Social Psychologist Philip Zimbardo 's Prison Experiment And Stanley Milgram 's Obedience

In the article How people turn monstrous (2007), written by Mark Buchanan, Buchanan argues that when anyone is put in a position of power and influence, they tend to act out in ways unlike their natural character. Buchanan demonstrates this assertion by referencing the torture and humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and the college prison experiment conducted by Zimbardo in the 1970s. Buchanan emphasizes power and its correlation with acting out to make readers think about the way that they may act if they were given sudden authority over another human being. With that being said, the intended audience for this article is anyone who may judge another individual for acting out in a way that most ordinary people would. After reading Buchanan’s article, I was

Likewise Zimbardo’s (1971) experiment, studying the way ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’ interacted, demonstrated similar ethical failings, such as consent gained without individuals being made fully aware of the involvements; physical, emotional and psychological harm subjected; violation of rights, including privacy, respect, confidentiality and the ability to withdraw (). Fascinated by the volume of ordinary individuals who executed terrible things to others during WWII, Zimbardo predicted that all people, even the good, had the potential to conduct malevolence when sited in the correct environment (Haney et al, 1973). In a mock prison participants were recruited to play a role, half as prisoners and the rest as guards. Both were dressed accordingly, with the guards wearing a uniform with mirrored sunglasses which promotes anonymity as their emotions are obscured, but yet denotes their position of power and authority. According to Zimbardo (2000) these ‘conditions of deindividuation’ allow for the facilitation of evil. Subsequently it becomes acceptable to enforce measures which degrade prisoners of their self-respect, including being stripped, deloused and ordered to carry a chain around their ankle, whilst the mandatory wearing of a smock and a cap made from a stocking demoralized them as it impacted upon their masculinity. Additionally, not only were prisoners assigned a number by which they were referred to, denying them of their identity, but each area of their daily

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

When the amount of people being sent to prison increased, the army couldn’t keep up with rising numbers. “There was- when I left, there was over 900 inmates. There was only five soldiers plus two non-commissioned officers in charge for those 900- over 900 inmates” said Sgt. Frederick (60 Minutes, Abuse at Abu Ghraib). For every guard there is roughly 128 prisoners. At most United States prisons, it is supposed to be for every guard there is five inmates. When 60 minutes interviewed Sgt. Frederick, he was asked about the treatment of prisoners. "We learned a little bit of Arabic, basic commands. And they didn't want to listen, so sometimes, you would just give them a little nudge or something like that just to get them to cooperate so we could get the mission accomplished" answered Sgt. Frederick (Abuse at Abu Ghraib). Soldiers in Abu Ghraib reported that they needed to sometimes “get rough” with the inmates in order to remain in control and make sure the prisoners listened to them (60 Minutes, Abuse at Abu Ghraib). In the end one of the biggest causes of the scandal was lack of training and how understaffed the prison

Humanity will always question the idea of obedience. Two prestigious psychologists, Stanley Milgram and Philip G. Zimbardo, conducted practical obedience experiments with astonishing results. Shocked by the amount of immoral obedience, both doctors wrote articles exploring the reasoning for the test subjects ' unorthodox manners. In "The Perils of Obedience" by Milgram and "The Stanford Prison Experiment" by Zimbardo, the professionals reflect their thoughts in a logical manner. Milgram 's experiment consisted of a teacher, learner, and experimenter: the teacher was the test subject and was commanded to administer a shock by the experimenter. Upon switching the generator on, the learner-who was actually an actor-would jerk, cry, and occasionally seem unconscious. Expecting most subjects to stall the experiment, Milgram witnessed the exact opposite. Zimbardo, on the other hand, staged a mock prison, whereas half the subjects were guards and the other half were prisoners. Every test subject knew they were in an experiment and complied with the two week trial. However, the majority of the test subjects-particularly the guards-found themselves fitting into the mock prison all too well: abusing, insulting, and yelling obscenities at prisoners was commonplace, compelling many prisoners to appear insane. The driving force for immoral obedience is contributed to several factors: As seen in the film A Few Good Men by director Rob Reiner, when obedience causing harm undergoes

In the movie, “A Few Good Men”, two types of reactions are shown in response to being part of a person’s wrongful death. Philip Zimbardo in his work, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, provides the perspective of the guards who initiated a harsh prison environment and how they reflected upon the experience. Meanwhile a real-life scandal is analyzed by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak in “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism”. This piece reviews the actions of soldiers in controversial situations shortly after the infamous 9-11 attacks. Repeating the military topic, Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton addressed Lt. Calley’s steadfast belief that he did no wrong in the Vietnam War scandal in “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of

For years, many have questioned the so called “evil” that seems to be inside of people. There have been multiple experiments set to find the answers to these questions. Although, the real question is, why do people act the way they do? Rob Reiner, director of the movie A Few Good Men is about Daniel Kaffee, a military lawyer, who is assigned to defend two US Marines accused of murdering Pfc. William Santiago. With the help of Lt. Sam Weinberg and Lt. Cdr. JoAnn Galloway, Kaffe brings the accused Marines, Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey, into court to prove that they are innocent of murder because they were “just following orders” (Reiner). However, why did Dawson and Downey follow the orders, if they knew the result would be hurting another? Maybe it was because of the situation, or how obedient the two Marines were, or many it is just the plain and simple evil at work. Nevertheless, two articles that mention the experiments to test this is “The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo and “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram. The results gathered from these experiments confirms the belief of hidden wickedness inside human beings. Plus Zimbardo himself made an hypothesis that good people can become evil in the blink of an eye. He based this hypothesis on his prison experiment. Both of these authors addresses how their experiments determine how obedience and the situation can determine the outcome, which just supports

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

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.

In this paper I will illustrate how the lessons learned from the Stanford Experiment apply to understanding the dynamics of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Stanford Experiment demonstrates how social influence can persuade one’s behavior and shape their conformity. The experiment and the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib exemplify the power of authority by utilizing their positions and uniforms to control and overrule the prisoners.

citizens, but it was the researchers afterwards that contributed the most startling idea. Zimbardo, the same man who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Prisons tend to be brutal and abusive places unless great effort is made to control the guards’ base impulses. It’s not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches” (Swhwartz, 2004 p. 2). A professor of Law at Loyola University, Marcy Strauss, studies criminal procedure and wrote a forty-two page manuscript on the lessons that should be discussed beyond news articles. Strauss said of Abu Ghraib, “Undoubtedly, these factors [poor training of guards, poor oversight and horrendous conditions] played a major role in facilitating the abuse. Correcting these conditions is imperative. But, to end the introspection there would be a mistake” (Strauss, 2005 p.9). The idea that people could be malignant under specific circumstances has been proven by Milgrams’ studies and this idea is now apparent in real life. Thus, the concern for prisons, as pointed out by both Zimbardo and Strauss, cannot simply be that the guards or correctional officers do not abuse people in the future. The issue is that the maltreatment and indignity in Abu Ghraib was a result of the poor foundation of the U.S. correctional system (Strauss,

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

The motto of the Stanford jail experiment devised by psychologist Philip Zimbardo might be this: Do you consider yourself a good person? If you think that you are a human being like many other people, you probably also think that you do not characterize yourself by being non-compliant twenty-four hours a day.

This paper serves to summarize The Zimbardo Prison Experiment, better known as The Stanford Prison Experiment which was conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford University. The purpose of the study was to conduct research in order to better understand the psychological components of human aggression and submission to include conformity and obedience in a prison environment with a select group of subjects playing roles as either prison guards or inmates, however, I should note, according to McLeod, S. (2016), The Navy’s intent or purpose for the experiment was to better understand how to train members of the armed forces on how to cope with stress associated with captivity as opposed to making American Prison systems more humane. Another interesting point of note is that Zimbardo conducted this experiment shortly after World War II, and the Vietnam War where concern was raised as to some of the atrocities carried out in those wars where “ordinary” people conducted heinous acts per instruction from so-called authoritative figures. Experiments with similar objectives were carried out by Stanley Milgram and others. (Jones, A. D., & Milgram, S. 1974)