Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo

Although the experiment turned out to seem extraordinarily like an actual prison, the subjects still knew that they were part of an experiment. Therefore, they did not reach out for outside help because there really was no one to help them or any reason for someone to help them. 6. What factors would lead prisoners to attribute guard brutality to the guards' disposition or character, rather than to the situation?

The experimentors proposed that these reactions were caused by a loss of personal identity, dependency, emasculation and acceptance sadistic treatment from the guards and the unpredictable and arbitrary control of the prison system.

They wore them down by the antics I mentioned above and I think the prisoners also came to the realization that there is nothing that can do to change their situation they have no authority or control. Although his experiment was viewed as controversial and iconic. I cannot in any way, shape or form justify a research permissible within the current ACJS ethical standards. I don’t believe any experiments could top the Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. How could you replicate or create an experiment similar to this one if there was no rules or guidelines to adhere by? By having no rules or guidelines is what made this experiment one of a kind and unique. Even by the ACJS ethical standards applied in my eyes, I still view it as unjust and unethical. I don’t believe that these standards should be altered so as to permit this type of research. I believe experiments like this have no place in Psychology. Despite the punishment, the individuals

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.

The prisoner started crying, screaming, and going into a rage. The prisoner was released from the experiment after a second breakdown. After this they experimenters decided to have a family and friends visiting hour. However they could not have the family and friends seeing the state of the jail and being worried about the students in the experiment so the guards made the prisoners clean and scrub everything in the prison. They even went so far as to play music over an intercom.

A tactic used by the guards to emotionally abuse the prisoners was giving the inmates a number, instead of calling them by name. The guards were dehumanizing the prisoners. Another example of dehumanization is when the prisoner first arrived, they were stripped of their clothes and put into dresses. The physical abuse the guards put the prisoners through is another downside of the experiment. The guards made them do push-ups and other physical activity as a form of punishment. To make it harder, some had other prisoners on their back while doing the push-ups.

He selected twenty-four male participants. Twelve were given the role of prison guard, while the other twelve were given the role of prisoner. The participants adapted to their roles as expected; guards enforced punishment and at times, even subjected the inmates to psychological and physical abuse, while the inmates passively accepted the torture. Even Zimbardo was affected in his role as superintendent and allowed the abuse to continue. After only six days of a planned two week experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment was abruptly stopped.

This experiment affected the prisoners' mindsets and their attitudes. This study also had affected the guard’s behavior. Before the experiment had begun, each subject had been gone through a series of psychological tests to narrow the subjects down to those who were completely ordinary and had no signs of previous mental illnesses. The students in the experiment had changed to conform their social roles in the mock prison. The prisoners had changed to an obedient, following state of mind while the guards had begun to act violently and with aggressive attitudes.

Throughout this experiment a diversity of ethical breaches occurred which effected the guidelines of the experiment. First of all, the rights of the participants were breached, as the participants suffered great torment and harm both physically and psychologically. Several participants had mental breakdowns and many suffered symptoms such as crying, yelling, screaming, and curling up. In the meantime, they were stripped naked, they were also beat up by the guards, and they were not feed properly. This caused many prisoners to experience anxiety, depression, and stress. None of the actions above respects the rights of the participant!

In the Stanford prison experiment the researcher, Philip Zimbardo, thought they were just going to figure out the psychology of prison life. Little did he know this experiment would change the view of roles in society. Humans tend to fall into the role society lays out for us as proven by the Stanford prison experiment. When Zimbardo was planning the experiment, in August of 1971, he was just searching for the psychology of prison life, to see how people act when they are put into a powerless situation.

Researchers chose 24 of the 70 students that appeared to be physically and psychologically stable (Weiten, 2013). All 24 participants were middle class male college students, who were paid $15 per day to take part in their experiment (Konnikova, 2015; McLeod, 2017). According to Konnikova (2015) and Weiten (2013) a coin flip determined which participants were going to be prisoners and which would the guards. Prisoners were arrested and brought back to the mock prison, where their personal possessions were removed and were given uniforms and ID numbers, while the guards were given khaki uniforms, whistle, and a billy club (McLeod, 2017; Weiten, 2013).

The prisoners were given demeaning task that dehumanized them. They slowly adopted the role of a real life prisoner, such as obeying the different rules of the prison, they-sided with the guards whenever they had a prisoner that rebelled. The prisoners did everything they could to please the guards, they endured the abused and became submissive. Zimbardo decided to end the experiment when Christian Maslach, conducted interviews with prisoners and guards and she was against the experiment when she saw how abusive the guards were towards the prisoners. She said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!"

The Stanford prison experiment The Stanfort prison experiment was the controversial experiment of American psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971. The main aim was to investigate whether is brutality of prison guards to prisons due to the sadistic personality of the guards (i.e., dispositional) or due to the prison environment (i.e., situational). The survey followed 24 male students of psychologi on Stanford university. Were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse.

The guards on the other hand were noted as behaving sadistically. The abuse they were delivering was escalating and more degrading than ever. None of the guards ever objected to what they were asked to do and completed tasks as requested. Interestingly, the guards were upset that the study was over early and of course the prisoners were very glad with that fact.

Ethical issues: Those involved in the experiment did not know the full extent of what the experiment entailed. None of the “prisoners” consented to being arrested at