How I feel and what I think about the work Zimbardo did in this experiment. First of all, let me make sure we are on the same conscious level as I begin to answer these questions in regards to Professor Zimbardo, and his master craft being a psychologist. Surely you agree his results are sketched primarily in his experiences in social psychology. Establishing human relations and the grounds of united we stand, one of the most important significant developments is the influence of behavioral science. Behavioral science focuses on the why in human behavior and sometimes the answers could be hard to believe. Human relations and behavioral science are not two in the same. As for Professor Zimbardo, he would say, “The Lucifer effect, rather providing a religious analysis, …show more content…
Rather prevention or precaution measures the experiment was conducted with the intent to render results. I’m really not sure how this question should be answered. The outcome of the experiment wasn’t someone dying or Professor Zimbardo being prosecuted for violating someone’s civil rights, I mean, the experiment rendered astonishing feedback for the field of psychology. In addition to exploring the nature of evil, asking me what I would have done if I were Professor Zimbardo is clear. I would have allowed an equal opportunity so both: guards, staff, and inmates were subjected to race barriers. Our attitudes are influenced by the environment and the communities that surround them. A major part of understanding is asking questions. How strong is the need for positive influence? The average person has numerous opportunities to recognize a positive perception because it’s clarified. What makes people go wrong? Is it the dissatisfaction of mutual gains? It’s my view to see and agree that some of the participants were possessive in their disposition. Inasmuch as who’s specific behavior was noticeable. It is obvious the conflict stemmed from
According to Slater, the purpose of the experiments were to test the idea of “obedience to authority” (58). While I do see that the experiments appear to have started as a way to test obedience, I think they stopped too early for this to be true. If they had
In the PBS documentary A Class Divided third grade teacher Jane Elliot tried an experiment to let a class of her third graders experience discrimination. For Jane Elliot’s third grade class in a small town in Iowa discrimination was unheard of because there was only white Christians living in the town. She separated her class based on eye color, so one day she made the kids with blue eyes be superior and the kids with brown eyes be inferior. She did multiple test to see if the way they were treated changed the way they learned. The next day she switched it, so the kids with blue eyes were now inferior and the kids with brown eyes were superior.
The phenomenon of personal rivalry is a result of jealousy and greed which convey man’s greatest flaws. In the
Second, The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study that was too inhumane to continue because of the behavior of the prison guards when handed with superiority and the mental breakdowns of the prisoners. E: “Now, you 'll all be given sunglasses and uniforms to give the prisoners a sense of a unified, singular authority… And from this point forward you should never refer to this as a study or experiment again,’’ (Dr. Phil Zimbardo).
The Tuskegee study was an unethical experiment preformed on over 400 African American men with syphilis. The trials led to the remaining living participants to win due to unlawful study. It also led to the death of over 300 participants and children contracting syphilis as well. Today, being 2017, we have came a long way with race and medical research. Not only have we developed as a society and country, but we 've produced laws since then to protect those involved in studies.
Zimbardo would then go out of his way to have kind,intelligent, and compassionate individuals try out for his experiment, when all participants were accounted for, he appointed half the participants as prisoners and half as guards, appointing himself as the warden (The Stanford Prison Experiment). He then allowed these guards to do whatever they pleased, except for physically abuse the participants. To his shock he found that all his once kind, compassionate participants were becoming into ravenous monsters that had no idea of the true damage they were causing to the other participants, Zimbardo himself began to feel these effects. Zimbardo ended the experiment early due to these effects and the mental well being of the participants being in jeopardy . When interviewing the participants he found, that these guards did truly feel remorse, but knew they had to please the higher officials in order to feel accomplished (The Stanford Prison Experiment).
The essence of this relationship is expressed through the internal conflict, both within
Situational effects and personality come into conflict when discussing behavior. Personality is someone’s “usual pattern of behavior, feelings, and thoughts” (Twenge, 2017, p.20). It remains constant throughout different situations, but some situations can be stressful enough to make a person act out of character. The transition between a person’s normal personality and behavior to a more evil, sinister behavior fascinates a man named Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the infamous Zimbardo Prison Experiment, or Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Zimbardo is an American psychologist at Stanford University and the mastermind behind the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (The Story).
The Milgram experiment and the society Speaking of one of the most renowned psychological experiment, which even replications on TV are done, is the Milgram experiment, on obedience to authority figures. It involves the measurement of how much participants will to obey the authority, in order to explain the reason why soldiers obeyed to allow the Holocaust, the homicides of millions of Jews, happened. With the participants’ roles as a teacher to punish a learner by incrementing degrees of electric shocks, though they didn’t know it’s staged, 65% of them did it to the last under the horrendous moans and the commands of the experimenters, which surpassed the expectation of 1.2%. Milgram himself elaborated two theories, encompassing theory of
1. Using human as laboratory animals a. True nature of experiment was kept from subjects, to ensure their cooperation. b. The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as oppose to whites.
Human experimentation can be extensively characterized as anything done to a person to figure out how it will influence him. Its principle target is the procurement of new exploratory information instead of treatment. In the event that a trial is at last advantageous to others or even to the subject himself, this doesn't imply that treatment filled a critical need. Humans have long been used as subjects for a variety of experiments.
(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.
Ashley, I concur that the Stanford Prison Experiment did, in fact, violate research ethics. I believe that Zimbardo’s research experiment violated the ACJS code, specifically, the experiment did expose participants to more than a minimal risk of personal harm, and the research purposes were not fully disclosed to the participants. Zimbardo himself also admitted that his research experiment violated these standards. I further believe that Zimbardo made several errors in his research including the fact that he gave himself a position in the experiment as “prison warden”. Clearly Zimbardo should have had another person play this role so he could remain independent, an error Zimbardo also admits to having done.
Authority gives a person the chance to feel superior, and as seen throughout this film, those within the position of authority will only then abuse this opportunity. Given the chance for people to gain authority or rather the sense of authority is enough to awaken the evil within. Within the movie, The Stanford Prison Experiment the guards were enabled to set a line of difference between the prisoners and themselves. They were able to make the prisoners feel weak or emasculated, forcing the students to strip and wear the assigned prison clothes that barely covered their genitals (Alvarez). Forcing the prisoners to wear these feminine articles of clothing and assigning them a number, gives the opportunity to strip away their personality and
Stanford Experiment: Unethical or Not Stanford Prison Experiment is a popular experiment among social science researchers. In 1973, a psychologist named Dr. Philip Zimbardo wants to find out what are the factors that cause reported brutalities among guards in American prisons. His aim was to know whether those reported brutalities were because of the personalities of the guards or the prison environment. However, during the experiment, things get muddled unexpectedly. The experiment became controversial since it violates some ethical standards while doing the research.