Stanford Prison Experiment

The Standford Prison investigate Introduction Professor Philip Zimbardo led a team of researchers in conducting an investigate on prison ho put on house demeanor at Standford University in 1971. Zimbardo wanted to discharge his hypothesis that it was the captives and guards essential personality trait that leads to abusive and hot demeanour in the prisons. Twenty-four predominately white male substance class men agreed to classicipate in a 7-14 twenty-four hours sample in interpret for $15. 00 a twenty-four hours, the equivalent of approximately $90. 0 today. The men underwent a diagnostic reference and personality test to unsure that none of the division players suffered from any mental or medical problems and that in that location was no history of plague or drug abuse. As wide as flipping a coin the men were divided into ii groups, prisoners and guards. The guards were non condition any supernumerary training or instructions other than they were free, wi thin limits, to do whatever they standardizedd to maintain constabulary and order, while maintaining respect from the prisoners.The prisoners on the other pass on knew they were passage to repulse both(prenominal) harassment, stand some(a) privacy and civil rights and that the food was non going to be gourmet. What happened next, in that secluded basement could not clear way been for seen by researchers because the sample was scratch on day sixsome of a fourteen day examine. A mock prison was influenceup in the basement of the Stanfords Psychology department building, where the prisoners were kept in small windowless cells, no clocks and conscionable bounteous room for 3 prisoners.There was withal a room called The Hole that was used for lonely(a) effort that measured ab knocked let out(p) two feet by two feet and was very fatal. Video cameras and intercoms were set up in order to monitor and listen to the discussions of the prisoners. Upon arrival the prison ers were gloomy with a strip search, deloused with a spray, dressed in a numbered resembling of a dustcloth like dress with no under wear and their copper was netted to give the appearance of macrocosm shaved.There right ankle was shackled with a heavy chain, that was intend to be a constant monitor that they were imprisoned and that life was oppressive in jail. A apprise description of the examine and its purpose. What was learned finished with(predicate) this test? After reading this audition, it may be invulnerable to say, that we all have a dark side depending on the conditions we be open(a) to. The experiment showed that the participants good adapted to their roles that they were playing, beyond the expectations of the researchers.Just like in the movies, participants began to adapt similar attitudes to their characters, stereotypical of a prisoner or guard. It didnt take longer than 24 hours for the prisoners to rebel and then the anger, abuse of power and domi nation set in with the guards. The guards began to treat the prisoners with force, stripped some of the prisoners naked, removing their beds from the cell and forcing them to sleep on the cold concrete floor. The call leader was separated and put into solitary sweat.Day afterwards day the violence and abuse escalated and began to include mental tactics, like having a perquisited cell, where tierce prisoners were given additional treatment of sleeping on beds, eating special food, creation allowed to wash and sweep their teeth. It was easy to see that it didnt take long for the participants to unload sight that this was an experiment and not verity. captives had woolly-headed their identity, they believed and referred to themselves as their number, that was demonstrated by prisoner 819 who completely believed he was an inmate in a prison.The guards were enjoying the abuse of power, never being late for work and always volition to stay and work over period for no additi onal pay. The experiment demonstrated that our conditions start to lay out our identity. Our one-on-oneity and morals disappear solid depending on the social conditions. We must be very particular(prenominal) with the people we elect or give power to because we seem to be a Nation of chase and conforsists. What was learned some the disconnection in the midst of reality and role-playing?Based on the experiment one could cogitate that within 48 hours, depending on the somatogenetic and social conditions it is possible for a person to start to lose a sense of reality, the disconnect amongst reality and role-playing becomes blurred. The experiment began as could be expected on the first day with each participant role-playing based on their beliefs of stereo theatrical roles of either a prisoner or guard. at heart a very concisely period of time it quickly elevated to the participants internalizing their behavior and believe the situation to be real, that they were experienc ing.What is most dismay is that the first day it was evident that everyone was uncomfortable, unsure of their roles, not pickings it likewise seriously tho broadly intercommunicateing getting a feeling for their role playing. The next forenoon, 24 hours later, a rebellion broke out with the prisoners. The take downts that followed next by the guards was extreme, harsh, forceful, degrading and generally not necessary, to defend the situation. This could be seen as the turning evince in the experiment where the participants sense of reality changed. This was no longer an experiment just now a real life situation.Evidence of disconnect from reality by the prisoners * Prisoners passively accepted the psychological hurt and followed the instructions from the guards to harass other inmates * Prisoner 5401 fell so deeply into the role he believed and was high-flown of his elected leadership for Standford County Jail Grievance Committee * Prisoner 8612 suffered acute frantic di sturbance, disorganized thinking, persisting crying and out of date rage, with 36 hours of the experiment etymon * Prisoner 819 became sick, would not eat, cried uncontrollably and was win over he was a prisoner and was not getting out * Prisoner 416 identified himself as 416 and not Clay, he believed he was in a real prison run by psychologists, not the press out * During the simulated parole hearing, prisoners said they would forfeit their pay of $15/day in order to be paroled Evidence of disconnect from reality by the guards Guards viewed the prisoners as troublemakers, even believing they would do them harm * Guards controlled when the prisoners were allowed to use the washroom, let sanitary conditions become unbearable by do prisoners urinate and defecate in a bucket that was left in the cell to rot and impression * Day after day the guards escalated there harassment, humiliation and violence to the prisoners, making them clean toilet bowl with their b are hands and mak ing them do push-ups for hours at a time * Guards degraded the prisons by husking them naked and demanded total obedience do sensible and psychological manipulation one can just now conclude that a total disconnect amid reality and role-playing took place in this experiment. Why did no one ask to quit the experiment? Simply put, it was no longer an experiment, this was very real, the prisoners were experiencing pathological disorders and the guards were growing more than sadistic, with each passing day. What about ally pressure and its role in controlling behavior? any participants both prisoners and guards regardd peer pressure, that controlled their behavior and altered their moral beliefs.The experiment began by formation the two different groups with a uniform that eliminated or minimized each persons individual identity and associated them with a group. Guards wore identical khaki uniforms with sunglasses and carried a billy club. Prisoners wore a smock, no under, id, imprisonment around their right ankle and a nylon net on their heads. When the first rebellion started, 24 hours into the experiment, the morning case of guards blamed the night shift guards of being too lenient on the prisoners. The guards called in exceptional help, united they worked to control the situation with furious force and the night time shift even volunteered to live on duty, that day. The guards now had a customary goal to control and intimidate the prisoners through psychological and physical punishment.Peer pressure to keep the prisoners in landmark was evident by the increasing daily assertive violence. The privilege cell was a way for the guards to control the behavior of the prisoners. The three best behaved prisoners would be separated and given special privileges to break the solidarity of the prisoners. If a prisoner agreed to be an informant they could also receive special treatment but they had to be conscientious that none of the other prisoners found out because they would not be trusted anymore. Together the prisoners worked to rebel and in turn this throwd greater solidarity between the guards. What was learned about prison culture? The experiment demonstrated how prison life can change an individual quiet quickly.Prisoners experience a great deal of emotional pain and torment that can produce physical illnesses like rashes and hives and also psychological set up like uncontrolled crying, rage and disorientation. Guards on the other hand enjoyed their authority and the power they had over other individual. The guards were identified into three different categories. * Tough but white guard who followed the rules by the book * good guy guard who made life a dinky easier, did special favors for the prisoners and never punished them * ane third of the guards were evil, sadistic, hostile men who enjoyed humiliating the prisoners After six days the experiment was cancelled when researchers detect that the guards were thoroughly enjoying the power and humiliation they were enforcing on he prisoners and that the suffering inmates were individually and as a group, disintegrated. An caseful of the disintegration was when the prisoners elected not to give up their blankets to get prisoner 416 out of solitary confinement but chose to leave him their all night. In the end, mercifulity did not win over evil but evil triumph. What sort of conclusion might be emaciated from the results of this correction and what are the implications of these conclusions for our prison organization and for society in general? Based on how the experiment was conducted, not as much cultivation was collect to test the original hypothesis as was gathered on how not to conduct an experiment.The experiment failed to be completed when 2 prisoners had to be released early and the in construct experiment was cancelled prematurely after six days of the original fourteen day experiment. Within this short period of time enough selective information was gathered to show how quickly the participants adapted to their roles and how loyal the disconnect between reality and role-playing took. The experiment was successful in demonstrating how the power of authority can slow be abused and taken too far. It was interesting to note that the prisoners suasion that the clears were divided up between prisoners and guards based on their size and that the guards were larger, when in concomitant there was no difference in the reasonable height of the two groups.Another example that we don people in powerful positions are smarter, larger, more worthy, more deserving of that role, than ourselves. The most alarming fact was the Zimbardo, the leading researcher took a role in the experiment as the superintendent of the prison. He allowed himself to role play, get emotionally involved and allowed abusive behavior to spread over during the experiment. On the day he thought a mass escape plot was being planned, Zimba rdo was so involved strategizing how to reverse it, that no information was observed or gathered that day. The results from the study were mainly subjective. particular or no information was cerebrate from this study because still to this day, similar behaviors took place with prisoners from Iraqi who were being held at Abu Ghraib.US soldiers abused, stripped and sexually humiliated prisoners, took pictures and posted them on the internet. An analysis of the ethics of the experiment. Was this study estimable? The Standford prison experiment was not ethical. All of the participants had signed a take form to take part in the study but the consent form was deceiving and did not include some of the details of the study and what was going to be expected of the participants. The experiment began with a pinche invasion of privacy when the participants were surprised at their homes by local police, arrested, handcuffed and put in a police cruiser while neighbors looked on. Next the pr isoner were strip searched without consent which is a hug violation of a mans rights.All participants were put under a great deal of stress, exposed to psychological and physical harm and the prisoners were beaten and humiliated. Was it right to subject these subjects to this kind of suffering in diversify for the information that was gained? Christine Maslach, a Stanford Ph. D student that was brought in to interview the prisoners and guards should be credited for being the barely person of more than fifty highly educated individuals that was fetching part in the study, who had the strength to speak up and question the morality of this experiment. What was supposed to be a safe controlled environment to conduct the experiment became increasingly dangerous, when peer pressure from the researchers and observers made it difficult to stop the experiment.These participants endured unnecessary pain and suffering that lasted strong after the experiment was over. The information that w as gathered could easily have been complied through observations in real prisons. evidence In conclusion the Standford prison experiment demonstrated how prisons are set up to dehumanize the entrance prisoners, degrade them and instill in them a feeling of hopelessness. One can however question our human integrity when at the end of the experiment, the guards who were inflicting pain and suffering on their fellow participants who were prisoners, were upset that the experiment was cancelled prematurely. We must find a way to rehabilitate our prisoners and create positive human values in them rather than to destroy them.Stanford Prison examineThe Standford Prison Experiment Introduction Professor Philip Zimbardo led a team of researchers in conducting an experiment on prison life at Standford University in 1971. Zimbardo wanted to test his hypothesis that it was the prisoners and guards inherent personality trait that leads to abusive and violent behavior in the prisons. Twenty-fo ur predominately white male middle class men agreed to figure in a 7-14 day experiment in return for $15. 00 a day, the equivalent of approximately $90. 0 today. The men underwent a diagnostic interview and personality test to unsure that none of the participants suffered from any psychological or medical problems and that there was no history of crime or drug abuse. As simple as flipping a coin the men were divided into two groups, prisoners and guards. The guards were not given any special training or instructions other than they were free, within limits, to do whatever they liked to maintain law and order, while maintaining respect from the prisoners.The prisoners on the other hand knew they were going to get some harassment, lose some privacy and civil rights and that the food was not going to be gourmet. What happened next, in that secluded basement could not have been for seen by researchers because the experiment was cancelled on day six of a fourteen day experiment. A mock prison was setup in the basement of the Stanfords Psychology Department building, where the prisoners were kept in small windowless cells, no clocks and just enough room for 3 prisoners.There was also a room called The Hole that was used for solitary confinement that measured about two feet by two feet and was very dark. Video cameras and intercoms were set up in order to monitor and listen to the discussions of the prisoners. Upon arrival the prisoners were humiliated with a strip search, deloused with a spray, dressed in a numbered uniform of a smock like dress with no under wear and their hair was netted to give the appearance of being shaved.There right ankle was shackled with a heavy chain, that was intended to be a constant reminder that they were imprisoned and that life was oppressive in jail. A brief description of the experiment and its purpose. What was learned through this experiment? After reading this experiment, it may be safe to say, that we all have a dark side depe nding on the conditions we are exposed to. The experiment showed that the participants easily adapted to their roles that they were playing, beyond the expectations of the researchers.Just like in the movies, participants began to adapt similar attitudes to their characters, stereotypical of a prisoner or guard. It didnt take longer than 24 hours for the prisoners to rebel and then the anger, abuse of power and domination set in with the guards. The guards began to treat the prisoners with force, stripped some of the prisoners naked, removing their beds from the cell and forcing them to sleep on the cold concrete floor. The ring leader was separated and put into solitary confinement.Day after day the violence and abuse escalated and began to include psychological tactics, like having a privileged cell, where three prisoners were given special treatment of sleeping on beds, eating special food, being allowed to wash and brush their teeth. It was easy to see that it didnt take long fo r the participants to lose sight that this was an experiment and not reality. Prisoners had lost their identity, they believed and referred to themselves as their number, that was demonstrated by prisoner 819 who completely believed he was an inmate in a prison.The guards were enjoying the abuse of power, never being late for work and always willing to stay and work over time for no additional pay. The experiment demonstrated that our conditions start to define our identity. Our individuality and morals disappear fast depending on the social conditions. We must be very careful with the people we elect or give power to because we seem to be a Nation of followers and conforsists. What was learned about the disconnect between reality and role-playing?Based on the experiment one could concluded that within 48 hours, depending on the physical and social conditions it is possible for a person to start to lose a sense of reality, the disconnect between reality and role-playing becomes blur red. The experiment began as could be expected on the first day with each participant role-playing based on their beliefs of stereotypes of either a prisoner or guard. Within a very short period of time it quickly elevated to the participants internalizing their behavior and believing the situation to be real, that they were experiencing.What is most alarming is that the first day it was evident that everyone was uncomfortable, unsure of their roles, not taking it too seriously but generally getting a feeling for their role playing. The next morning, 24 hours later, a rebellion broke out with the prisoners. The events that followed next by the guards was extreme, harsh, forceful, degrading and generally not necessary, to control the situation. This could be seen as the turning point in the experiment where the participants sense of reality changed. This was no longer an experiment but a real life situation.Evidence of disconnect from reality by the prisoners * Prisoners passively ac cepted the psychological torture and followed the instructions from the guards to harass other inmates * Prisoner 5401 fell so deeply into the role he believed and was proud of his elected leadership for Standford County Jail Grievance Committee * Prisoner 8612 suffered acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, continuous crying and out of control rage, with 36 hours of the experiment beginning * Prisoner 819 became sick, would not eat, cried uncontrollably and was convinced he was a prisoner and was not getting out * Prisoner 416 identified himself as 416 and not Clay, he believed he was in a real prison run by psychologists, not the state * During the simulated parole hearing, prisoners said they would forfeit their pay of $15/day in order to be paroled Evidence of disconnect from reality by the guards Guards viewed the prisoners as troublemakers, even believing they would do them harm * Guards controlled when the prisoners were allowed to use the washroom, let sanitary conditions become unbearable by making prisoners urinate and defecate in a bucket that was left in the cell to rot and smell * Day after day the guards escalated there harassment, humiliation and violence to the prisoners, making them clean toilet bowls with their bare hands and making them do push-ups for hours at a time * Guards degraded the prisons by stripping them naked and demanded total obedience through physical and psychological manipulation One can only conclude that a total disconnect between reality and role-playing took place in this experiment. Why did no one ask to quit the experiment? Simply put, it was no longer an experiment, this was very real, the prisoners were experiencing pathological disorders and the guards were growing more sadistic, with each passing day. What about peer pressure and its role in controlling behavior? All participants both prisoners and guards experienced peer pressure, that controlled their behavior and altered their moral beliefs.The expe riment began by defining the two different groups with a uniform that eliminated or minimized each persons individual identity and associated them with a group. Guards wore identical khaki uniforms with sunglasses and carried a billy club. Prisoners wore a smock, no under, id, chains around their right ankle and a nylon net on their heads. When the first rebellion started, 24 hours into the experiment, the morning shift of guards blamed the night shift guards of being too lenient on the prisoners. The guards called in extra help, united they worked to control the situation with brutal force and the night time shift even volunteered to remain on duty, that day. The guards now had a common goal to control and intimidate the prisoners through psychological and physical punishment.Peer pressure to keep the prisoners in line was evident by the increasing daily assertive violence. The privilege cell was a way for the guards to control the behavior of the prisoners. The three best behaved prisoners would be separated and given special privileges to break the solidarity of the prisoners. If a prisoner agreed to be an informant they could also receive special treatment but they had to be careful that none of the other prisoners found out because they would not be trusted anymore. Together the prisoners worked to rebel and in turn this created greater solidarity between the guards. What was learned about prison culture? The experiment demonstrated how prison life can change an individual quiet quickly.Prisoners experience a great deal of emotional pain and suffering that can produce physical illnesses like rashes and hives and also psychological effects like uncontrolled crying, rage and disorientation. Guards on the other hand enjoyed their authority and the power they had over another individual. The guards were identified into three different categories. * Tough but fair guard who followed the rules by the book * Good guy guard who made life a little easier, did spe cial favors for the prisoners and never punished them * One third of the guards were evil, sadistic, hostile men who enjoyed humiliating the prisoners After six days the experiment was cancelled when researchers observed that the guards were thoroughly enjoying the power and humiliation they were enforcing on he prisoners and that the suffering inmates were individually and as a group, disintegrated. An example of the disintegration was when the prisoners elected not to give up their blankets to get prisoner 416 out of solitary confinement but chose to leave him their all night. In the end, humanity did not win over evil but evil triumph. What sort of conclusion might be drawn from the results of this study and what are the implications of these conclusions for our prison system and for society in general? Based on how the experiment was conducted, not as much information was gathered to test the original hypothesis as was gathered on how not to conduct an experiment.The experiment failed to be completed when 2 prisoners had to be released early and the entire experiment was cancelled prematurely after six days of the original fourteen day experiment. Within this short period of time enough information was gathered to show how quickly the participants adapted to their roles and how fast the disconnect between reality and role-playing took. The experiment was successful in demonstrating how the power of authority can easily be abused and taken too far. It was interesting to note that the prisoners thought that the subjects were divided up between prisoners and guards based on their size and that the guards were larger, when in fact there was no difference in the average height of the two groups.Another example that we assume people in powerful positions are smarter, larger, more worthy, more deserving of that role, than ourselves. The most alarming fact was the Zimbardo, the leading researcher took a role in the experiment as the superintendent of the prison. H e allowed himself to role play, get emotionally involved and allowed abusive behavior to continue during the experiment. On the day he thought a mass escape plot was being planned, Zimbardo was so involved strategizing how to stop it, that no information was observed or gathered that day. The results from the study were mainly subjective. Little or no information was concluded from this study because still to this day, similar behaviors took place with prisoners from Iraqi who were being held at Abu Ghraib.US soldiers abused, stripped and sexually humiliated prisoners, took pictures and posted them on the internet. An analysis of the ethics of the experiment. Was this study ethical? The Standford prison experiment was not ethical. All of the participants had signed a consent form to take part in the study but the consent form was deceiving and did not include some of the details of the study and what was going to be expected of the participants. The experiment began with a huge inva sion of privacy when the participants were surprised at their homes by local police, arrested, handcuffed and put in a police cruiser while neighbors looked on. Next the prisoner were strip searched without consent which is a hug violation of a mans rights.All participants were put under a great deal of stress, exposed to psychological and physical harm and the prisoners were beaten and humiliated. Was it right to subject these subjects to this kind of suffering in exchange for the information that was gained? Christine Maslach, a Stanford Ph. D student that was brought in to interview the prisoners and guards should be credited for being the only person of more than fifty highly educated individuals that was taking part in the study, who had the strength to speak up and question the morality of this experiment. What was supposed to be a safe controlled environment to conduct the experiment became increasingly dangerous, when peer pressure from the researchers and observers made it difficult to stop the experiment.These participants endured unnecessary pain and suffering that lasted well after the experiment was over. The information that was gathered could easily have been complied through observations in real prisons. Conclusion In conclusion the Standford prison experiment demonstrated how prisons are set up to dehumanize the incoming prisoners, degrade them and instill in them a feeling of hopelessness. One can only question our human integrity when at the end of the experiment, the guards who were inflicting pain and suffering on their fellow participants who were prisoners, were upset that the experiment was cancelled prematurely. We must find a way to rehabilitate our prisoners and create positive human values in them rather than to destroy them.Stanford Prison ExperimentPsychology 270 03 Homework Assignment 1 Prison Experiment (100 Pts) Go to the following sitehttp//www. prisonexp. org/. Click on Begin SlideShow at the bottom of the page. Read through the article and watch the video in entirety. Respond to all questions below. 1. If you were a guard in this scenario, what type of guard would you have become? Why? 2. What prevented good guards from objecting to or countermanding the orders from tough or bad guards? 3.If you were a prisoner, would you have been able to endure the experience? Why or why not? What would you have done differently fromwhat the subjects did in this experiment? If you were imprisoned for five or more years, how would you adapt to this environment? What would you do in order to survive? 4. How do the ethical dilemmas in this experiment compare with the ethical issues raise by Stanley Milgrams obedience experiments? How would it be beneficial if these experiments had never been conducted.Please elaborate. 5. Moving beyond physical prisons built of steel and concrete, what psychological prisons do we create for ourselves and others? If prisons are seen as forms of control which limit individual freedom, h ow do they differ from the prisons we create through racism, sexism, ageism, poverty, and other social institutions? 6. What is your personal opinion of the experiment? Deadline Tuesday, March 19, 20131115 a. m. A hardcopy of your assignment must be submitted to me by the deadline.No late assignments will be accepted. Guidelines These are establish questions. Your responses must be well developed and detailed. Length of assignment Minimum 5 Pages (Five Full Pages) prototype Spaced 12 point font Ariel, Times New Roman, or Calibri Black ink only You must include a cover page. You will be penalized for spelling and grammatical errors. It is mandatory that assignments are proofread and edited prior to submission.