Zimbardo 's Zimbardo Prison Experiment Essay

The Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment has to be one of the cruelest and disturbing experiments I have witnessed since the Milgram experiment. This experiment was pushed far beyond its means and went extremely too far. I know experiments in 1971 weren’t as thorough and strategic as today's but I know today's rules and regulations never allow cruel and unusual punish just to test out one’s theory’s. I don’t believe criminologists should be permitted to conduct replications of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. I also know that the ACJS and other organizations who set the rules and guidelines for experiments would not promote or condone an experiment that is dangerous and is unethical such as Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. There were no boundaries or a level

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.

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

In 1971 Philip Zimbardo and his collages Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, David Jaffe, and ex-convict consultant, Carlo Prescott formulated a social experiment that addressed the underlying and basic physical mechanisms of human aggression (Henry, Banks, and Zimbardo, 1973). The experiment was planned to last two weeks and consist of male college students. The study was based upon the dynamic of the authority of prison guards and submissive behavior of the prisons inmates. Therefore, the experiment required for a mock prison to be built.

Stanley Milgram and Philip G. Zimbardo both address instances in which the hierarchy between authorities and subjects is clearly defined in an experimental setting. In Stanley Milgram’s article, “The Perils of Obedience,” the experimenter researched the effect of authority on obedience. The experiment involved a teacher and a learner, in which the learner would receive shocks if he/she failed to memorize a series of words (Milgram 78). However, the learner was an actor that did not truly receive shocks (Milgram 78). Moreover, the author concludes that individuals obey out of fear or a desire to please others even when performing against their own better judgement. Comparatively, the article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” was both written and conducted by Philip G. Zimbardo. Initiating a mock arrest, Zimbardo attempted to produce, but not enforce, elements of imprisonment among volunteers to study the relationship between authority and prisoners (Zimbardo 106). Similar to the first experiment, the study proved that any person possesses notions of sadism that require tense situations to reveal these feelings. Although Zimbardo displays the power of situations more logically than Milgram, both authors effectively acknowledge the relationship between authorization and obedience by focusing on the test subjects that were selected for the experiments.

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

This essay is an investigation of the application from the Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment to some similar scenarios that demonstrate the same or similar findings found within the Stamford Prison Experiment that were influenced by external factors and influences. The Stamford Prison Experiment was conducted to investigate how subtle people are to conform to roles of the guard and prisoner in a mock prison environment and if the behaviours were influenced by the environment or by sadistic personalities of guards (McLeod, 2016). There are several factors that influence good guards to not question orders from bad guards and a few of these factors will be outlined in this essay. The first topic that will be discussed is the similarities of

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a physiological study made to understand what affected the police brutality in prison environments. Zimbardo conducted this experiment in 1973. The goal was “To investigate how readily people would confirm to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that stimulated prison life. 24 male college students were tested for their psychological normality. The chosen ones were paid $15 a day to take part in the experiment.

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.

Throughout history, the theme of “good” people turning evil under the pressure and influences of different ideas and people are commonly seen. This idea of good people turning bad was further strengthen in Philip Zimbardo’s Mock Prison Experiment and other past events such as the French Foreign Legion, the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison, and so on. This event demonstrated that even innocent, good beings could transform into an abusive and evil person, given the right conditions and incentives.

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).

Obedience and Disobedience has been a part of key moments in history. Many have studied forms of obedience to learn how it affects people and situations. For example, Stanley Milgram conducted a well-known experiment in which the subject, named the “teacher” must shock the “learner” every time he doesn’t remember a word pair from a memory test. The focus of this study is on the teacher, and whether they will administer killing shocks when told to by an authority figure. Another well-known experiment is the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. A group of college boys were separated into two groups, prison guards and prisoners, and were put

Richard A. Griggs, a well known psychologist said Zimbardo, “gave the guards an orientation that seems to have produced clear guidance about how they should behave.” Although Zimbardo concluded that a person’s environment caused normal people to become evil, psychologist, Erich Fromm disagreed saying that only one-third of the guards in the study harassed the prisoners. Fromm also mentioned that two thirds of the guards did not mistreat prisoners for the fun of it. Therefore, according to Fromm, it can be proven that people do not become evil just because of a specific situation and environment they are placed in. Other criticisms include, selecting subjects in a bias manner,

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