Compare And Contrast Zimbardo And The Stanford Prison Experiment

The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote

The experimental study that I chose to write about is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was run by Phillip Zimbardo. More than seventy applicants answered an ad looking for volunteers to participate in a study that tested the physiological effects of prison life. The volunteers were all given interviews and personality tests. The study was left with twenty-four male college students. For the experiment, eighteen volunteers took part, with the other volunteers being on call. The volunteers were then divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, randomly assigned by coin flips. The experiment began on August 14th, 1971 in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. To create the prison cells for the prisoners, the doors were taken

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.

Society has an influence in most of our daily activities, especially when these activities involve other people. During the Zimbardo Prison Experiment two groups of students were asked to play one of two roles, a prisoner and a guard. The good people that played the guards were completely caught up in their role as prison guard and created a new identity to match their situation. Their normal behavior would not have worked in an environment where they must be strict to keep "criminals" in check, therefore they had to change their behavior into a more ruthless and aggressive manner to fit their new role. During the reign of Nazi Germany most of the soldiers were not apparently capable of doing the acts that were committed, but because of the

Before watching this video and discussing it in class I never heard of the Stanford University Prison Experiment. I don’t think this experiment was very ethic due to the gruesome treatment that went on over thirty years ago in the basement of this university. In 1971 Dr. Philp Zimbardo a former sociologist at Stanford created a mock prison to do an unethical experiment. He wanted to test the power of a cruel environment without clear rules to change and transform “normal” people in a prison life experiment. In 2003 in Abu Ghraib, Iraq military enforcement tortured and beat people that did not want to follow the strict directions given to them. No one of ever knew about the treatment against these people if it was not pictures of proof to help

This week’s class was a really good one. It was good at showing exactly how society is. We do worry about what other people think. I never thought about it but it is true. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study was scary. Those people had a role to play and got into character. The scary part was the fact that they did not realize how they were acting at first. The fact they did not last the full 2 weeks was strange. I do like the fact that they videotaped them afterwards because the guards needed to see how they treat the prisoners.

Essay #2 The influence someone can have on the behavior of another is not tangible it’s difficult to pinpoint to something physical and is problematic to attempt to duplicate and experiment on which in some cases could border on the inhumane. The Stanford Prison Experiment is a fascinating example in which an observation of human behavior took an unexpected turn which questioned the true morality of the participants. The conclusions had far reaching implications about human behavior and about the natural and inherent lack of morality observed in everyday people when placed in certain situations. The behavior of every single participant had been affected and changed during the course of the experiment.

If I asked you to kill or punish someone, would you do it? Your answer would definitely be “NO” and would be sure in its truthfulness. In our life we play many roles: daughter, wife, sister, and friend. Each role has duties we’ve assigned to it. Phillip Zimbardo, a Stanford social psychology professor created a radical research named “Stanford Prison Experiment”, in which he managed to help the participants realize what one is capable of doing in order to fulfill our roles in life.

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

Zimbardo 's prison experiment continues to receive a lot of critics from the manner in which it was carried out to the results that its portrayed. Some people believe that as a psychologist, Zimbardo should have done a better job in trying to show how good can turn into evil through the said experiment. The research also demonstrates the interaction between the reality and the illusion which is also the concepts that Plato portrays in his analogy of light in a cave. As both of the experiments sometimes describe fantasy is more believable than the reality. Comparing the analogy of the cave and the experiment, a lot of

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Dr. Philip Zimbardo of the Stanford psychology department in the summer of 1971. The goal of the experiment was to witness how power and control – or lack thereof – can affect the behavior and personality of an individual in a group setting (specifically in a prison environment). It was also meant to display how roles, labels, and social expectations might affect such a situation.

Philip Zimbardo is the famous psychologist known for his Stanford prison experiment that was provided in 1971. 24 college students took part in experiments, they represented guards or prisoners in a jail. After this famous prison experiment, Zimbardo provided further research on comparable topics in psychological sphere. In 2000 he had become president of the American Psychological Association, and in 2003 he retired from Stanford (Cherry). However, his prison experiment is still discussed due to moral violations and the dark side of human nature.

The Milgram Experiment were a series of done by a professor of psychology at Yale University. The experiment consisted of a teacher and student. The teacher in this study is what the researchers are studying to whether or not the person will administer electro shocks to the learner. The teacher was instructed to shock the learner whenever the learner answered an answer incorrectly. As the learner continuously answers incorrectly the teacher would increase the voltage as well. I think that in this specific case the ends do justify the means. It was a safe experiment and while it may have caused some anxiety with some of the subjects I think it was very beneficial to learn the quite a few people will commit acts as long as they don’t see themselves

Nice post. Great job with explaining background information pertaining to the experiment. I too have learned about this study and its effects in a previous course, and agree that this is the first-time emphasis was placed on the ethical procedures which were performed. Therefore, I am grateful that this assignment has allowed me to see the experiment as more than just an experiment that was popular in research and criminal justice history. A major way this experiment violated ethical procedures is as you mentioned, by failing to disclose the purposes or the nature of the research. Participants were not made aware of the conditions in which they would endure during the process of the study. Great Job!

Tyranny is defined: an unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use of power by one group over another (Reicher & Haslam, 2006). The link made between groups and tyranny has a long history in social psychology being prominent nearly 2,400 years ago with the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle believed that collective rule leads to moral irresponsibility, haphazardness and is a disguised form of tyranny. Research into tyranny has been carried out ever since.