Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Disastrous' By Mark Buchanan

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.

In “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak informs the reader of the situation United States guards caused against Iraqi detainees. Under Bush’s presidency, United States soldiers brought physical abuse and humiliation upon the Abu Ghraib Prison. Szegedy-Maszak briefly analyzes the situation and compares the abuse to further scientific experiments in which test obedience. One of the experiments was the topic of another article titled, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” written by Philip G. Zimbardo. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the experiment he held at Stanford University. A group of male students from the university were paid to participate in an experiment held in a mock prison. Half of the group

In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.

The Standford Prison Experiment examined how situational variables affected participant’s behaviors and the psychological effects of power and helplessness in a prison environment. Stanford University, n.d. In the Milgrim Obedience Experiment, the participants were called the “teachers” and were instructed by the authority figure to give electricity shocks to the “students” who were really actors in the experiment. The students were never actually hurt and pretended to be shocked. (Main, 2023)

The participants in the “Zimbardo Prison study” had several negative effects. The prisoners suffered mental breakdowns in which they began crying, yelling, and screaming. The guards were consumed in their power and had no compassion for the prisoners in which they stripped, beat, and dehumanized them. The experiment was supposed to last for 14 days but only lasted for six because of the severe effects the prisoners were experiencing. Zimbardo became too involved in the experiment and was not making appropriate decisions to protect those involved in the experiment. The guards were too immersed in their power roles to realize they were hurting the prisoners. Zimbardo’s honesty was compromised and was not of an appropriate experiment conductor. The mental effects of

The Stanford Prison Experiment is known as one of the most infamous social experiments in the study of psychology. Conducted by Stanford professor Phillip G. Zimbardo, the experiment was a prison simulation using male college students that volunteered. Zimbardo’s experiment was designed to strip prisoners of their individuality and freedom and put them in a place where they were powerless against people with whom they would be equal in the outside world (Shuttleworth, Martyn). The intent of his experiment was to answer his questions about the conflict and morality between prisoners and guards. Professor Zimbardo pondered these questions after being an expert witness in a trial regarding the abuses of Abu Ghraib, an american prison in Iraq (Shuttleworth,

In the study, Zimbardo wanted to determine whether the brutality reported among American correctional officers was attributable to their sadistic personalities or it was due to the prison environment (Drury, Hutchens, Shuttlesworth, & White, 2012). Several things could have been done differently in the study. One of the most important things left out is a testable hypothesis. Secondly, the study should not have been used as a catalyst for propaganda. Thirdly, the prison simulation was not accurately simulated, since the goal of correctional officers is not to engender boredom and fear but to maintain law and order. The Belmont Standards, through the beneficence standard, proscribe the intent to engender fear, boredom, and a sense of arbitrariness.

In the Stanford prison experiment, several young men were treated as if they were arrested and imprisoned; additionally, some of the men from the same age group were treated as correctional facility officers with full training because that somehow simulated a trained professional in the same setting. Additionally, “researchers” felt the need to prevent any movement whatsoever of the prisoners, something that does not happen in a prison environment as it is torture. In actuality, Phil Zambardo hired immature young adults to torture other young adults while he is so deprived of any mortal barometer that he failed to halt it. Psychologists have somehow concluded that his bemusing conclusions somehow reflect average human behavior in a prison environment. (McLeod, S. A. 2016)

In 1971 Zimbardo performed a psychological test at Stanford University. They simulated what it would be like to be either a prisoner or a prison guard while Zimbardo acted as superintendent. Throughout the experiment it became clear that bad systems and bad situations could lead good people into behaving in ways they normally wouldn’t. Some of the volunteers for the SPE who were assigned to be the guards started acting sadistically, abusing their newfound power. They align with Zimbardo’s definition of evil by degrading, demeaning and hurting the prisoners.

Prisons in the United States have been labeled as places where cruel and unusual punishments occur and are rightfully labeled as such; not because of the demeanor of certain group of people, but because of the specific situation and scenarios these people are in. The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was set up to help understand the development and growth of the norms based on certain roles, labels and expectations in a simulated prison environment. This paper is going to explain and describe the experiment Philip Zimbardo set up and how it relates to the real world in non-experimental situations in regards with the controversy of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

The Office of Naval Research sponsored The Stanford Prison Experiment in an attempt to provide answers to some of the elemental problems within the prison system. Namely, whether guards, prisoners or both harbor any of the blame for the oppressive nature that exists within the prison environment and the intrinsic psychology behind their tumultuous relationships. The authors, Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo hypothesize that the assigned roles of the participants (i.e., guard or prisoner) will significantly impact their actions and attitudes.(Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973) Before choosing from the willing participants, the experimenters conducted research into what it is like for real life inmates and guards, in an attempt to emulate, as closely as possible, a real world prison environment for the experiment.

The aim of this experiment was to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of a guard and a prisoner. In this role playing simulation, individual would experience prison life. Zimbardo was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was dispositional: due to the sadistic personalities of the guards, or Situational: having more to do with the prison environment. For example, prisoner and guards may have personalities which make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law, order, and any authoritative figure and guards having domineering and aggressive personalities. Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons. If the prisoners and guards were not aggressive towards one another this would support the dispositional hypothesis, or if their behavior was similar to those in real prisons this would support the situational explanation.

For example, prisoners wore smocks with no underclothes, were called by their prison number, not by their name, and prisoners’ right ankle were chained to remind them of the oppressiveness of their environment (Zimbardo, 1999). In a real prison, prisoners do not wear smocks, and they are allowed to wear underclothes. They are also called by their names, and their right ankle is not normally chained unless for transportation purposes. Despite the criticism and the lack of ethics in the study, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains an important study in our understanding of how situations and roles can influence human behaviour. The Stanford Prison Experiment will, without a doubt, continue to be a model experiment explained, researched, and discussed throughout psychology textbooks for generations

In this article “Psychology of Evil” written by M.C Escher, talks about how people who are controlled by a high power have a tendency to commit acts of evil that are rational. The title of the article was called Stanford Prison Experiment. This article tells the audience about how these teenagers and college students volunteered to be in this experiment where they have to split up and a half of the students act as prisoners and the other half acts as the security guards. Many people quit because it was too much for them. The guards took advantage because they felt more powerful when they wore a badge and a spectacular uniform. They were acting upon evil inside them because they thought they had the authority to axt like they did. “The participants adapted to their roles immediately: the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture; many of the prisoners accepted psychological abuse” (Escher 3). This is explaining how prisoners were being abused and they were perfectly okay with it. The guards (college students) acted upon their evil inside which is proved because they took advantage of the “prisoners”. “The request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after six days” (Escher 3). This shows that the abuse got so horrific that the students could not take it any longer. No matter what is happening, pessimistic or not, people will still commit sins of

Detail some of the strategies that you as a classroom teacher can employ to deal with students with ADHD-HyIm and ADHD-In