Prison

Some other preconditions were to make the experimental setting bear a resemblance as closely to a functional simulation of the psychology of imprisonment as humanly possible. He also wanted to make sure that there was the absence of any earlier indoctrination in how to play the randomly assigned roles; to leave that up to each participant’s prior societal teachings of the meaning of prisons and the behavioral scripts associated with the oppositional roles (Zambardo, 2005). Although he had a significantly large abundance

In Maria Konnikova’s “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” she reveals what she believes to be the reality of sociologist Philip Zimbardo’s controversial study: its participants were not “regular” people.

On the other hand, the guards were treated differently from the inmates as they were given identical guard-style uniforms, reflective sunglasses that aimed to provide them an authoritative, secretive appearance and the freedom to live their normal lives when they were not on their 8-hour shifts. The independent variable of the “Stanford Prison” study is the roles into the participants were randomly assigned to in the mock prison environment, while the dependent variable of this study is the behavior measures, he emotional measures of mood and pathology, attitudes toward self among these prisoners and guards. The findings of this experiment were absolutely mind-blowing. The mock prison environment turned into a reality and the roles assigned to these college students became their real identities (either prisoners or guards). The guards treated the prisoners with no mercy, coming up with creative ways of breaking the prisoners’ spirit. Meanwhile, all the prisoners seemed to forget that they do have the rights to quit the study anytime they intend to, instead they submissively accepted and conformed to the rules set by the guards, including the sadistic and degrading treatments from the

In the summer of 1971 at Stanford University psychologist Phillip Zimbardo conducted a behavioral experiment meant to simulate a prison. This experiment was supposed to study the behaviors both guards and prisoners go through by using student volunteers to play the parts. This experiment, conducted in the basement of a Stanford University building, began to take on a life of its own and has since gone down in infamy. This paper will look into the person responsible for this experiment, how it was conducted and the outcome of the infamous study.

The Guard s however showed what was termed the ‘Pathology of Power’ where the participants playing the roles of guards found huge pleasure and enjoyment in their execution of power and sometimes sadistic actions which would explain their willingness to work extra time for no pay and their genuine disappointment when the study ended. Punishments with little or no justification were applied with verbal assaults and in the case of some guards, aggressive physical action. The prison became dirty and inhospitable; bathroom rights became privileges, which could be, and frequently were, denied. Some prisoners were forced to clean toilets with bare hands. Moreover, prisoners endured forced nudity and even sexual humiliation. Experimenters said that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies.

Ultimately people tend to obey and conform to their social roles. In the case of prison guard they wanted to follow the stereotype to guards image and behavior. The jail environment was extremely suitable for this experiment, it shows exactly how being dominate could effect personality. As result none of who where guards show any aggressive behavior in their real life. Consequently, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one. (Haney, C., Banks)

Young men were divided into the roles of Prisoner and Guard and put in a prison-like environment in the basement of the Psychology Department at Stanford University. The study was meant to last two weeks. But the brutality of the guards and the suffering of the prisoners was so intense that it had to be terminated after only six days (Shake Creative, 2008).

In 1971, Stanford professor and psychologist Philip Zimbardo, arranged and conducted an experiment with the intention of gaining a better understanding of the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations in a simulated prison environment. However, what professor Zimbardo was not expecting, was just how much insight this study would provide into the psychology of individuals and social groups, as well as, the aggressiveness of human nature. Participants in the study had responded to newspaper advertisements in the Palo Alto Times and the Stanford Daily, which offered $15/day to male college students for a study on the psychology of imprisonment. It is important to note that all volunteers in the experiment were

Zimbardo want to find out “whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards or had more to do with the prison environment” (McLeod 1).

The Stanford Prison Experiment was to study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The study was conducted by a team of researchers led by Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in August 1971. Twenty-four students were selected after tests and background checks deemed them mentally healthy, free of medical disabilities and history of crime or drug abuse. All 24 students selected were healthy, intelligent, middle-class males. Randomly ½ were assigned as prisoners and the other ½ prison guards. The ‘prison’ was set up to look just

This paper serves to summarize The Zimbardo Prison Experiment, better known as The Stanford Prison Experiment which was conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford University. The purpose of the study was to conduct research in order to better understand the psychological components of human aggression and submission to include conformity and obedience in a prison environment with a select group of subjects playing roles as either prison guards or inmates, however, I should note, according to McLeod, S. (2016), The Navy’s intent or purpose for the experiment was to better understand how to train members of the armed forces on how to cope with stress associated with captivity as opposed to making American Prison systems more humane. Another interesting point of note is that Zimbardo conducted this experiment shortly after World War II, and the Vietnam War where concern was raised as to some of the atrocities carried out in those wars where “ordinary” people conducted heinous acts per instruction from so-called authoritative figures. Experiments with similar objectives were carried out by Stanley Milgram and others. (Jones, A. D., & Milgram, S. 1974)

Zimbardo’s (1973) aim was to analyze the aftermath of experiencing the life of an inmates. To do so, the latter recruited participants and the subjects were allocated to the position of prison guards and inmates randomly. Only a few hours after being exposed to the prison life, both prisoners and guards got overly impregnated with their respective roles causing psychological harm which lead to the experiment being dismissed after only five days. Zimbardo enquired afterwards and found that the participants started believing that they were really prison officers and inmates, hence showing that they had conformed to their roles. However, similar to Milgram’s study, ethical issues were raised whereby the harm caused psychologically by the study could not be foreseen by any of the experimenters (Zimbardo et al.,

In conclusion to his study, he found that people will willingly conform to the social roles that they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ violent behaviour (however none of the participants who acted as guards showed cruel behaviour/ mentality before the study). Therefore, this means that the roles that people play can shape their behaviour and attitudes.

In 1973 Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo conducted an experimental study on prison environment. They recruited 75 males from advertisement in a local newspaper who was attending college; however, only 21 were chosen based upon background information taken from a questionnaire. The participants were divided into two groups – group one were correctional officers – group two were prisoners - to study the interpersonal dynamic of prison environment. The study indicated that one third of the guards’ behavior was aggressive and dehumanizing toward the prisoners. Additionally, the emotional distress which the prisoners’ endured warrant for early release (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973).

The result of the prison experiment validates Zimbardo’s “situationist” theory in which one’s behavior can be strongly influenced by the certain situation and the expectations of role playing from society.