The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment that Philip Zimbardo evented. He wanted to study the human response of captivity, of the prison life. Zimbardo randomly assigned roles to the prisoners and the guards. Each role was uniquely identified. For example, he gave the guards sticks and sunglasses and the prisoners were arrested by the police department and were forced into the basement of the jail which was converted into the psychology department that was converted into a makeshift jail. Zimbardo wanted the experiment to be as realistic as he possibly could have made it, therefore, he assigned each role to help do so. Testing each individual and then assigning them to roles would of gave inconclusive readings and therefore, it was…
In discussions of the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip G. Zimbardo in 1970, one controversial issue has been whether or not the experiment should have ever been attempted. On the one hand, Dr. Zimbardo and his colleagues argued that the experiment gave them a deeper understanding of human suffering and a greater empathy for their fellow man (Ratnesar 2011). On the other hand, one of the former guards contended that the experiment made him more hostile and less sympathetic during his time as a guard and that the circumstances significantly altered his perception of what was appropriate behavior. Others even maintain that the prison experiment degraded the prisoners so greatly, empowered the guards to such a great extent, and even affected Dr. Zimbardo’s behavior and mannerisms so dramatically that it thoroughly altered their sense of…
In 1971, psychologist Phillip Zimbardo set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. The experiment was to test human behavior when one's role had been altered into authoritative one. Still powerful after all these years the experiment was the most powerful and popular experiment of all time (O'Toole, K). Researches set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University building. There were the 24 students out of 70 volunteers chosen to play the roles of the prisoners or prison guards.…
The Stanford Experiment is a study of experimental psychology conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 on the effects of the prison situation. It was created with students playing the roles of guards and prisoners. It was intended to study the behavior of ordinary people in such a context and effect was to show that this was the situation rather that the personality of the participants who was at the origin of behaviours sometimes opposite the values professed by participants before the start of the study.…
Have you ever noticed that certain people act and behave differently when they are with crowds versus when they are alone? Being in a large crowd can really impact individual to act in a certain way that they seem to fit in with the group and sometimes do things more anonymous as it is in a large crowd. Both Zimbardo and Le Bon believe that bystanders are less responsible and more likely to commit violence than when people are alone. Philip Zimbardo is a psychologist and a professor at Stanford University; he researches the cause of evil in people by doing a Stanford prison experiment. Zimbardo states about how evil can cause good people easily by the peers that they are surrounded by and the culture and traditional way changes can affect people…
Another experiment that was done to test these violent behaviors was known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. In August of 1971, this experiment was started by psychology professor Philip…
One of the infamous experiment in the history of psychology was the Stanford Prison Experiment. Its creator, Dr. Zimbardo, main objective was to see what effects would occur when a psychological experiment into human nature was performed. As I began to perform some research of my own, I noticed that my thoughts on the matter were similar to many; that as a scientific research project, Mr. Zimbardo’s experiment it was a complete failure. However, his findings did provide us with something that was much more important that is still being talked about today; insight into human psychology and social behavior.…
The experiment lacked a controlled, independent variable as Zimbardo lost his identity and kept excusing the guards’ behavior. He lost sight of the real purpose of the experiment and treated the boys as subjects rather than humans. This experiment had numerous errors. Obviously, Zimbardo should not have been switching from being a part of the experiment to just observing. In addition, there should have been more psychologists there from the beginning for Zimbardo to discuss with. It should have not taken until Maslach’s visit for someone to realize this experiment has gone extremely wrong. Personally, I thought this experiment was very out of line and should not have happened. Though I always see the value in scientific testing, but the Stanford Prison Experiment went too far. It unnecessarily dehumanized the prisoners. After the first mental breakdown of the prisoners, the experiment should have ended. The Stanford Prison Experiment did help Zimbardo with understanding the incidents at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, but it seems pretty obvious that “power without oversight” can lead to horrendous events, especially when people lack the guidance and…
In 1971, Zimbardo conducted an experiment which is known as The Standford Prison Experiment. It took place in the basement of a psychology department, which was constructed to feel like an actual prison, and the participants were paid to either choose the role as a prisoner or guard in attempt to gaining a better understanding of human interaction and its effect on human behavior. Zimbardo predicted that from this experiment that the goodness in people would overcome the evil. However, the results proved otherwise. Though some may disagree with Zimbardo's interpretation of his experiment, it revealed that man's nature is evil because of their environment,…
This study was conducted by Professor Phillip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971. Zimbardo wanted to find out if a situation can control the person or can an individual’s beliefs, attitude and values would allow one to rise above their current situation. He wanted to look more in-depth in the behavioral and sociological consequences in the roles of the guard and prisoner. Also, he wanted to find out why and how social situations can overwhelm people. In order to find study subjects, Zimbardo advertised in the paper for healthy, male students and offered $15 a day for up to two weeks. His subjects were predominately white, middle class students with no history of drug use or a criminal record. The basement of Stanford’s psychology department…
Known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, the study went on to become one of the best-known in psychology's history. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram (who is best-known for his famous obedience experiment), was interested in expanding on Milgram's research. "Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place—would their goodness triumph?" said Zimbardo in one interview. The researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building. The participants were chosen from a group of 70 volunteers because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues, and had no significant medical conditions. The volunteers agreed to participate during a one to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.…
The experiment took place in the basement of the Psychology department in Stanford University and selected 24 undergraduate students out of 70 volunteers due to their lack of psychological issues and had no criminal record. Zimbardo paid each of the 24 participants 15 dollars a day in a span of one to two weeks. The 24 volunteers were randomly assigned to play a role as either a guard or a prisoner. The cell was made up of three prison cells, each one holding three mock prisoners. The guards chosen had to work in an eight hour shift alongside two other participants. The guards chosen have their own cell to themselves and one small room for solitary confinement. Kendra Cherry stated in her article that, “According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior” (Cherry). The volunteers for this experiments took on their role almost instantaneously.…
Afterwards, he observed that some guards were becoming very sadistic; almost enjoying inflicting emotional pain on the prisoners. One prisoner went on a hunger strike, another prisoner became hysterical after 36 hours and had to be terminated, another prisoner escaped saying he would return for the others but never returned. Zimbardo’s girlfriend was brought in to interview participants and found that conditions were subpar. In August 1971, Zimbardo stopped the experiment. He said that out of 50 people who observed the experiment, his girlfriend, a psychologist conducting the interviews was the only one to say anything. Zimbardo’s experiment concluded that because of the situation that the people were in, it created prisoners to act the way they did. The Stanford Prison experiment definitely lacked beneficence. Furthermore, I believe the Stanford Experiment did not seek out signed informed consent. However, in those days, I don’t believe that was a requirement. Another thing is that Zimbardo didn’t debrief his participants until months later. People need to be debriefed when coming out of a research project just like soldiers are debriefed when coming back from…
Zimbardo wrote the Article over “The Stanford Prison Experiment”. He set up an experiment that would test how subjects conformed to roles they were given. He started the experiment by picking out subjects through the newspaper. Zimbardo got seventy-five males interested in completing the experiment. Then the subjects went…
Firstly, while some may say that individual agency prevails in decision-making, Berger refuses optimism and feels that “possibilities do little to change the total efficacy of the system” when in general, “society penetrates the insides of our consciousness”. I agree with Berger that although the “guardians of tradition”, such as my family, friends and teachers, were influential in ensuring that my decisions are aligned to the “established rules”, they in fact need not exert much pressure on me. For instance, after my junior college, my parents told me that I had free choice over what university I wanted to enter, so long as it was reputable enough. Upon reflection, they probably did not need to say that. My years of education in what are deemed…