A Research On The Basement Of Stanford University

Another issue in Zimbardo’s experiment was in the treatment of the prisoners. The guards would curse at the prisoners and force them to ridiculous and arbitrary tasks such as forcing them to pick thorns out of their blankets which the guards had dragged through the bushes (737). Even the prisoners would make detrimental remarks about their fellow prisoners (737). The extreme actions taken by the guards resulted in some prisoners developing anxiety symptoms, one symptom even exhibiting itself in a psychosomatic rash when one prisoner’s parole was rejected by the parole board (738). The American Psychological Association makes it very clear on this type of behavior in their code of ethics they state that “any direct or indirect participation in any act of torture or other forms of cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment by psychologists is strictly prohibited. There are no exceptions.”

This Stanford Experiment violated a few of the Five General Principles of Ethics. The young men were offered $15 a day to participate in a study that lasted for one to two weeks that “wanted to see what they psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard” (Zimbardo, 1999). One being “Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence” which

I believe that although valuable information came from it, the ethical quality of this experiment is very questionable. I suspected that the guards would turn more authoritative than any of them would have in real life, but I never thought that they would go as far as ridiculing some prisoners to tears. Although there were none of the prisoners had any long term effects from participating, while in the experiment they would be harassed and punished for no reason, which is where I think the experiment should have been discontinued. Control of the experiment was lost as everybody involved, including Zimbardo became completely engulfed in their roles of the prison. This really makes me question Zimbardo and the other researchers to how they could be too involved in their own experiment to stop the experiment when it began to grow out of control. I think that in the experiment the guards showed who they really were. None of them would have acted that way in their own lives. Zimbardo watched all of this on a hidden camera, and didn’t do anything until long after I along with many others think it should have been. It’s not only that the participants didn’t see the unethical characteristics of this experiment, a priest that was called in and the prisoners parents that came for a visitation day didn’t protest the treatment of their sons after hearing stories of the mock prison. There is something about these symbols of

In his article “The Social Contract and Human Rights,” Grant effectively shares the importance of human rights to society. He believes even meager obedience to inadequate authority is unethical by stating, “When obedience is either enforced through conquest or slavery, or is simply the result of blind and unthinking compliance with the law, there is no free, intelligent, and conscious choice involved” (Grant 18). In situations like the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal, Grant would confirm human rights given to the guards were lacking, which allowed them to conform with the social pressures of law enforcement. While testing obedience in his experiment, Zimbardo encountered a contrary thought. For his specific experiment, the subjects were assigned consent paperwork and monetary reward for participation. The right to discontinue one’s experience was given; however, specific instructions to perform the roles were not. After he distributed nearly zero guidelines to his experimental guards, Zimbardo discovered, “…the guards became more aggressive, prisoners became more passive” (Zimbardo 106). The test required only one individual to commence the abuse for the other subjects to follow along. The editors of ABC News Primetime would agree with this, as a shocking story from a Texas McDonalds was shared during their “Basic Instinct 5: Milgram Experiment Re-visited” program. Similarly, all the trouble was due to one

The Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment has to be one of the cruelest and disturbing experiments I have witnessed since the Milgram experiment. This experiment was pushed far beyond its means and went extremely too far. I know experiments in 1971 weren’t as thorough and strategic as today's but I know today's rules and regulations never allow cruel and unusual punish just to test out one’s theory’s. I don’t believe criminologists should be permitted to conduct replications of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. I also know that the ACJS and other organizations who set the rules and guidelines for experiments would not promote or condone an experiment that is dangerous and is unethical such as Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. There were no boundaries or a level

The prisoners were emotionally and mentally harmed during the experiment. The prisoners started to lose their identity, and instead started identifying themselves as their number. One participant even went on a hunger strike for the time that he was in the prison. Another participant had to leave the study because he became excessively disturbed as time went on. After the study was done, people had trouble separating what the people did in the study to how they were in real life, which caused a problem when they all had to meet after the trial was over. This ethical violation is very apparent because Dr. Zimbardo did have to end the study before the two weeks was done.

Philip (2009) to try and see what was being said about prison treatment was true, this was called the Stanford prison experiment. This experiment only lasted 6 days due to the circumstances versus 6 weeks. Zimbardo had to find out whether the prisons were brutal due to the guards or due to the environment. It was clear that the role of the guards was the issue and not the environment. This was discovered when a sample was chosen from the population. Each induvial was set up to be a guard or a prisoner at random. In this study researchers got see the unfortunate power of social situations. Once prisoner and guard roles were assigned each group were told that they were being watched by the researcher and his colleagues, the guards were to not hit the prisoners, and debriefed about the experiment. Although all this was told the guards took situations into their own hands and the power took over. The guards began simply viewing them as prisoners and the prisoners began to fear the guards. It is important to note the researcher did not intervene but continued to observe when the hitting was taking place. This is particularly important because not only are the guards fitting the rod but the researcher is at fault for the fundamental attribution error but viewing the situation for what it

This study is very conflicting to me, but overall, I feel that the experiment benefited us. In my opinion, I do not believe that Zimbardo began the study thinking that it was unethical. He took the steps to choose people who were mentally capable of withstanding the study, as well as able to rebound after the simulation was complete. Zimbardo couldn’t have predicted what would happen in the simulation. He even stated at one point in Quiet Rage how we was quite surprised with some of the actions the prison guards took and even those of the prisoners when it came to helping another prisoner. But I feel like Zimbardo prepared the participants for the study to the best of his capability. I understand that Zimbardo got caught up in his role as prison supervisor in the experiment, but once he realized the harm that was being done, he put a stop to the experiment. Although no one can tell before a study takes place whether the harm will be worth the benefits, in this instance, I believe that the benefits do outweigh the

The experiment was thought of when numerous attempts to provide an explanation of the U.S penal system failed with addressing the U.S correctional system the common belief was the dispositional hypotheses which brought forth the nation of two major ideas (Henry, Banks, and Zimbardo, 1973). The first being the idea of guard mentality where it was the correctional officers themselves that was source of all aggression and disputes among

The Zimbardo prison experiment was a study of human responses to captivity, dehumanization and its effects on the behavior on authority figures and inmates in prison situations. Conducted in 1971 the experiment was led by Phlilip Zimbardo. Volunteer College students played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a simulated prison setting in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was to determine how conformity and obedience could result in people behaving in ways that are counter to how they would at on their own. The main goal of the experiment was to see how social norms and social convections might influence the behavior of participants who are playing the roles of prisoners and prison guards. The study really elaborates on the relationship between the abuser and the abused. It is interesting to see how easily the human psyche gives repetitive abuse and is conditioned to receive it and accept it. This paper will discuss the motives, procedures, findings, ethical issues, and informed consent the Stanford Prison Experiment concluded on.

In 1971, Dr. Zimbardo as a young psychologist at Stanford University, CA conducted an experiment on prison behavior where normal, run of the mill liberal undergraduate students volunteers were divided into two groups, ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’. Even though students knew, that it was an artificial situation, the guards, assumed a sense of power and tormented, tortured and sexually humiliated their prisoners regardless of the fact that they knew that the prisoners had done no wrong. The prisoners were brainwashed into a role of helplessness, dejection and acceptance of their faith. Zimbardo and his colleagues got so carried away with how well the experiment was turning out, that he did nothing to stop it! They had all lost their moral compass in this situation!

The Stanford prison experiment was unique because they wanted to watch and learn the behaviors of a prisoner and a prison guard, observing the effects they found some pretty disturbing things among the students. Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University stayed true to what they believed, and they did what they felt they needed to do to find a set of results for their simulation. Unfortunately they where swallowed into the experiment, when they became the roles, just as the students where. So from their point of view I want to say that what they where doing was ethical, and being that the prison experiment was stopped before its half way mark showed that they realized that it was time to call it quits. Dr. Zimbardo noticed

This report on the Stanford Prison Experiment will define the ethical issues related to prisoner treatment and prison culture in a mock scenario created 1971. The findings of this study define the inclination towards corruption and riotous behavior within the overarching relationship between guard and the prisoners. In a short period of time,. The prisoners became hostile and sought to start a riot in order to free themselves from abuses of the prison guards. In some instances, the issue of role-playing limited to reality of the event, but the ethical issues related to issue of prison corruption became evident in the study. The Stanford Prison Experiment provided some important aspects on how good people can became violent lawbreakers within the orison system. In essence, the ethical and experimental conditions of the Stanford Prison experiment define the corrupting culture of prisons in American society during the early 1970s.

In 1971 Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in the basement of Stanford University as a mock prison. Zimbardo’s aim was to examine the effect of roles, to see what happens when you put good people in an evil place and to see how this effects tyranny. He needed participants to be either ‘prisoners’ or ‘guards’ and recruited them through an advertisement, 75 male college students responded and 24 healthy males were chosen and were randomly allocated roles. Zimbardo wanted to encourage deindividuation by giving participants different uniforms and different living conditions (the guards had luxuries and the prisoners were living as real prisoners). The guards quickly began acting authoritarian, being aggressive towards the prisoners and giving them punishments causing physical and emotional breakdowns. Zimbardo’s intention was for his study to last for 2 weeks, however, it