In order to make the prison experiment as realistic as possible Zimbardo had made those assigned to play the prisoner role were arrested by the Palo Alto police department, deloused, forced to wear chains and prison garments, and transported to the basement of the Stanford psychology department. While being arrested they were fingerprinted, photographed and ‘booked’, then they were blindfolded. Meanwhile the guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible. Three guards worked shifts of eight hours
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.
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.
“F___ your experiment! F____ your simulation!” was one statement from a prisoner, whom said that they had never screamed so loud in his life, and that he had never felt that much emotion in his life. As I can find no other way of explaining it, I told some of my friends online that it was “all kinds of messed up.” Students chosen for the Zimbardo experiment were given props: the prison guards were given batons, mirrored sunglasses, and uniforms while the prisoners
The Stanford prison experiment is renowned since it gave valuable information about how human beings react in different situations. I have been studying psychology in school and I remember this experiment catching my attention and therefore it was a clear choice for me to make a paper about. In psychology, there are many perspectives that explain human beings’ behaviour. But what I find attention-grabbing in this experiment is that no matter what perspective you look from, this is gives us a hindsight how human beings tend to act in groups. All sources I have used in this paper, are from the Internet.
In Zimbardo’s prison study he had selected students after putting out an advertisement for the experiment. He first interviewed everyone to ensure that none of them had any previous medical or psychological conditions, or any history of arrests/ drugs abuse. Then they were given tests to ensure their personalities were a right fight for the study. The students wore uniforms and the prisoners even had to wear a locked chain
There ended up being ten prisoners and eleven guards. Zimbardo wanted this experiment to be as real as real-life. He instructed the guards to do whatever they think necessary in order to maintain law and order in the prison (Zimbardo, 2015). “Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station” although physical violence was not allowed (McLeod, 2017). What Zimbardo found was that within a short amount of time all the participants adopted to their roles easily.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is an enlightening and interesting experiment, although controversial to many. An artificial or mock prison is created and every day, normal people are used to simulate guards and prisoners. The behaviors of both are studied and reported on. According to Haney, Banks and Zimbrado, (1973) “The Office of Naval Research sponsored the project as part of a larger project intended to develop a better understanding of the basic psychological mechanisms underlying human aggression.” (p. 1) Also according to Haney, Banks and Zimbrado, (1973) the study would hopefully help the Navy and others identify and isolate the processes which motivate aggressive submissive behavior within a total institution such as a prison. (p.
Over 80,000 inmates in the United States are in Solitary Confinement as said by the Bureua of Justice Statistics (“Solitary Confinement Facts”). Because the federal government doesn’t keep count of the number if inmates in Solitary Confinement, there is no more recent data. However, solitary confinement is a form of punishment used all over the country. Solitary confinement is used as a punishment for the most “dangerous” criminals, but is the right way to approach the problem? Sarah Jo Pender, a woman who experienced solitary confinement in the Indiana Women’s Prison writes, Women who enter sane will become so depressed that they shut down or hurt themselves.
This is done by providing the audience with an occasional break in format, to either give an opinion or thought on something. These kinds of breaks are seen most explicitly in “The Stanford Prison Experiment.” An example of this can be seen when Zimbardo is recounting the 2nd day uprising from the prisoners, stating: "Because the first day passed without incident, we were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion that broke out in the morning of the second day" (Zimbardo 110) By giving his own reactions, Zimbardo illustrates to the readers what his thoughts were when these events were transpiring. If Zimbardo had, alternatively, chose to smoothly segue from one day to the next, the audience would miss out on gaining this new dimension, specifically of what the author thinks. These kinds of authorial interjections make sense in Zimbardo's case, as his audience has already been adjusted to his less formal way of writing, but when these same kinds of asides happen in Milgram’s article, they take a on different