Stanford Prison Experiment Essay

When the prisoners were brought into the prison, they were treated as real prisoners brought into the prison system but were treated inhumanely by being blind folded and left naked for hours. The guards dressed in prison guard uniforms and monitored the prisoners. The clothing of the guards was also “intimidating” towards the prisoners to show their authority over them. The guards got too caught up in their roles that they began to treat the prisoners harshly and in some cases inhumanely. For instance, the lineups went from a couple of minutes to several

The mock prison was set up in the Stanford University psychology building’s basement. From a larger group of 70 volunteers, a group of 24 undergraduate students were selected to play the role of either prisoner or prison guard at a rate of $15 a day for a period of one to two weeks. The selection of participants was based on the “no criminal background, lacked psychological issues and had no major medical conditions” (Cherry, 2010).

The guard attempted to hide this situation from the people running the experiment because of them “being too soft on the prisoners.” Another guard, not aware he was being observed, paced around the “yard” while the prisoners slept, watching his “captives” and aggressively hitting them with his nightstick. A majority of the prisoners still involved in the experiment started to accept the loss of their identities and the abusive treatment they received, because of the belief that they “deserved it.” The guards formed a corrupt but unified team that used their power to inspire fear and complete control over the prisoners. The prisoners, in response, became mentally compromised and developed depression, feelings of helplessness, and feelings of psychosis.

To study the roles people play in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. He advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. 21 male college

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).

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

She begins recounting the notorious details, how innocent college students labeled prisoners and guards displayed psychological abuse after only six days of confinement, and makes reference to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and Abu Ghraib, where similar maltreatment, perceived or real, was conducted on civilians by civilians. She addresses and refutes the accepted belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could become a tyrant when given or instructed by a source of authority. Instead, she suggests that Zimbardo’s inquiry points toward but does not land on one exact conclusion. She explains the influence of the setting, the presentation of the roles, Zimbardo’s participation, and perhaps a sense of expectation felt, all of which can be reflected in the shocking behavior of a few guards. She argues that it should not have been so shocking. Konnikova discredits the neutrality of Zimbardo’s experiment by insisting that people who would respond to an ad for a psychological study of prison life were not “normal” people. However, with her diction and choice of evidence she displaces the study's culpability in a way that ultimately blurs and undermines her claim.

Foremost among them was a former prisoner who had served nearly seventeen years behind bars. This consultant made us aware of what it was like to be a prisoner. He also introduced us to a number of other ex-convicts and correctional personnel during an earlier Stanford summer school class we co-taught on "The Psychology of Imprisonment." Our prison was constructed by boarding up each end of a corridor in the basement of Stanford's Psychology Department building. That corridor was "The Yard" and was the only outside place where prisoners were allowed to walk, eat, or exercise, except to go to the toilet down the hallway (which prisoners did blindfolded so as not to know the way out of the prison). To create prison cells, we took the doors off some laboratory rooms and replaced them with specially made doors with steel bars and cell numbers.

This case study will be assessing and defining the methods and effects that came out of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. This experiment was designed to shed light on the different psychosocial roles which influence the power has on ordinary people in a prisonlike setting. This psychosocial experiment concluded in several unexpended outcomes compared to the original though behind the initial planning and had to be terminated before the experiment was scheduled to end.

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:

The students who were the prisoner were arrested from their homes and were charged with armed robbery. When the prisoners arrived at the jail they were strip-searched and sprayed down. After that, they were given dress-like uniform and were not allowed to wear any underwear. This was meant to emasculate them. They were also given some hair caps to wear and were addressed by numbers that they were given; this took away their individuality. Their freedom was also taken away by putting chains on their feet. The

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 Stanford Prison Experiment, there were regular people acting as prisoners and guards. The guards had power over the prisoners, but quickly started to abuse it. They would harshly punish the prisoners, and because of that the prisoners revolted. Were the guards taking their role too seriously? This questioned the reality of the experiment, and the reality of legitimate prisons. They took the position so realistically, and put so much power upon themselves, that it made the prison unsafe. This situation is slightly similar to that of Aurelio Escobar in “One of These Days”. In that story, the mayor has complete control over the dentist. He has so much control, that he would sensibly shoot him. This shows how serious some situations become in reality

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.

Philip Zimbardo and his team aimed to demonstrate the situational rather than the dispositional causes of negative behaviour and thought patters found in prison settings by conducting the simulation with average everyday participants playing the roles of guard and prisoner. From a total of seventy-five volunteers, twenty-two male participants