“The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip G. Zimbardo was written to explain the results of the Stanford prison experiment. Zimbardo while trying to gain support for his conclusions of the experiment, demonstrated many errors in his writing, and in his own experiment. The errors that Zimbardo commits call into question the validity of his argument, and the experiment. The goal explained by Zimbardo was “to understand more about the process by such people called “prisoners” lose their liberty, civil rights, independence, and privacy, while those called “guards” gain social power by accepting the responsibility for controlling and managing the lives of their dependent charges” (Zimbardo 733).
Situational and dispositional influences are rather different. To begin, situational influences include influences such as social roles, culture, and others being around. In other words, situationism means that our behaviors are influenced by our immediate surroundings and and environment. An example of this can be, if an individual were to go to a fancy restaurant. That individual would display different behavior in order to be appropriate. Situational influences can explain inappropriate behavior because if others are acting inappropriately, then you are likely to act inappropriately. Next, dispositional influences include an individual’s personality characteristics. To put differently, dispositionism is behavior that is determined by the internal factors of an individual. Dispositionism includes personality traits and temperament. An example of dispositionism is when an individual acts uneasy around others in public. This feeling of uneasiness is due to that individual’s personality, rather than the environment. Dispositional
The two experiments were a tested at different time periods and for different purposes. For instance, the Milgram experiment was originally tested to study obedience to authority, in response to Adolf Eichmann trial, a Nazi war criminal, that stated he,” was just stating orders under the Reich.” The experiment proved to be that under authority rule, actions, even if morally wrong and unethical can be still taken forward with due to a strict authority presence.
This essay will outline and compare both biological and behavioural perspectives on human behaviour. The history, major discoveries and theories will be discussed along with some of the most influential theorists in each of these two areas of psychology. This essay will also compare the two areas strengths and weaknesses in the field of psychology.
I’m glad we are going further into this topic since it’s such a complex one. I do believe that Zimbardo’s experiment was ethical, despite the fact that it needed to have been ended long before it actually was. However, I do not believe that his actions during the experiment could be labeled as such.
In the study, Zimbardo wanted to determine whether the brutality reported among American correctional officers was attributable to their sadistic personalities or it was due to the prison environment (Drury, Hutchens, Shuttlesworth, & White, 2012). Several things could have been done differently in the study. One of the most important things left out is a testable hypothesis. Secondly, the study should not have been used as a catalyst for propaganda. Thirdly, the prison simulation was not accurately simulated, since the goal of correctional officers is not to engender boredom and fear but to maintain law and order. The Belmont Standards, through the beneficence standard, proscribe the intent to engender fear, boredom, and a sense of arbitrariness.
Since I was a little kid my parents taught me that this world is divided into two groups: The first group is the people who always do good and barely sin or offend others, the second group is the evil people who always want to hurt others and make them suffer. They told me that it’s extremely difficult to change someone’s characteristics after growing up in a certain way and acting either with kindness or hatred towards other people. I had been convinced with this idea until I read about the Stanford Prison Experiment. In his article, Doctor Zimbardo talks about an experiment he conducted that demonstrated how normal people would react when they are put in jail. 9 students were playing the guard's role and 9 students were playing the prisoner’s
I think one of the main points Philip Zimbardo is making, is that anyone, even the nicest person, can turn "evil" and do bad things. This main point came up right away with the American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib Prison. These American soldiers were all good people before going to this prison. While at the prison they were surrounded by others torturing the prisoners. After being around this behavior, the other American soldiers joined in. They turned "evil" because of the activities the others were doing to the prisoners, to get information. These actions can somewhat relate to conformity. The American soldiers could have been pressured into joining the horrific activities going on at the prison. They conformed to the norms of what was happening
Zeno Franco and Philip Zimbardo offer the idea that heroism can be adopted by every individual, and how we can implement this embodiment into everyday life. Franco and Zimbardo explain the "banality of evil" is when an ordinary person under a certain condition or social pressure can commit inhumane acts, and this could be proven through behavioral science. Nevertheless, Franco and Zimbardo suggest that just like evil there could be a "banality of heroism"; furthermore, this suggests that one could nurture heroism through the heroic imagination. Franco and Zimbardo emphasize the importance of the heroic imagination; furthermore, the heroic imagination grants individuals the ability to imagine themselves as heroes. In addition, allowing individuals
While they are both well written, one is considered delightful and humerus, while the other is serious and heartwarming. Because it's about a soldier coming home from war.
In the final analysis of war effects’ on people, Ozick shares a fiction story that illustrates some of effects of war on a young Jewish woman and her family. Ozick touches upon every individual of this small family. She discusses the physical pain of Magda, the change of morality of Stella and the psychological effects of war on Rosa. The two experiments, Zimbardo and Milgram’s, can relate to the same concept of war effects and why soldiers would obey the orders no matters what they were told. Zimbardo would support Ozick in showing the physical and psychological pain of prisoners and also he shows the change of morality of the gaurds. Milgram would support Ozick in sharing how the learners lose their sense of morality in obeying the orders.
Zimbardo lost factuality he was only conducting an experiment and that led to him believing his own experiment and take the role of a warden serious.
By today’s standards, Zimbardo’s experiment would be seen as unethical and he would not have been given the authority to conduct such a cruel experiment. Therefore, gathering information to support his hypothesis would have to be collected by different measures. The most used method of collecting data about the power of social situations is better collected through alternative means like surveys and interviews because people are free to respond. Both the survey and interview research methods are done by targeting a section of the population and asking a series of questions either in an interview or via questionnaire (Doing Sociological Research, n.d., p.41). Another method for generating research data is through participant observation (Doing
A subjective questions like this warrants a deeper look into oneself in order to correctly respond. All the subjects were healthy and physically entering the situation. It is the situation itself that turned these average college students into sadists. According to Zimbardo, the situation placed power into the hands into these students, therefore leading them to abuse it. Everyone has the capacity to do evil, however the situation was the enabler. I believe that if I was placed in the situation where I was in control, had authority, and had not oversight. I would’ve become like the rest of the guards there. Because Zimbardo has said that the “evil”-doers were not inherently bad people, they were ordinary folks like the rest of us. The guards
the most stunning and popular social analyses ever an analysis subject canvassed today in most