Stanford Prison Experiment Essay

Most individuals with authority will likely abuse their power. Such as demonstrated in the Stanford Prison experiment, where participants played the role of guards and prison in a mock-prison. This experiment was supposed to last two weeks but only lasted six days because the guards were buying abusive and the prisoners became anxious and highly stressed. Also, in this experiment, the man who conducted this experiment lost side track of the purpose of the experiment and that it is not an actual prison. Although, the experiment was just an experiment, the individuals who were the guards loss awareness of that and abuse their positions as guards. These individuals we don’t know how their characteristics, nor their personalities. We know they comply their behavior to fit the role of a guard. We can see this in the Flint water crisis since the people in positions that they need to protect the well- being of their people just as the guards who purpose is to maintain order in the prison not abuse the prisoners. We assume people in authority didn’t want to harm any individuals purposely. People with positions with authority, such as the governor of the state didn’t want to say one of the city

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 1971, one of the most influential psychologists conducted one of the harshest social experiments. The Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo tested the behaviour of people while in a simulated prison. Once you hear Stanford, the prestigious school along with brilliant pupils come to mind. The same could not be said during the Stanford Prison experiment. Only a few days in, the guards became power hungry and fear mongers. The prisoners exhibited desperation to escape and defiance to authority (The Stanford Prison Experiment). Zimbardo ultimately believes in situations as the answer, but what are situations? It means in certain conditions—such as the simulated prison—people’s thoughts and actions are

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).

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.

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.

Though this was just an experiment many of the test subjects were quickly pushed to their limits and the ones in authority took their roles to the extreme. Eventually, this caused an early shut down of the experiment. There was a total of 9 students who were willing to be the prisoners in this experiment. The study issued that the guards would be forced to give brutal and cruel torture upon the prisoner. The experiment was known as one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology because even though it was an experiment, the prisoners went through major psychological changes and one prisoner even succumbed to a short period of insanity. Through deindividualized torture, exploitation and manipulation many of the test subjects underwent the same torture as those who were imprisoned at Abu Ghraib. It was finally shut down by a woman by the name of Christina Maslach but similarly to Abu Ghraib no one was held accountable for the short period of torture. Also like Abu Ghraib, the men who played the role of the guards in The Stanford Prison Experiment underwent psychological changes where they became evil, relentless and manipulative all while blaming it on the fact that they’re “just following orders.” In many cases when a person is given authority, they abuse it

Kohlberg’s morality theory defines various levels and stages where a person’s morality can be tested on a scale. Reviewing the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prison was interesting. The guards in the Stanford prison experiment reacted differently than each other and showed different levels of morality. In the Abu Ghraib prison, the guards were put in a real life situation where the morals were tested. It was fascinating to see how the two different scenarios had similar behaviors.

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.

The events that took place in Abu Ghraib and the disastrous results of the Stanford prison experiment are related because of their determining factors. The drastic actions that took place can be tied into the routine activities theory. As stated previously, these events are based on not having anyone suitable in control, which can also tie into the mistreatment of children or the elderly by their in-home care person(s).

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by a research group led by Dr. Philip Zimbardo using Stanford students during August 14 through the 20th of 1971. Dr. Zimbardo wanted to see how people reacted when they are either put in captivity or in charge of others. The study was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and grew interest to both the US Navy and the Marine Corps for an investigation to the purpose of conflict among military guards and prisoners. In the study, 24 male students were selected out of 75 applicants to take on randomly assigned roles. One of the surprises of the study was how participants quickly adapted to roles well beyond expectations. After the first eight hours, the experiment turned to be a joke and nobody was taking it seriously but then prisoners

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.

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

Background + Introduction: What was the Stanford Prison experiment, give details as to what the experiment was: The Stanford Prison Experiment was conceived by Phillip Zimbardo with the aim of the Experiment being to observe and analyse the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. The experiment was funded by the United States Office of Naval Research who wanted to study anti-social behaviour (SPE website) 24 individuals were chosen for the experiment, all of them college age males.

During the Stanford prison experiment video I did notice a few similarities of a particular experience I had when I was in the Marines, that experience was just how putting on a certain uniform can alter the way a person. A uniform of authority can shift the way a person acts or even behaves oppose to not wearing a uniform of authority. when you’re not covering your identity with some article of clothing you hold an image that you want to try and protect and an image that is relatively consistent to your normal behavior, however when you shield that self-image and put let’s say a mask over which conceals your identity that can completely change everything about you including the way you conduct yourself.