weeks before were arrested for the claims of Armed Robbery and Burglary. The volunteers were unaware of the process of the experiment, let alone what they were getting themselves into. They were in shock about what was happening to them. Once taken into the facility, the experimenters had set up as their own private jail system; the twenty-four volunteered individuals were split up into two different groups (Stanford Prison Experiment).
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.
In this article two experiments were mentioned; the Milgram's Experiment and the Stanford Experiment supporting that “people conform passively and unthinkingly to both the instructions and the roles that authorities provide, however malevolent these may be”. However, recently, the consensus of the two experiments had been challenged by the work of social identity theorizing. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Zimbardo. This experiment included a group of students who were “randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners”. It was conducted in a mock prison at the Stanford Psychology Department. Prisoners were abused, humiliated, and undergone psychological torture. In the experiment the guards played a very authoritarian
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
Having the study formulated after a prison environment presents a disturbing view on the effects it has on the individuals living in these conditions. As the study demonstrated both groups take on an alternate persona based on the roles assigned to them and the level of authority given to each. Today the same effect can be seen outside the prison environment, businesses experience this phenomenon as well. Managers are figures of authority within company and based on the type of management they exude, subordinates experience at different points some level of dominance over them. The results of the study are extremely valuable especially for the corrections industry, in recent years’ prisons have employed medical professionals that help inmates with psychological traumas and are able to utilize different outlets such as classes and work related activities within the corrections facility as a means to eliminate the negative effects on its
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
These occurrences can be analyzed using social psychology because the environment, the situation, and those holding the authority influenced the behavior of others. Due to these influences, prisoners and guards acted on the roles they were given, in the way that society sees them. The description, in itself, is the definition of social psychology.
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.
An experiment by Zimbardo provided insight on how a regular person changes roles when placed within a specific social setting. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Zimbardo strictly on a volunteer basis “to study the process by which prisoners and guards ”learn” to become compliant and authoritarian (732).” The study was intended to be done over a two week period however the volunteers became so caught up in being a prisoner or a guard that it was actually cut short. Both prisoners and guards jumped immediately into the roles given. The guards set out to prove their superiority and the prisoners after a brief attempt to overthrow the guards fell into obedience. Guard A originally states that he is a “pacifist and nonaggressive”, but by day three he portrays just the characteristics he claims to have none of (Zimbardo 741). The guards in the experiment were told to keep the prisoners in-line, they did so to their own accord. The prisoners in the experiment also in the end gave in to the rules of the authoritarian figures. Both the guards and the prisoners did what they felt they needed to do to survive throughout the experiment. So even though t...
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
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading ro...
Both these studies have been able to give an insight as to how “social influences can change attitude or behaviour under the influence of the views of others.” (Xie et al, 2016). Other aspects have also been identified such as to “make us aware of how easily unobtrusive situational factors can tap our susceptibilities to obedience, conformity, irresponsibility, cruelty, or indifference to others’ welfare, thereby empowering us to change ourselves for the better.” (Badwar, 2009). In this essay, ethical issues and conclusions drawn from the obedience and conformity studies will be discussed as well as whether Zimbardo and Milgram’s studies can truly be