After the experiment Zimbardo thoroughly analyzed what had happened. He found that even when good people are placed in an evil and negative environment; the people essentially are consumed by the evil. All of the test subjects, both guards and prisoners, became mentally confined by their roles in the experiment. When the students
He still has occasion meetings with the participants from the experiment. This experiment that Zimbardo created was a little unusual. It is completely understandable to want to understand more about the minds of prisoners and guards and how they are affected inside the prison walls alone, but Zimbardo seems as though his description of the prisons experimental methods Confer 2 were understated. The rules of the prison were arranged by the psychologists, which caused the guards to behave the way they did. Was this the whole point of telling the guards how to control the prison?
Stanford Prison Experiment In 1971, Psychologists Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues created The Stanford Prison experiment. The purpose of the experiment was to study the psychological behaviors of individuals and how easily they would conform to the roles of guards or prisoners. Zimbardo and his colleagues were interested whether brutality reports from guards in American prisons were associated with their ruthless personalities towards prisoners or whether it was associated with the prison environment. Zimbardo used an experimental lab to measure levels of conformity and assimilation to a prison environment. Zimbardo and his colleagues constructed the basement of Stanford University into an imitated prison.
Prison environment changes can be in the rational and economic view, in which material rewards controls are provided in the direction people are in need of it. Some secure custody methods include counting inmates to know their whereabouts, having a sally port (double gate) to control the traffic into the prison, the control of contraband, searches of the inmates from their clothes to a full body cavity search, shakedowns of their area and having them on lockdown. The prison environment affects
The Reality of Prisons In America Growing up, I always learned that prison was where the “bad guys” go. As I grew older, I started to learn more about prison, what it is used for, and conformed to the idea that prison makes society a safer place. Contrary to my beliefs, evidence has seemingly proven me wrong. Our prison system here in America is failing to do everything but reach it’s goal- to keep citizens safe, reduce criminal activity, and teach convicts a lesson while giving them the chance to change their behavior. This idea that Americans have in their brains- that prison “works” seems to mean that it reduces crime.
While watching the Stanford Prison Experiment video, I came to find that the prisoners didn’t show much loyalty to each other after a while. At first, during the second day of the experiment, the prisoners joined together with rebellion by putting the rails of their beds against the door. Prisoner 819 that started the rebellion was put in the solitary confinement room they called “the hole”, while the remaining prisoners were punished for what that prisoner did. After a while they stopped rebelling with each other because the guards punishments became more intense. It became every prisoner for himself.
Critical Response to “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A Lesson in the Power of Situation” by Phillip G. Zimbardo Abraham Lincoln once quoted “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man character, give him power”. Power is frequently defined as the ability to influence the behavior or others with or without resistance. The use of power could be seen as good or evil depending on whomever hands it falls into. In the article “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment…,” Zimbardo does an experiment to prove his theory on “what happens to essentially good people when they are placed in positions of power in a prison situation” (Zimbardo 302). The experiment shows that every man, even a good one, can in circumstances do horrible things.
The article, Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison, written by Philip G. Zimbargo takes us inside the research world of the prison environment and reveals several ethical and behavioral concerns about using social experiments to study human behavior. Zimbargo, a psychology professor at Stanford University, was fascinated with the social dynamics of prison, especially the individual interaction that takes place between guards and prisoners. Zimbardo’s method was simply to take all the accounts of ex-convicts and prison guards and create an environment that most reflected that of an actual prison system. Once that was in place he would assess the inmates using three different psychological tests (List tests) to eliminate perceivable confounds the Zimbardo use a random sample of a population consisting of inhabitants of the Stanford university area. There were 22 participants’ chosen for the role of either guards or inmates and 2 other participants were selected for the role of “warden” and “superintendent.” The guards and inmates were randomly assigned and instructed only on what they needed to know.
Many questions like these have me wonder. Whether being immersed in a prison setting or a member in a shock treatment facility makes its subjects lose their identity by becoming obedient, ultimately questioning their own decisions and morality. Although two very different experiments, each experimenter used Ivy League undergraduates as a type of control group. This begs the question, does the socioeconomic status of the subject really matter when studying morality? This was expressed throughly throughout Milgram's shock study.
Surprisingly, the participants truly embodied their roles. Throughout the experiment, the prison guards enforced their authoritarian power and tormented the prisoners both mentally and physically. Despite being the conductor of the experiment, Zimbardo also played a role as the superintendent of the prison. The Stanford Prison Experiment was significant due to its controversial nature and continued discussion in the classroom. The experiment itself was a form of field research.