A Critical Review Of Zimbardo 's Stanford Prison Experiment And The Bbc Prison Study

The experimental study that I chose to write about is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was run by Phillip Zimbardo. More than seventy applicants answered an ad looking for volunteers to participate in a study that tested the physiological effects of prison life. The volunteers were all given interviews and personality tests. The study was left with twenty-four male college students. For the experiment, eighteen volunteers took part, with the other volunteers being on call. The volunteers were then divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, randomly assigned by coin flips. The experiment began on August 14th, 1971 in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. To create the prison cells for the prisoners, the doors were taken

In Maria Konnikova’s “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” she reveals what she believes to be the reality of sociologist Philip Zimbardo’s controversial study: its participants were not “regular” people.

After reading the Stanford Prison Experiment that was conducted by Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues, to determine if roles have an effect on ones’ judgement. This was determined by developing a prison simulation that would place participants in a situation that would require them to play the proper role, knowingly or unaware of this action. As for deciding the proper participants, numerous tests were used on them, to ensure that none of the participants had a psychological disorder that could affect the results of the study. Therefore, 20 participants were able to meet all the requirements for the study; however, only 18 participants were used throughout the whole study, and the rest were called in if it was necessary. This would then lead

Known as the “Stanford Prison Experiment”, a group of students were chosen to act as either guards or prisoners in a fake prison. The experiment started off without a hitch, but after a riot things began to change for the worst. The guards began to take their job too seriously, sending prisoners off to solitary confinement and beating them. They also began to refuse giving the prisoners food. As the prisoners began to question the guards, their beatings got worse and they wanted out of the experiment.

Drs. Milgram and Zimbardo both made groundbreaking discoveries in their field and led people forward based on this knowledge. Both studies originally, in thought, started out to be ethical but the way the experimenters went about the treatment of those being tested was unethical due to the mental stresses put on by both experiments. The physical humiliation the participants were put through in the Stanford Prison experiment was uncalled for. It was not right to trade the suffering experienced by participants for knowledge gained because these people are left with physiological damage because of how they were treated. In Milgram’s experiment they all believed they were shocking a man with a heart condition which brought undue stress to the teacher, but they weren’t doing any actual damage to him. In the Stanford Prison experiment the prisoners were belittled and shamed and made to feel like actual prisoners. One prisoner went on hunger strike and refused to eat unless released. The hunger strike and most of the guard’s emotional attacks caused major psychological scars and emotional damage. This is what many people actually experience when they come out of prison.

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.

Meaning, the guards instantly adapted to their environment, and altered their personal disposition so they could correctly “act out [the] role that they thought were expected of them.” Even Zimbardo became internalized in his own experiment. Conversely, there is speculation that the wording of the of the advertisement for the Stanford Prison Experiment may have attracted people “with more of a pre-disposition towards violence to apply.” Although this may be true, there is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. As the experiment proceeded “forced exercise” and the denial of basic human rights, such as access to restrooms, became common punishments. Proving “the individual personalities of people could be overridden when they were given positions of

You’re sitting at your house, you hear a knock at the door. You go and open it and to your surprise it’s the police. They’re turning you around and placing cold metal handcuffs on you while you’re getting read your miranda rights and spread eagle against the cop car while you’re searched. You’re being slung into the back of a cop car and driven to the police station, sirens wailing. When you arrive you get your picture taken, but you don’t smile. They take your finger and dip it in ink, then push it down hard on a piece of paper. They then put you back into the police car and drive you to another location. You’re still handcuffed, and you’re taken in. They put you in a dress, they put cold, heavy, loud shackles on your ankles.

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

After learning about conducting research in an ethical way, I do not believe that Dr. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was ethical in anyway. During the process of conducting his research, a lot of unethical events took place, especially with his participants that were chosen to be casted as “inmates”. According to the book, there are certain rules that must be followed when dealing with participants to ensure they are taken care of in an ethical manner.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a classic study conducted by Dr. Philip Zimbardo to test whether external factors in the environment can influence a person to behave contrary to their dispositional tendencies. Zimbardo wanted to know what happens to a person who is “good” in an evil place. More specifically, he wanted to see if institutions such as a prison has the power to control a persons behavior or if their good nature rises above the negative environment.

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues created the experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo wanted to investigate further into human behavior, so he created this experiment that looked at the impact of taking the role of a prisoner or prison guard. These researchers examined how the participants would react when placed in an institutionalized prison environment. They set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. Twenty four undergraduate students were selected to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. These students were chosen because they were emotional, physically, and mentally stable. Though the experiment was expected to last two weeks, it only lasted six days after the researchers and participants became aware of the harm that was being done.

Throughout history, nefarious regimes have come to power because of the transformations between ordinary men to brutal killers. During the Holocaust, many people who committed crimes were ordinary men prior to the Holocaust. Philip Zimbardo wanted to study how this phenomenon could occur, so he created the Stanford Prison Experiment. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 to study the effect of prisoner and guard roles on human behavior. Twenty-four participants were randomly split into the two groups. Prior to the beginning of the experiment, the men in both groups were essentially the same in terms of behavior. After only a few hours, guards became ruthless towards the prisoners, similar to the way guards during the Holocaust were ordinary men before, but became vicious

In 1971, Stanford University conducted an experiment known as The Stanford Prison Experiment. The aim of the experiment was to place college students in positions of guard and prisoners in a role-playing exercise stimulating prison life. More than 70 “applicants” answered the ad and then were given “diagnostic interviews” to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, mental disabilities, and/or history of crime or drug abuse. Out of the 70 who had applied, they were left with 24 college students from the United States and Canada who were in the Stanford Area wanting to earn $15 a day participating in this study. Randomly divided by a coin toss, these men were placed into their positions.

During the Stanford prison experiment video I did notice a few similarities of a particular experience I had when I was in the Marines, that experience was just how putting on a certain uniform can alter the way a person. A uniform of authority can shift the way a person acts or even behaves oppose to not wearing a uniform of authority. when you’re not covering your identity with some article of clothing you hold an image that you want to try and protect and an image that is relatively consistent to your normal behavior, however when you shield that self-image and put let’s say a mask over which conceals your identity that can completely change everything about you including the way you conduct yourself.