The Psychological Impact Of Imprisonment For Two Weeks

Throughout the history of humanity, humans have different behaviors that change depending on what situations they are in. Psychologist Philip Zimbardo spent many years exploring human nature and has developed many theories about human behavior. One of Zimbardo’s ideas is about situational factors that states “one’s behavior is assumed to be dependent upon their current circumstances, situation or the environment that they are in.” He concluded the concept of situational factors after his Stanford Prison Experiment, in which he gave authority to regular people and observed any changes. The experiment proved that people’s behavior will change when they are in different situations. Zimbardo also believes that evilness is the exercise of power to harm people in anyway possible, so a five year old who teases others to Adolf Hitler would be classified as perpetrators of evil.

Likewise Zimbardo’s (1971) experiment, studying the way ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’ interacted, demonstrated similar ethical failings, such as consent gained without individuals being made fully aware of the involvements; physical, emotional and psychological harm subjected; violation of rights, including privacy, respect, confidentiality and the ability to withdraw (). Fascinated by the volume of ordinary individuals who executed terrible things to others during WWII, Zimbardo predicted that all people, even the good, had the potential to conduct malevolence when sited in the correct environment (Haney et al, 1973). In a mock prison participants were recruited to play a role, half as prisoners and the rest as guards. Both were dressed accordingly, with the guards wearing a uniform with mirrored sunglasses which promotes anonymity as their emotions are obscured, but yet denotes their position of power and authority. According to Zimbardo (2000) these ‘conditions of deindividuation’ allow for the facilitation of evil. Subsequently it becomes acceptable to enforce measures which degrade prisoners of their self-respect, including being stripped, deloused and ordered to carry a chain around their ankle, whilst the mandatory wearing of a smock and a cap made from a stocking demoralized them as it impacted upon their masculinity. Additionally, not only were prisoners assigned a number by which they were referred to, denying them of their identity, but each area of their daily

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.

Social psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, has lead one of the most infamous experiments in the modern history with the Stanford Prison Experiment. The immense popularity of the experimental research on situational power, although having cultivated great recognition, has overshadowed the multiple contributions and accomplishments that Zimbardo continues to assume in his lifetime. Many of Zimbardo’s recognitions have been brought upon due to the Stanford Prison Experiment, yet in this paper will extensively examine Zimbardo’s psychological career from the beginning to the current date to recognize his notable influence in the field of Psychology, specifically the field of Social Psychology. This brief review of Zimbardo’s lengthy career will include various facts and personal accounts of Zimbardo’s regarding his life and work. Zimbardo’s lifetime of work has mainly focused and researched the multiple flaws of human’s beings, and it’s through his findings that society is truly able to progress forward positively. Zimbardo’s long career exemplifies that of an unrestricted devotion; he has and still works to better society through its various flaws, making him undoubtably impactful.

Over 4 decades ago, a Stanford psychology professor named Phillip G. Zimbardo administered an experiment that re-created a prison environment. The goal of the experiment was to simply study the process by which prisoners and guards “learn” to become compliant and authoritarian, respectively (Zimbardo 732). What would emerge from the “Stanford Prison Experiment” article were more than just compliance and authority. The experiment gave rise to the nature of evil and obedience in human beings. Thus like Zimbardo’s experiment, Stanley Milgram’s “The Peril of Obedience” found that under certain circumstances and conditions, human beings were also capable of being immensely subdued to

Philip Zimbardo, who categorizes himself as “good” fell victim to the situation of the “Stanford Prisons Experiment” (SPE). Even though it was a mock prison environment, Zimbardo fell heavily invested in his role as superintendent and lead investigator of the SPE, whose main concern is to make sure the SPE continues running, led him to accept that his actions were normal. Which in turn allowed him to ignore his moral conscience; allowing for the suffering from the participants surrounding the SPE. When Zimbardo came to the decision to end the program, disconnecting from his both his roles he was able to realize that he was not in control, that the situation had controlled his logic affecting his actions. Zimbardo states, “The negative

In 1971 Zimbardo performed a psychological test at Stanford University. They simulated what it would be like to be either a prisoner or a prison guard while Zimbardo acted as superintendent. Throughout the experiment it became clear that bad systems and bad situations could lead good people into behaving in ways they normally wouldn’t. Some of the volunteers for the SPE who were assigned to be the guards started acting sadistically, abusing their newfound power. They align with Zimbardo’s definition of evil by degrading, demeaning and hurting the prisoners.

the same concept applies to prisons when a inmate is sentenced to grow from his past non socially acceptable behavior in a cesspool of violence, corruption and unknown danger . The SPE observation showed systemic selection procedures ensured that everyone going into their 'prison' were normal average and healthy as possible and had no prior history of any social behavior, crime or violence. Despite the artificiality of the controlled experimental research, the data recorded captured the central psychological features of imprisonment that Zimbardo believed to be central to a prison experience. So with that being said, the individuals that were confined to the negative environment, previously unknown to them unintenally provoked survival measures by altering their mindsets to perform sadistically and malicious in order to escape or just receive more humane treatment from the guards. the fact with this is that if normal neutral human beings were confined to a prison like experience and turned evil just from the experience what could it do to individuals that have a more radical view of morality ... now in comparison with real prison complex, Someone living there is less likely to be murdered than they would be elsewhere in America. That, however, is where the good news ends. The bad news, of which there is plenty, is that the life the prisoner

In 1971, Dr. Zimbardo as a young psychologist at Stanford University, CA conducted an experiment on prison behavior where normal, run of the mill liberal undergraduate students volunteers were divided into two groups, ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’. Even though students knew, that it was an artificial situation, the guards, assumed a sense of power and tormented, tortured and sexually humiliated their prisoners regardless of the fact that they knew that the prisoners had done no wrong. The prisoners were brainwashed into a role of helplessness, dejection and acceptance of their faith. Zimbardo and his colleagues got so carried away with how well the experiment was turning out, that he did nothing to stop it! They had all lost their moral compass in this situation!

Everyone likes to think that they’re a good person, however the question is when put in a negative environment will everyone continue to be that same person? Or perhaps a darker side that they never knew would be revealed when their characters are tested in a hostile and scary environment. In this paper, I will be analyzing the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will be looking into what the intentions were, the ethical issues surrounding this notorious experiment, what classic resolution principles would be applied to this situation, and what exactly can be learnt from this experiment.

Philip G. Zimbardo, a social psychologist, presented a classic psychology research in the situational effects on human behaviour. This explains how situations can modify an individual to act in ways they would not have acted before. Zimbardo highlights that a person are seduced into evil by dehumanising and labelling others; and notes that an individual who has a sense of anonymity increases their aggression, such as wearing a uniform or a mask. The Stanford prison experiment, which Zimbardo conducted, showed that institutional forces and the peer pressures amongst volunteered guards to disregard the potential harm of their actions on to the volunteered prisoners. In other words, a person does not need a motive, and what is needed is a situation that facilitates through the lines between good and evil (Dittmann, 2004).

Although, prisons are seen as forms of control which limit individual freedom. How do they differ from a psychological prison? Psychological prisons are created through racism, sexism, ageism, poverty and other social institutions. Psychological prisons are, indeed, very real as this can be seen through various examples that will be presented in this essay.

I chose to write about Philip Zimbardo after I became immediately fascinated with his Stanford prison experiment and how he chose to explore the impact that situational elements have on human behaviors. Zimbardo’s personal and childhood experiences definitely shaped and molded his outlook on society and I believe is what overall drew his attention to exploring the tedious factors and variables that could

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)

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