Stanley Milgram begins his article, “The Perils of Obedience,” with an exhaustive description of his experiment and outcome he expects. He follows this with an exception to his preliminary observations by providing conversation between the subject and the experimenter. Milgram also explains peculiar reactions to the experiment, including, “His [Braverman’s] very refined and authoritative manner of speaking is increasingly broken up by wheezing laughter.” Next, Milgram outlines variations to his experiment performed and closes with a reference to Nazi treatment of Jews. With similar format, Phillip Zimbardo opens his article, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” with an overview of his experiment, including construction of the mock prison. He continues with observations of the first day of testing by quoting certain guard’s conversations with each other and prisoners. Proceeding, Zimbardo points out a riot initiated by the prisoners that was quickly snuffed out by the guards. He also emphasizes the point, “We were forced to release prisoner 8612 because of extreme depression…” Following the quote Zimbardo describes diary entries by one guard which explain a dramatic shift in mood in the guards. Zimbardo finishes his article with reasoning behind early termination of the experiment and expressed his regret of running the experiment. However, Zimbardo and Milgram were ethical in their experimental procedure and proves blind obedience was a factor in each subject.
Both Milgram and Zimbardo’s articles effectively highlight the ethics surrounding their respective experiments. Both authors began their articles with an unbiased
…show more content…
Each article was logical in its presentation of results and refrained from outside input. This effectiveness characterizes Milgram and Zimbardo as credible sources and well-rounded
The experiment took place at Stanford University in August of 1971 in the basement of the psychology department. The Stanford prison experiment wanted to explore the adverse effects that oppression from prison guards would have on
Last thing I can remember someone kicked me hard in my face and I was unconscious. I woke up tired up to what looked like a barn with smelling animal, waste and half dead bodies. Right away I started vomiting from the smell and the site of the emaciated bodies, Why god did you bring me to this place I asked? Then, out of nowhere I heard voices talking about what happen to lazy no good slaves. We are going to starve you to death or beat you ass straight to obedience.
He did this because the guards were abusing the prisoners during the night time when the experiment was supposed to be stopped until the next morning. This showed how caught up in mistreating prisoners the guards really became. Dr. Zimbardo had become so caught up in the experiment, like everyone else, he failed to recognize the severity of what was going on. I think the actual turning point was when Christina Maslach was brought in to interview the prisoners, and completely objected to the whole experiment. She was the only person to notice what was happening and that is when Dr. Zimbardo finally called it off.
In the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison and asked 75 applicants to participate. 24 men were chosen to participate and were paid $15 per day. Prisoners were arrested at their own homes, blindfolded, and driven to Stanford University's psychology department, where the deindividuation process began. Within no time the guards and the prisoners began to change. In the video
In the six days that the experiment ran they saw the personalities that the prisoner and prison guards took.
A STUDY OF PRISONERS AND GUARDS IN A SIMULATED PRISON Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Phillip Zimbardo Stanford University. What was the general topic addressed in the article? The general topic addressed in this article is the experiment of the study of prisoners and Guards in a simulated prison at Stanford University. What was the purpose of the research?
Some of the prisoners were changed into being obedient to the power against them as a result of the assigned guards' abuse of their position of authority by tormenting the captives. Following the study, Zimbardo was subject to widespread criticism for the lack of safety and regulation. Despite being labeled a failure experiment, the Stanford prison experiment has : broadened our
(Russell 2014) Conclusion: Despite controversy Milgram’s experiment was ground breaking. It remains relevant today and is frequently cited in demonstrating the perils of obedience.
In summary, the purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment was supposed to demonstrate that powerful situational forces, much like Abu Ghraib, could over-ride individual dispositions and choices, leading good people to do bad things simply because of the role they found themselves
This experiment was conducted in Stanford University by Dr. Zimbardo. During this two week long session, Dr. Zimbardo had several volunteers agree to act as prisoners and as prison guards. The prisoners were told to wait in their houses while the guards were to set up the mock prison, a tactic used by Dr. Zimbardo to make them fit into their roles more. The official police apprehended the students assigned to the role of prisoner from their homes, took mug shots, fingerprinted them, and gave them dirty prison uniforms. The guards were given clean guard uniforms, sunglasses, and billy clubs borrowed from the police.
They also concluded that the environment of the prison played a vital role in the way the guards treated the prisoners. It is believed that this experiment changed the way some U.S. prisons are
In society, the people with more power are likely on a higher level than those who have less power. A person who is given orders has the right to decide whether to follow them or not, and this idea is clearly the situation from reading “The Perils of Obedience,” “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” and watching “A Few Good Men.” At the end of the film, why did the two marines not have to go back to jail, but were no longer allowed to be Marines? Why was their case pardoned from prison sentencing?
This connects to the idea of guards having the capability of turning evil through an atmosphere of the prison environment where they can turn evil and have no remorse feelings towards the prisoners. From the article, "Stanford Prison Experiment," by Saul McLeod, he explained that the evil tactics that were made by the guards were from the atmosphere of the prison environment because the norm for a prison guard is to act tough and have no remorse feelings towards the prisoners when assigning punishments. He also added that guards acted this way because they lost their sense of personal identity when they dressed up as a guard, which can show they may have believed that they were actual guards and the experiment was real, which might’ve triggered their dark side with harsh punishments. Therefore, losing their personal identity in a prison environment may have been the factor where they triggered their evil side during the prison
The experiment mainly focused on the participants appearance, for example prisoners were dressed into prison clothes for feeling more demeaned and humiliated, however at the same time guards were dressed into like real guards with sunglasses for appearing more detached and less humane. The results were terrifying because the guards took the matter seriously and sometimes harassed the prisoners with the help pf physical punishment, or even
The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Journey Into Authoritarian Leadership Over the years, scientists, psychologists, and doctors have used social experiments to further their understanding of our surroundings. Social experiments are studies of the human mind and psyche through various environments. In this case, a social experiment called the Stanford Prison Experiment is what opened new doors for the comprehension of human behavior, how we act when we are in power, as well as offered a glimpse into the flaws in our legal system. This experiment was conducted in 1971 in Palo Alto, California.