Stanford Prison Experiment Philip G Zimbardo
The Stanford Prison experiment drew the attention of how adapting to a situation can make a person become someone else, leaving behind who they previously were. Social Psychologist, Philip G. Zimbardo, highlighted the presentation of classic psychological research on situational forces on human behaviour. Zimbardo debated that the situation is the core in creating individuals to act in ways they would have not acted before. The extent to how situational forces can explain evil acts by the individuals are seduced into evil through dehumanising and labelling others. As well as, the people’s aggression can be increased when they feel they have anonymity. Such as wearing a uniform or a mask (Dittmann, 2004).
This research was conducted in 1971,
a mock prison was set up in the basement of the Stanford University’s psychology building. The question upon this study is to see what occurs when placing a good human being in a human place? Does evil triumph humanity or does humanity win over evil? For the two-week experiment study, 24 participants were selected. The participants were educated, middle-class and of college-age; based on the personality test they were deemed normal through their conduct in a clinical interview. Each participant was paid $15 a day for their involvement. Zimbardo used a coin flipping method to assign which participant will be a guard or a prisoner. There were no measureable personality differences amongst the two groups when the experiment commenced. The role of being a warden was played by Zimbardo himself. Initially, the researchers were concerned that the participants would not have taken their role or the experiment seriously. The findings of the experiment escalated; the two groups came to act their real life counterparts. The prisoners became pessimistic; 5 prisoners were discharged. The quickest to disband within the prisoners group was in less than 36 hours. The outcomes of those leaving the prisoners group resulted in feeling overthinking, severe depression, crying and rage. The position of the guards was distressing; they used their power and made the prisoners obey trivial, often unpredictable rules and forcing them to perform pointless tasks. The guards became abusive and brutal towards the prisoners. The prisoners were so immersed within the situation that they pleaded to the “parole board” they will be willing to forfeit the money in exchange for their release. The study only lasted for 6 days (Zimbardo, 2007).
The experiment demonstrated that institutional forces and peer pressure can lead normal volunteered students who were taking the role of the guards to disregard the potential harms of their actions inflicting on other students, the prisoners. Zimbardo believed that a person does not need a motive and all it takes is a situation that facilitates moving from the lines of good and bad. The study can provide a few explanations on how situations can foster evil. It provides individuals to have an ideology of what justifies beliefs for actions. The study produces people to take small steps towards a harmful act with a minor, insignificant action and progressively increase those trivial actions. The participants that were in charge seemed like they were genuinely “just authority”. It alters a formerly compassionate leader into a dictatorial figure. The study relabels the situation’s actor and their actions to legitimise the ideology. it also allows the dissent, however only if the people are willing to continue to obeying with orders. And, it produces exiting the situation extremely difficult (Dittmann, 2004).
This research had represented the emerging reality of a situation was convincing to influence those who operated within it to act in ways appropriate to its demand characteristics, nonetheless inappropriate to their previous life roles and values. These involved staff, priest, lawyers, faculty observers, ex-convicts, as well as, relatives and friends who visited the inmates. This study displayed the most intense experimental demonstration of the influence of situational determinants in shaping behaviour and predominating over attitudes, a persons’ values and personality.
The Stanford prison experiment is the extension in concluding from Stanley Milgram’s study on obedience to authority (1974).
This research was conducted in 1971,
a mock prison was set up in the basement of the Stanford University’s psychology building. The question upon this study is to see what occurs when placing a good human being in a human place? Does evil triumph humanity or does humanity win over evil? For the two-week experiment study, 24 participants were selected. The participants were educated, middle-class and of college-age; based on the personality test they were deemed normal through their conduct in a clinical interview. Each participant was paid $15 a day for their involvement. Zimbardo used a coin flipping method to assign which participant will be a guard or a prisoner. There were no measureable personality differences amongst the two groups when the experiment commenced. The role of being a warden was played by Zimbardo himself. Initially, the researchers were concerned that the participants would not have taken their role or the experiment seriously. The findings of the experiment escalated; the two groups came to act their real life counterparts. The prisoners became pessimistic; 5 prisoners were discharged. The quickest to disband within the prisoners group was in less than 36 hours. The outcomes of those leaving the prisoners group resulted in feeling overthinking, severe depression, crying and rage. The position of the guards was distressing; they used their power and made the prisoners obey trivial, often unpredictable rules and forcing them to perform pointless tasks. The guards became abusive and brutal towards the prisoners. The prisoners were so immersed within the situation that they pleaded to the “parole board” they will be willing to forfeit the money in exchange for their release. The study only lasted for 6 days (Zimbardo, 2007).
The experiment demonstrated that institutional forces and peer pressure can lead normal volunteered students who were taking the role of the guards to disregard the potential harms of their actions inflicting on other students, the prisoners. Zimbardo believed that a person does not need a motive and all it takes is a situation that facilitates moving from the lines of good and bad. The study can provide a few explanations on how situations can foster evil. It provides individuals to have an ideology of what justifies beliefs for actions. The study produces people to take small steps towards a harmful act with a minor, insignificant action and progressively increase those trivial actions. The participants that were in charge seemed like they were genuinely “just authority”. It alters a formerly compassionate leader into a dictatorial figure. The study relabels the situation’s actor and their actions to legitimise the ideology. it also allows the dissent, however only if the people are willing to continue to obeying with orders. And, it produces exiting the situation extremely difficult (Dittmann, 2004).
This research had represented the emerging reality of a situation was convincing to influence those who operated within it to act in ways appropriate to its demand characteristics, nonetheless inappropriate to their previous life roles and values. These involved staff, priest, lawyers, faculty observers, ex-convicts, as well as, relatives and friends who visited the inmates. This study displayed the most intense experimental demonstration of the influence of situational determinants in shaping behaviour and predominating over attitudes, a persons’ values and personality.
The Stanford prison experiment is the extension in concluding from Stanley Milgram’s study on obedience to authority (1974).