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. In addition, Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects helped explaining the state by the process of merging with the assigned role, which affected the behavior of all
That they should be cold, strict, and unnervingly verbally abusive. Time upon time in the film, the volunteer guards were verbally abusive of their power with the prisoners. They often gave them punishments such as, physical exercise, sleep deprivation, as well as revoked their privileges, smoking, parole and comfort items like bedding. In one case they even as far as refusing to provide glasses to one of the prisoners. The making of a social is something that happened in both films.
I agree that the conflict between Lee Strunk and Dave Jensen alludes to future conflict between soldiers; however, I believe this conflict also reveals the degraded mindframe that these soldiers endured during the war. Like you pointed out, Jensen becomes wildly unstable after the fight. O’Brien even claims that, “The distinction between good guys and bad guys disappeared for him” (63). Jensen believed he couldn’t even trust his own ally. He would have restless nights and would break down, all because he believed Strunk would kill him over a measly broken nose.
The quality of prison life shown in the film is dire compared to the life regular citizens live today. The senseless beatings, the complete disregard for the prisoners' lives, the disrespect from the correctional officers, and the anarchistic subsections of the prison hierarchy are all unacceptable as it does not help the rehabilitation of the prisoners in any way and instead puts them into a mental state where they become attached to the prison because they cannot adjust to life outside, shown later by Brooks. 2. Throughout the film, there are several instances of guard brutality. Do you think this still happens?
On the morning of the second day the prisoners began to rebel against the guards by ripping off their ID numbers and barring the doors while taunting the guards. This event was the first step down the slippery slope that would follow. The guards took matters into their own hands and drove the prisoners out of their cells. The guards began to take on cruel and sadistic behaviors by humiliating the prisoners with menial tasks such as cleaning their latrines with their bare hands. After the sixth day the experiment was terminated because it was immoral to the prisoner group, of which lost three members due to mental breakdowns.
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.
As a consequence of his father leaving, he became an outcast at school and began drinking as a way to escape the pain that it brought onto him. Dahmer was reclusive and quiet, his depression lead to him allowing people to bully him. His peers used his pain against him, they picked on him for being an outcast, called him a loser and a no life for turning to alcohol as a remedy to ease the pain he was going through at home. During those times Dahmer was also experiencing sexual alterations, he began getting a feeling of attraction towards men rather than women. He was also bullied for thinking sexually about anyone who wasn’t a girl.
The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971 illustrated the direct relationship between power of situations and circumstances to shape an individual’s behavior. During this study 24 undergraduates were grouped into roles of either a Prisoner or a Guard, the study was located in a mock correctional facility in the basement of Stanford University. Researchers then observed the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras. The study was meant to last two weeks. However, the brutality of the Guards and the suffering of the Prisoners was so intense that it had to be terminated after only six days.
1. The Stanford Prison Experiment, Philip Zimbardo Zimbardo’s social experiment in 1971, The Stanford Experiment, is heavily criticised on ethical grounds it provides a valuable insight into the “interpersonal dynamics which occur within the prison environment,” (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973, p. 69). The experiment which randomly divided participants between prison guards and prisons dramatically demonstrated over a six day period the demonization that occurs within the prison system, as “the majority had indeed become prisoners or guards, no longer able to clearly differentiate between role playing and self,” (Zimbardo, 2001, p. 274). Whilst Zimbardo’s experiment is recognised as one of the first versions of “Reality TV” due to inclusion