Quiet Rage Analysis

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.”

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

Drs. Milgram and Zimbardo both made groundbreaking discoveries in their field and led people forward based on this knowledge. Both studies originally, in thought, started out to be ethical but the way the experimenters went about the treatment of those being tested was unethical due to the mental stresses put on by both experiments. The physical humiliation the participants were put through in the Stanford Prison experiment was uncalled for. It was not right to trade the suffering experienced by participants for knowledge gained because these people are left with physiological damage because of how they were treated. In Milgram’s experiment they all believed they were shocking a man with a heart condition which brought undue stress to the teacher, but they weren’t doing any actual damage to him. In the Stanford Prison experiment the prisoners were belittled and shamed and made to feel like actual prisoners. One prisoner went on hunger strike and refused to eat unless released. The hunger strike and most of the guard’s emotional attacks caused major psychological scars and emotional damage. This is what many people actually experience when they come out of prison.

They wore them down by the antics I mentioned above and I think the prisoners also came to the realization that there is nothing that can do to change their situation they have no authority or control. Although his experiment was viewed as controversial and iconic. I cannot in any way, shape or form justify a research permissible within the current ACJS ethical standards. I don’t believe any experiments could top the Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. How could you replicate or create an experiment similar to this one if there was no rules or guidelines to adhere by? By having no rules or guidelines is what made this experiment one of a kind and unique. Even by the ACJS ethical standards applied in my eyes, I still view it as unjust and unethical. I don’t believe that these standards should be altered so as to permit this type of research. I believe experiments like this have no place in Psychology. Despite the punishment, the individuals

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

Philip Zimbardo ended the experiment on the grounds that the behavior of the guards was escalating to a point where it was ethically wrong to treat a person this way, as well as the way the guards broke so many of the initial rules (Zimbardo). The guards misused their power by using it to humiliate and abuse the prisoners. Because of the way this experiment was cut short, data was limited, but this does not mean that what was collected is not useful or helpful. The audio, video, and rating scales of the individuals’ moods were all collected and compiled as the experiment progressed. The data recorded showed that guards and prisoners adjusted easily to their given roles, treating the situation very seriously and realistically. One of the men, Dave Eshelman, who was placed as a guard was interviewed about his time in the prison. In this quote he talks about taking up the role of a guard, and how it affected his mind and the experiment personally:

Although this experiment suffers from multiple ethical dilemmas I think Zimbardo tried to design and achieve a safe study. The main ethical problem in this study is that the prisoners suffered mental and possible physical damage including fear, anger, and stress. One prisoner was even removed from the experiment after thirty-six hours because of uncontrollable screaming, crying, and anger tirades. In addition, three other individuals were removed after it appeared they had experienced emotional damage that could be long-lasting. All of the emotions experienced by the prisoners were discussed in class as elements making a study unethical. However, it is important to note that Zimbardo attempted to prevent these types of results by having participants psychologically examined prior to the experiment being conducted. This was discussed in class as a justification of harm. This process is called screening; it removes possible candidates

Zimbardo was an active participant in the experiment he was basically the warden instead of being an observer, he was shaping the experiment in a way. In the documentary that was viewed in class, it was noticeable that the participants were all men. The sample is relatively narrowed down it is rather small in comparison a bit biased in a way. If there were women in the study the way things would have been different. The men would have behaved differently the result maybe would have been different. The result of the experiment is very astonishing as it surpasses what Zimbardo intended to. Particularly about the participant's behaviour before and during the experiment, the prisoners began behaving like one and associated themselves with the numbers they were given (Zimbardo, p. 130). It was amazing how quick their behaviour and thinking change in a matter of time. It was not even a whole week. The other surprise was when one of the guards who was using the shades started acting more violently when he started using them. The “prisoners” was treated unfairly and abused they forgot that they were just people volunteering for the study, they could have just said something to Zimbardo and they could have left without putting themselves in a difficult situation. Though the people that suffered depression was let

In the documentary Quiet Rage, the story of Zimbardo’s prison experiment is retold. In the documentary, Zimbardo develops a hypothesis that the abusive behaviors in prison is either caused by pre-existing personality traits of the inmates and guards, or the prison environment itself is the cause. He tested his hypothesis by carefully selecting 24 physically healthy, and mentally stable, male college students to participate in a “mock prison” experiment. The basement of Stanford’s psychology department was used to recreate a prison environment, complete with cells, a prison yard, Warden and Superintendent’s offices, and solitary confinement. Half of the test subjects were randomly selected to be prisoner, and the other half to be guards. They were to be placed in the environment, and their roles, for two weeks, and to be carefully observed by Zimbardo who also acted as the prison superintendent. Zimbardo planned to observe the affects the prison environment had the subjects. Due to the extremely abusive characteristics guards developed, and the swift decline of

The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo in the summer of 1971 to study the behavior and the psychological effects of becoming a guard and a prisoner. This experiment was supposed to be a two-week experiment, but that was not the case it only ended after six days due to the difficulties and the stress that the guards and the prisoners were experiencing. The methodology behind this experiment was to get volunteers for the study by posting it in the local newspaper. People who were interested in taking a part in the study were screened beforehand for any medical issues and criminal background. 24 College students took a part in this study and they were being paid $15 for each day. After that, the students were divided up into two different groups guards and prisoners which were decided by a flip of a coin, they were put in a prison-like environment which was in the basement of the Psychology Department at the Stanford University.

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues created the experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo wanted to investigate further into human behavior, so he created this experiment that looked at the impact of taking the role of a prisoner or prison guard. These researchers examined how the participants would react when placed in an institutionalized prison environment. They set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. Twenty four undergraduate students were selected to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. These students were chosen because they were emotional, physically, and mentally stable. Though the experiment was expected to last two weeks, it only lasted six days after the researchers and participants became aware of the harm that was being done.

This experiment goes to show that there are few people who have the capability of keeping themselves together in situations that are out of their control. When given the opportunity, the men who played the guards took advantage of the inmates, and the men who played the inmates let themselves be taken advantage of. Both groups were obviously manipulated by Zimbardo and his men though. There are many points that can be brought from this study in order to educate people on themselves. One being that no matter how in control that you feel you are right now, in a split second that can all change. Another that one of the guard pointed out, is that just when you think that you know yourself and the things that you are capable of doing, you can be pushed to different level and do things that later you will be ashamed

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 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

Debate Issue [Writer’s Name] [Institute’s Name]  Debate Issue Issue Name: Does the Stanford Prison Study help explain the effects of imprisonment? Your Name: ABC My position is pro or anti: My position is that yes, Stanford Prison Study does help in explaining the effects of imprisonment. The torture that the experiment revealed through this study was beyond expectation and extremely dangerous.