Stanford Prison Experiment (1971, Zimbardo): Aim: To study the two following problems: “1. The development of norms which govern behavior in a novel situation. The creation of a psychological environment within the physical environment provided. 2. The differential perception of the same situation "the prison experience" from people who are initially comparable (from the same population) but arbitrarily assigned to play different roles.” Purpose: “A simulated prison will be established somewhere in the vicinity of Palo Alto, Stanford, to study a number of problems of psychological and sociological relevance.” Taken from: http://pdf.prisonexp.org/geninfo.pdf Participants: Educated, male, American university students, with no prior psychological issues.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in the year of 1871 by the psychologist and professor Philip Zimbardo. The aim of the experiment was to see if the roles as a prison guard or a prisoner would affect their behaviour towards their roles they were randomly given and their role in society. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a Social Experiment which refers to the participants of the experiment being randomly selected, as each of the 24 males who participated were either selected as a prisoner who sits in a cell and follow instructions that the prisoner guards give or being selected as a prison guard who is outside the cells giving the instructions and keeping the prisoners in line. This experiment also has many extraneous variables
This experiment fits into Kidder’s ethical dilemma paradigms of short-term vs long-term. In fact, Zimbardo choose the long term effects of his experiment over the short term effects of it. The Stanford prison experiment had a short-term effect on the university students that could not bear the prison life for long and the prison was ended after 6 days only. The long hours of imprisonment revealed that the students had become depressed while the guards had already become cruel at their maximum. The prisoners were humiliated and embarrassed by the guards.
Prisons in the 1971 were a truly horrific place. Not only were criminals being punished by incarceration but they were being day in and day out by cruelty of the prison staff. This corrupt system of retribution became evident to a man named Philip G. Zimbardo. Zimbardo’s initial aim of the Stanford Prison experiment was to determine if it was the environment or if it was the conflicting personalities between guards and criminals that brought about the brutality in prisons. The experiment developed into something more abstract.
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. As stated in the name of the actual experiment, it was a simulation of how it was like to be imprisoned.
The guards were blindly obeying Zimbardo while the prisoners were obeying the guards and Zimbardo. Zimbardo continued the experiment, while sitting back and watching what would happen next. The experiment’s purpose was to see human’s responses to captivity in a prison-life
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.
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
Unit 1 Written Assignment Literature Review of article on Standard Prison Experiment Introduction This article concerns the Stanford Prison experiment carried out in 1971 at Stanford University. The experiment commenced on August 14, and was stopped after only six days. It is one of the most noted psychological experiments on authority versus subordinates. The studies which emerged from this have been of interest to those in prison and military fields due to its focus on the psychology associated with authority. The author ultimate hypothesis focuses on two aspects relating to authority.
He was also warned by fellow professors that publishing the details of such an unethical experiment might put his reputation and career in jeopardy. This violated the ethical obligation towards the participating children in the study, since this could reduce the benefits from conducting the experiment if its results were not used in appropriate cases where it would be useful. This also violated the principle of beneficence. The process of how the experiment was conducted may also have been unreliable, since Johnson may have had a biased opinion about it, as he himself was a stutterer. There was no extensive debriefing of the children after the study was complete to ensure that there were no lasting negative impacts on them.