Social Psychology: The Stanford Prison Experiments

The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo 's expectations, as the guards enforced the measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even

In “The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip G. Zimbardo, Zimbardo conducts an experiment to test the human ability to resist authority and the control of social pressures. In order to do this, Zimbardo sets up an experiment that tests the relationship between prisoners and guards within a prison and then relates his results to authoritative relationships in everyday lives outside of prisons. Zimbardo is showing how when humans in the real world are exposed to authoritative power like the guards in this situation, it consumes them as they will do whatever it takes to keep that power and remain in control. He also shows that when humans follow authority figures like the prisoners out of fear they are allowing themselves to become trapped in a metaphorical prison that will hold them back from having their own thoughts and actions until they are able to go against authority and break out of their “prison”. Throughout his article, Zimbardo implies that authoritative relationships trap all humans from forming their own thoughts and opinions, as well as give humans on the other side of the relationship an unhealthy amount of power that leads to out of character behavior. Zimbardo's implication leads us to see that not only are authoritative relationships bad but the same results that occurred inside the prison experiment can also happen in the outside world.

The famous Stanford Prison Experiment, of 1971, was a psychological experiment put together by Philip Zimbardo, who was a social psychologist. The main point of the experiment was to observe the social powers of a given role, the social norms, and the script of a person. However, not being able to go to an actual prison, Zimbardo created a mock prison in the basement of the Psychology building at Stanford University. An ad was placed in the local newspapers asking for male volunteers. All volunteers were male college students, of Stanford or the surrounding counties. Over seventy men volunteered to play a role in the experiment. Every single one of them was put through psychological testing. the psychological test was used to filter out

In the Zimbardo’s The Stanford Prison Experiment; however, the ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners’ were placed in the same facility and were face to face on a daily basis unlike the Milgram experiment. The ‘guards’ would tell the ‘prisoners’ jokingly to do something, however the ‘prisoners’ would do what they were commanded to do to try to hang on to their identity. (Zimbardo 393) By the end of the experiment most ‘prisoners’ showed increased stress levels in the ‘prisoners’ within days, some ‘prisoners’ could not handle the stress induced and had to be released early. The ‘guards’ were equally changed do to the scenario they were put in. One journal of the ‘guards’ showed how a passive person became a person shoving food down another person’s mouth and locking them up in solitary confinement (Zimbardo 389-399).

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a clear example of how humans can adapt to specific social roles and behave differently under the pressure of control. The experiment illustrated the concepts of deviance and social control through participants behavior. Although the prisoners were not really prisoners, they believed that they were. The behavior of the prisoners began to morph along with the experiment. By day two, the prisoners were showing deviance by barricading themselves inside their cells. The environment and treatment of the prisoners were likely causes of the disobedience. Similarly, the guards showed signs of social control throughout the experiment. Guards were able to show control over the prisoners through various actions, such

When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.

In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.

As dozens of participants seen and experience some of the abuse and its effects and said nothing as Zimbardo stated (Zimbardo, p. 130). If one of his colleagues hadn’t been dropped by and saw what was happening the experiment would have continued and many people would have lost their mind (Zimbardo, p. 131). The experiments consist of 24 participants, the volunteers were randomly delegated to play the role of prisoner or guard in a setting made to take a sense of the psychology of imprisonment. Zimbardo infused dramatic realism in the study. The “prisoners” were given identity numbers, stripped naked and saturated. While the guards had to wear that looks similar to a prison guard. (Zimbardo, p. 129). Ethics committees at universities have put an end to these types of an experiment for the reason of potential danger to participants (Zimbardo, p.

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.”

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.

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 Stanford Prison Experiment was one of the most criticized human nature experiments in history. In the experiment Dr. Zimbardo wanted to see if people would think for themselves, or fall into predefined roles that they were given. Before the experiment took place, Dr. Zimbardo picked 24 male subjects he thought were mentally and emotionally stable. He also built a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University. During this process all the subjects were divided in half making 12 guards and the other 12 prisoners. To help define the roles even further he dressed the guards in police type uniforms with wooden clubs. The individuals that were used as the prisoners were stripped searched and given smocks as their uniforms. Once the experiment started everyone seemed to fall right into the roles they were given. Even Dr. Zimbardo fell into his role as the prison

All together psychologically the following were observed: the loss of personal identity on both sides; and the arbitrary control exerted by the guards made the prisoner's lives increasingly unpredictable, causing depression and anxiety. The guards also developed a dependency on prisoners and were emasculated them to the extent that when the prisoners were debriefed they suggested that they had been assigned to be prisoners because they were smaller than the guards. In fact, there was no difference in average height between the prisoners and the guards, and the perceived difference was a response to the prisoners' perceptions of themselves and their power (Haney et al. p 14).

The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was study organized by Philip George Zimbardo who was a professor at Stanford University. Basically, SPE was a study of psychological effect. He studied about how personality and environment of a person effect his behaviour. Experiment he performed was based on prison and life of guards. He wants to find out whether personality get innovated in person according to given environment (situational) or due to their vicious personalities that is violent behaviour (dispositional). The place where the whole experiment was set up Philip Zimbardo and his team was Stanford University on August 14Th to August 20th in the year 1971 (Wikipedia).

This study investigated the effects gender roles and the acceptance of dominant positions. Participants of the study were college-aged students. These students volunteered, and from there were chosen to participate in the reconstruction of the Stanford Prison Experiment, headed by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. In this experiment male students were arrested and then imprisoned in an underground make-shift prison at Stanford University. The participants were categorized into two sections, prisoners and guards. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of roles and the behaviors of the individuals engrossed in their positions. As expected, the men did comply to their occupying positions, surprisingly, their actions were stronger than predicted; the reality of the experiment altered the mindset of the participants forgetting their true roles in society. The guards became dominant, ruthless and controlling. Physical punishment and degrading actions were common with guards against inmate contact. The false reality of the experiment got so intense they were forced to shut down the experiment early to prevent any further emotional