The Conformity Of The Stanford Prison Experiment

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

The article on the Stanford Prison Experiment titled, A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison and written by the Office of Naval Research, provides us with the overall information that deals with this controversial psychological study. The study was conducted by

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.

In the article Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation Professor Philip Zimbardo claims that “the situation and the system creating it also must share in the responsibility for illegal and immoral behavior” when deciding an individual’s criminal accountability. Because the power of a situation has an enormous influencing effect on not only the subject, but the people around the situation and that dynamics in military detainment operations carry immediate risks of mistreatment and power abuse. Good people can do very bad things when in a bad situation. Zimbardo starts off his article for the Chronicle of Higher Education with several different social experiments that have been done. After explaining these studies he recalls his own experiment, the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo shares these studies as a cautionary tale and for the audience to reflect on our justice system in regards to imprisonment. Due to Zimbardo’s various appeals to pathos and logos and the methods he used, the argument that he makes about the justice system is effective and relevant.

Summary of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The stanford prison experiment is an investigation of how people will adhere to the cliché prisoner and guard roles in a simulated prison. According to Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved from https://www.dowellwebtools.com/tools/lp/Bo/psyched/17/Stanford_Prison_Experiment Philip Zimbardo the head researcher and acting prison warden says, "The purpose [of the experiment] was to understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations in a simulated prison environment. " What followed was an unimaginable series of events that appeared to bring out the worst in both the prisoners and the guards.

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.

Prisons in the United States have been labeled as places where cruel and unusual punishments occur and are rightfully labeled as such; not because of the demeanor of certain group of people, but because of the specific situation and scenarios these people are in. The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was set up to help understand the development and growth of the norms based on certain roles, labels and expectations in a simulated prison environment. This paper is going to explain and describe the experiment Philip Zimbardo set up and how it relates to the real world in non-experimental situations in regards with the controversy of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth"~– John F. Kennedy. For many years young adults have been pressured to do things that they might not want to go through, even though the situation might be harmful to them or others. However they go through with it anyway because they feel the need to fit in with their peers. Conformity is defined as the change in behavior that arises from social influences that may be put on one in different situations, in order to fit in with a certain group. Although people may indulge with people who encourage good behaviors, but it usually ends with kids being encouraged to act with inhuman and savage actions.

The Stanford prison experiment was made and led by a psychological professor named Phillip Zimbardo. The purpose of this experiment was to understand personalities and people’s behavior, so it was a study for psychological conclusions of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. The prison was made in the university basement of the psychological department. Zimbardo and his team selected 24 participants out of 75.

Throughout the Stanford Prison Experiment, the perception of individuality is lost through the eyes of an individual's power. This is demonstrated through the prison guards acts of authority to the prisoners. For example, “the prison guards pushed the prisoners to the point where they would do what they were told without thinking, but the prisoners resisted and tried to overthrow the guard’s authority and confidence” (Leveillee). This shows that we act in ways that we may not want to because it is a norm, or standard of what is expected. We may be influenced to change our ways and behaviors because of the environment, or by the people around us.

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)

The Stanford Prison Experiment was performed to detect the psychological effects of recognized power, pointing to the fight between prisoners and prison guards. It was conducted at Stanford University on August 14–20, 1971, by a research group in

When discussing Dr. Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison experiment, designed to examine the psychological impact of prison life on both prisoners and guards, the first question raised is a matter of ethics. Was the Stanford Prison experiment an ethical experiment, if not why? The Zimbardo study did meet the Nuremburg Code requirement that all participants enter into the experiment voluntarily. Every student cast in either the role of a guard or prisoner was a volunteer, had been evaluated and determined to be healthy, and the participants were compensated for their time in the study at 15 dollars per day. It also complied with the Common Rule, which required Dr. Zimbardo to submit his study to the approval of an institutional review board (IRB). In this case, the study met the IRB’s criteria and the study was approved. Also, Zimbardo did not knowingly deceive his subjects. Though little direction was given, the volunteers knew the parameters of the experiment, understood their respective roles as either a prisoner or a guard, and had full knowledge that the experiment had an end date.

This report on the Stanford Prison Experiment will define the ethical issues related to prisoner treatment and prison culture in a mock scenario created 1971. The findings of this study define the inclination towards corruption and riotous behavior within the overarching relationship between guard and the prisoners. In a short period of time,. The prisoners became hostile and sought to start a riot in order to free themselves from abuses of the prison guards. In some instances, the issue of role-playing limited to reality of the event, but the ethical issues related to issue of prison corruption became evident in the study. The Stanford Prison Experiment provided some important aspects on how good people can became violent lawbreakers within the orison system. In essence, the ethical and experimental conditions of the Stanford Prison experiment define the corrupting culture of prisons in American society during the early 1970s.

In 1971 Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in the basement of Stanford University as a mock prison. Zimbardo’s aim was to examine the effect of roles, to see what happens when you put good people in an evil place and to see how this effects tyranny. He needed participants to be either ‘prisoners’ or ‘guards’ and recruited them through an advertisement, 75 male college students responded and 24 healthy males were chosen and were randomly allocated roles. Zimbardo wanted to encourage deindividuation by giving participants different uniforms and different living conditions (the guards had luxuries and the prisoners were living as real prisoners). The guards quickly began acting authoritarian, being aggressive towards the prisoners and giving them punishments causing physical and emotional breakdowns. Zimbardo’s intention was for his study to last for 2 weeks, however, it