Standford Prison Experiment Zimbardo
The Standford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 at Standford University by American psychologist Dr. Philip Zimbardo. The experiment supposedly intended to “measure the effect of role-playing, labelling, and social expectations on behaviour,” by having twenty-four college students recreate daily life in a correctional facility.
All volunteers are subject to a personality test. Anyone with mental disorders or illnesses, disabilities, or violent personality traits is disqualified. The remaining twenty-four students were randomly split into two groups of twelve: prisoners and guards.
Zimbardo’s theory was as follows: when presented with the opportunity to be cruel without any consequence, humans would take advantage of it and use it to …show more content…
But, on the morning of the second day, the guards decided to exercise their power for the first time by rallying the prisoners for a headcount. However, the prisoners decided to rebel by locking themselves in a cell and tearing the numbers stitched onto their uniforms. After calling in reinforcements and regaining control of the situation, the guards decided to put a system into place to ensure the rebellion would not be repeated. They created a “privilege cell”- only well-behaved inmates would be contained in this cell, receiving better food than their fellow inmates and having beds to sleep on, while the others had their beds taken away, as well as their daily food …show more content…
All participants in the experiment seemed to deeply internalize their given role, with even Zimbardo stating that he had placed his role of “prison warden” above his role of psychologist.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most largely criticised experiments in history, with many considering it unethical by today’s standards due to the mistreatment of the prisoners. Nevertheless, the study still poses an important question: Is evil caused by the environment of an individual, or the personality of said individual?
Furthermore, many claim that the experiment is inaccurate due to the demand characteristics that may have influenced the behaviour of the guards. They were explicitly told by the staff to act “tough” and to maintain order “no matter what.” Another factor that reduces the authenticity of the experiment is the labels “guard” and “prisoner.” Such labels come with expectations and stereotypes which may have deeply influenced the volunteering students’
All volunteers are subject to a personality test. Anyone with mental disorders or illnesses, disabilities, or violent personality traits is disqualified. The remaining twenty-four students were randomly split into two groups of twelve: prisoners and guards.
Zimbardo’s theory was as follows: when presented with the opportunity to be cruel without any consequence, humans would take advantage of it and use it to …show more content…
But, on the morning of the second day, the guards decided to exercise their power for the first time by rallying the prisoners for a headcount. However, the prisoners decided to rebel by locking themselves in a cell and tearing the numbers stitched onto their uniforms. After calling in reinforcements and regaining control of the situation, the guards decided to put a system into place to ensure the rebellion would not be repeated. They created a “privilege cell”- only well-behaved inmates would be contained in this cell, receiving better food than their fellow inmates and having beds to sleep on, while the others had their beds taken away, as well as their daily food …show more content…
All participants in the experiment seemed to deeply internalize their given role, with even Zimbardo stating that he had placed his role of “prison warden” above his role of psychologist.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most largely criticised experiments in history, with many considering it unethical by today’s standards due to the mistreatment of the prisoners. Nevertheless, the study still poses an important question: Is evil caused by the environment of an individual, or the personality of said individual?
Furthermore, many claim that the experiment is inaccurate due to the demand characteristics that may have influenced the behaviour of the guards. They were explicitly told by the staff to act “tough” and to maintain order “no matter what.” Another factor that reduces the authenticity of the experiment is the labels “guard” and “prisoner.” Such labels come with expectations and stereotypes which may have deeply influenced the volunteering students’