Research Paper On The Stanford Prison Experiment

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. It was concluded that many people tend to fit into social norms and don’t consider personal responsibility even for acts that are

‘Prisoners’ were ridiculed and abused, causing them psychological and physical harm, demonstrated by the prisoner who had to leave the experiment after 36 hours. Another ethical question the experiment raises is the lack of prior knowledge of the outcome of the experiment, as Zimbardo could not accurately predict the experiment, making it unstable. At one point of the experiment, Zimbardo tried to convince the prisoner to continue to participate in the experiment, violating the participant’s withdrawal

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

The right to withdraw was a major issue in this experiment as they were not authorised to leave the experiment at any time throughout the procedure of the experiment. Thankfully 3 of the prisoner participants left the experiment early who were mentally and physically distressed this was due to the fact that Philip Zimbardo’s wife came to observe the prisoners and guards act in their roles and saw the trauma and behaviour from the roles given to each of the participants, all of the remanding 21 male participants that took part in The Sandford Prison Experiment were let out within 6 days of the experiment taking place rather than the two weeks the experiment was meant to last for. Though the experiment was voluntary participation the participants did not know parts of the experiment were going to take place; they didn’t know that each prisoner would get arrested on site and taken to the prison in a cop car this caused embarrassment, stress and fear in each prisoner role this ethical issue is conformed consent. Lastly Confidentiality was a big part of this experiment which Philip Zimbardo did not keep, intercom system allowed Zimbardo and his group observing the experiment to secretly bug the cells to monitor what the prisoners discussed which breaches the prisoners

Official Stanford Prison Experiment website: http://www.prisonexp.org/ What makes good people do bad things?: http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/goodbad.aspx An interview with Philip Zimbardo: http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/the-man-who-played-with-absolute-power In the Stanford Prison Study, students were given roles as prison guards or inmates. The participants were chosen carefully, so that most of the participants would end up being "Average Joes".

So then it never goes as you planned? a In the Ted Talk “In the mind of a master procrastinator,” Tim Urban talks describes how your brain works if you are a procrastinator. A procrastinator is a person who always puts off doing something until it’s very very close to the deadline.

With all of this fear, how could Maximilien Robespierre possibly have a downfall? As the last two months of the terror came, the tyrant started to blame himself for the thousands of deaths. He passed the Law of the Twenty Second Prairial, which stated that all rights of the accused victim were washed away, making the executions go even faster (Linton). After the Committee of Public Safety passed this, Robespierre never attended another meeting. In his last few weeks, he rarely left his assigned room.

The punishments that Frank Abagnale received made him think about what he did and regret for the decisions he took. He was arrested in Montpellier, France, and got a sentence of one year which he had to serve in Perpignan’s prison where he was stripped of all his belongings. His imprisonment in France was awful because he spent six months in total darkness, he wasn’t able to talk to someone; he was sleeping in the hard floor, and living in his own waste. Frank said that “[It] was not a term in prison, it was an ordeal designed to destroy the mind and the body” (Abagnale). These point of his live can be described as a rebirth.

The guards were cruel and even made the prisoners do menial tasks. The prisoners also broke and could no longer control their emotions, some prisoners also went into depression. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. But, the experiment had long term effects that Zimbardo thought to be superior to the short-term effects, hence he decided to continue the experiment. Zimbardo chose to get the long-term effects instead of worrying about the short-term effects.

Another lie that Ericsson talked about was omission lie. Omission involves telling most of the truth minus one or two key facts whose absence changes the story completely. Sometimes telling an omission can hurt you or hurt the person your telling it too. A couple years ago, I was getting bullied because I was the smallest out of all the people in my class. It went on for months but I never had the courage to speak up about it because, I felt that no one could help me.

Karady’s Exhibition of pictures I take it as that went through war never the same again and you can 't just hop right back into normal culture it takes time to adjust it might be days month even years before your integrated back into society and I 'm going to understand that I heard this from killing someone to going back to college and learning that you can 't do that it takes a lot of time. I believe to get as good of portraits as she did you take a lot of times to get to know you person that you are taking a picture of can 't just meeting that day and take a picture of them it would take a few interviews to get to

If you rung the bell you would be gone for good. In Howards group, there was man that left the group. Leaving Howard and his one partner left, they had to make it back by themselves and when they did get back, the man who left them did not get treated very well. Howard went through months of sniping school to become the best. He had to make his own ghillie suit to disguise him from his direct and if he was seen he would fail but if you were not seen then you passed.

In Kyle Patrick Alvarez’s The Stanford Prison Experiment, 20 college aged boys are selected to play different roles in a simulated prison located within Stanford. This experiment was thought of and carried out by Philip Zimbardo, a professor of psychology. The boys, who were also students at Stanford, were randomly selected to be a guard or a prisoner. The prisoners were taken by real police officers to the Stanford jail. When the experiment started, most of the prisoners thought of the situation as it was intended to be, an experiment.

Similarities between the Stanley Milgram, and Stanford prison experiment extend beyond the conventional commonalities of psychological experiments. The approach of setup were at extremes with one having a student teacher relationship, compared to that of a prisoner and a guard, but the results of human responses were unnervingly relatable with both teacher and guard, being in the superior position and allowing themselves to degrade the inferior to extremes of death. Psychologist Zimbardo may have compromised the legitimacy of his experiment with the inability to remove himself, as he admitted in his conclusion, to remain objective and from influencing the results, but the authenticity of the reactions were not compromised. The motivation, some of the interviewes claimed, was to have control of the situation. Whether control meant psychological harassment or not eating, everyone had an excuse that they were playing roles in an experiment to justify the drastic measures of manipulation taken

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