Today we live in a world where nothing is free, and many people have an expectation on receiving something in return when they provide some sort of service for someone. However, society is helping create a norm of altruism by asking, advertising, and announcing situations when selfless acts are performed. Altruism behavior consists of being selfless and wanting to help others in need, without feeling obligated. Several psychologists define altruism as “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare” (Batson, 1981). Thanks to the media, we are able to witness people demonstrating concerns for the welfare and well-being of others which has helped the encouragement for people to have altruistic behavior. However, not everyone has or feels the drive to be helpful towards others, and may choose to ignore situations with people in need of help. In Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), it demonstrates how it is easy for an individual to …show more content…
Zimbardo can have all participants attend an ethics course and social skills class before the experiment in order to promote appropriate ethical behavior. If an individual receives social skills training and encouragement, it helps them gain empathy for others (Stepien & Baernstein, 2006). In addition, Zimbardo who is part of administration can model for the guards positive interactions with the prisoners, to help encourage positive behaviors between guards and prisoners. Lastly, Zimbardo can create positive labels for his participants to promote altruistic behavior by reminding them constantly that they caring and nice people. Furthermore, informing the guards that prisoners are there for rehabilitation and that everyone deserves more than one chance in life, can help promote a more positive environment. The more the guards are able to empathize with prisoners, the higher of a chance for them to display altruistic
The inner moral compulsion to obey is what drives most social organizations. Sykes (2007) described several structural defects that occurred in the New Jersey State prison. Sykes (2007) argues that power in prison is not based on authority therefore prison officials have to find other means to get prisoners to abide by the rules and regulations. The ability to use force to maintain order on a large scale in the prison is an illusion. According to Sykes (2007), Certain privileges such mailing and visiting, personal possessions, time-off for good behavior etc. are given to the inmate all at once upon his or her arrival to the prison.
In the Zimbardo prison experiment, participants are arbitrarily chosen to be either guards or prisoners. However, both the guards and the prisoners internalize their roles immediately. The study is terminated after 6 days because the guards began physically and emotionally abusing the prisoners. This experiment “reveals a message we do not want to accept: that most of us can undergo significant character transformations when we are caught up in the crucible of social forces” (Zimbardo, 2007, p.211). The Stanford Prison Experiment shows how latent violent and aggressive personalities are easily realized when one has dominance over submissive personalities.
Even though the goals of this experiment were to study the psychological effects of prison on people, it did that and many more by showing how our behaviors can be changed through the roles we participate in. It was also learned that when playing a role most people have a normative conformity and this experiment as many ethical issues that have been discussed in this paper. Are we, as people, greater than the sum of our roles? Or are we truly defined by our roles, and our roles alone? These are questions that need to be reflected
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo set out to conduct an experiment to observe behavior as well as obedience. In Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, many dispute whether it was obedience or merely conforming to their predesigned social roles of guards and prisoners that transpired throughout the experiment. Initially, the experiment was meant to test the roles people play in prison environment; Zimbardo was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards, disposition, or had more to do with the prison environment. This phenomenon has been arguably known to possibly influencing the catastrophic similarities which occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.The
A Gift from Evolution According to Natalie Angier in, ”Of Altruism, Heroism and Evolution’s Gift,” altruism is an act where an individual helps another individual, but without getting any benefit from helping the other individual. She also defines altruism as, “If not for these badges of our humanity, there would be no us, and we know it” (Angier 18). I agree with Angier definitions and examples. Without altruism individuals would not have that need to help someone out because they would not feel the will to, also how certain animals carry altruism, and what makes individuals want to be altruistic.
The guards let the authority they had in the experiment go to their heads causing them to become abusive. Also the prisoners started showing signs of extreme anxiety and stress. Accordingly, this study teaches us that when given a role of authority, such as that of a prison guard, it can often cause us to act in ways that do
The Zimbardo’s prison experiment, also known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, main purpose was to investigate the influence of situational factors on behavior (Brady & Logsdon, 705). This ‘constructed situation’ involved young, male volunteers being cast in the dichotomized roles of guard and prisoner in a simulated prison environment (Bottoms, 163). The experiment was use to see if brutality truly existed between the guards and the prisoners. The findings were quite upsetting. The young males went through an ordeal that eventually lead to psychological abuse.
Since the beginning of the human existence, man has always dominated and ruled over one another be it empires, corporations, or small groups. Authority and obedience has always been a factor of who we are. This natural occurrence can be seen clearly through the psychological experiments known as The Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Both of these studies are based on how human beings react to authority figures and what their obedience is when faced with conflict.
Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo questioned, “What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?” (Zimbardo, 1971) In 1971 a psychologist named Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment on the effects prison has on young males with the help of his colleague Stanley Milgram. They wanted to find out if the reports of brutality from guards was due to the way guards treated prisoners or the prison environment.
Conclusion To sum up, the theory of deindividuation provides a clear explanation of the events of the Stanford Prison Experiment. It points out two factors (anonymity and a weakened sense of responsibility) that help to explain the behavior exhibited by the participants in both roles of guards and prisoners. Deindividuation of the prisoners was caused by the rules of the experiment, which included the replacement of prisoners ' names by code numbers, similar uniforms, wearing stockings on head and the realistic process of arresting participants.
Additionally, in an attempt to foster an increase in professionalism within the correctional community, care and consideration must be taken with the care and housing of inmates both privately operated and those operated by some branch of the government. “The quality of prisons has improved from the past, but there continue to be too many inhumane new prisons. New construction does not always result in a prison conductive to humane incarceration” (Bartollas,
Another thing that makes this experiment beautiful is that it can help the police and military offices to train their people in coping the stress of being imprisoned among the prisoners. It would help them to know how that prison environment has a great factor in creating brutal behavior among the
Thomas Hobbes argued that, instead of an altruistic approach, we do deeds out of charity, and it is a demonstration of power. If we help others, we show people that we are more resourceful than others. Another one is pity. We pity others because we imagine ourselves in their place. Helping others is actually a fear of how we might end up, and if we help them, they will help us in return when the times comes.
The second aspect that should be highlighted from the author’s hypothesis is that guards themselves, the authority was in a specific mind-set which comes with the role, and most significantly the uniform which played a major role. This enabled them, psychology to commit the negative acts against the prisoners in the experiment. What reinforces this idea the uniforms enabled this is the experiment encouraged negative as well as positive engagement with the prisoners. However most of those involved in the guard roles engaged almost entirely in negative behavior.
I have never before visited a prison nor have I met a prisoner in my entire life. Why should I care about someone whom I would rarely see? But these inmates are our brothers and sisters who may have made bad choices, but don’t want their mistakes to hold them back. Throughout my life, my once miserable and hopeless circumstances were transformed by education, and I am certain that the same principle can be applied to anyone, including inmates, despite our differences in how we responded to circumstances. It is true that prison takes nearly everything away from them – even their hopes and dreams.