Groups- Obedience_Stanford Prison
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•998 views
Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 to study the behaviors of people in a simulated prison environment. 24 male college students were selected and randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but had to be stopped after only six days. Both the "guards" and "prisoners" had quickly adapted their behaviors to fully embrace their artificial roles, with guards becoming increasingly cruel and prisoners descending into emotional distress. The experiment demonstrated how situational forces can override individual personality traits and lead ordinary people to act in extreme, sometimes abusive ways when given situational power over others.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Stanford Prison Study
This document provides an overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which studied the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. It describes how volunteers were selected and the prison environment was constructed. Within days, the guards became sadistic and prisoners depressed. The experiment had to end early due to the negative effects on participants. It aimed to test how people respond in situations of power and powerlessness.
The role of “ ROLE” in our life. (Zimbardo Experiment)
the experiment is about Deindividuation. it's called The stanford prison experiment done by Philip Zimbardo.
Stanford prison experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo and involved randomly assigning 24 male undergraduate students to either be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but had to be stopped after only six days due to the extreme negative behaviors that had emerged. Both the guards and prisoners began to act consistent with their roles, with guards displaying increasingly cruel behavior and prisoners becoming submissive. The experiment was later criticized for its lack of informed consent and failure to adequately protect participants from psychological harm.
The Stanford prison experiment: how our environment can affect our behaviour
In 1971 psychology professor Phillip Zimbardo conducted a study to look at the roles people play in prison situations. He discovered that people are very susceptible to behaving in accordance with the social norms of the roles they are expected to play.
Zimbardo's Experiment : The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was an attempt to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. It was conducted at Stanford University between August 14–20, 1971, by a research group led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.
The Stanford Prison Experiment Film Trailer Analysis
The Stanford Prison Experiment film trailer analyzes the true story experiment conducted in 1971 where a Stanford professor had male students act as both guards and prisoners to observe how confinement affects people. As the experiment progresses, the guards begin to treat the prisoners more violently and aggressively. By the end, the prison descends into chaos as the roles taken on by the students seem to overtake their humanity. The trailer aims to intrigue audiences by only showing glimpses of the disturbing events that "shocked the world" and leaves many questions unanswered about what exactly transpired.
Stanford Prison Study
The document summarizes the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. In the experiment, male college students were randomly assigned to play the role of either prisoners or guards in a mock prison. The guards quickly began behaving in authoritarian and abusive ways towards the prisoners. This supported Zimbardo's theory that the situation and social roles people are placed in have a major influence on their behavior, rather than individual personality traits. However, the experiment faced criticism for its lack of ecological validity, failure to replicate results, and serious ethical issues in subjecting participants to psychological harm without intervention.
Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment from 1971 explored the psychological effects of roles assigned to college students acting as either prison guards or inmates during a two-week simulation. Within days, the guards became authoritarian and abusive towards the prisoners, who began to experience humiliation, loss of identity, and rebellion. The experiment was ended after only six days as Zimbardo lost sight of his role and the prisoners showed signs of severe emotional trauma and distress. The rapid emergence of abusive behavior from students assigned guard roles showed how social roles and situations can profoundly impact human behavior and mental states.
Recommended
Stanford Prison Study
This document provides an overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment, which studied the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. It describes how volunteers were selected and the prison environment was constructed. Within days, the guards became sadistic and prisoners depressed. The experiment had to end early due to the negative effects on participants. It aimed to test how people respond in situations of power and powerlessness.
The role of “ ROLE” in our life. (Zimbardo Experiment)
the experiment is about Deindividuation. it's called The stanford prison experiment done by Philip Zimbardo.
Stanford prison experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo and involved randomly assigning 24 male undergraduate students to either be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but had to be stopped after only six days due to the extreme negative behaviors that had emerged. Both the guards and prisoners began to act consistent with their roles, with guards displaying increasingly cruel behavior and prisoners becoming submissive. The experiment was later criticized for its lack of informed consent and failure to adequately protect participants from psychological harm.
The Stanford prison experiment: how our environment can affect our behaviour
In 1971 psychology professor Phillip Zimbardo conducted a study to look at the roles people play in prison situations. He discovered that people are very susceptible to behaving in accordance with the social norms of the roles they are expected to play.
Zimbardo's Experiment : The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was an attempt to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power, focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison officers. It was conducted at Stanford University between August 14–20, 1971, by a research group led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.
The Stanford Prison Experiment Film Trailer Analysis
The Stanford Prison Experiment film trailer analyzes the true story experiment conducted in 1971 where a Stanford professor had male students act as both guards and prisoners to observe how confinement affects people. As the experiment progresses, the guards begin to treat the prisoners more violently and aggressively. By the end, the prison descends into chaos as the roles taken on by the students seem to overtake their humanity. The trailer aims to intrigue audiences by only showing glimpses of the disturbing events that "shocked the world" and leaves many questions unanswered about what exactly transpired.
Stanford Prison Study
The document summarizes the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. In the experiment, male college students were randomly assigned to play the role of either prisoners or guards in a mock prison. The guards quickly began behaving in authoritarian and abusive ways towards the prisoners. This supported Zimbardo's theory that the situation and social roles people are placed in have a major influence on their behavior, rather than individual personality traits. However, the experiment faced criticism for its lack of ecological validity, failure to replicate results, and serious ethical issues in subjecting participants to psychological harm without intervention.
Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment from 1971 explored the psychological effects of roles assigned to college students acting as either prison guards or inmates during a two-week simulation. Within days, the guards became authoritarian and abusive towards the prisoners, who began to experience humiliation, loss of identity, and rebellion. The experiment was ended after only six days as Zimbardo lost sight of his role and the prisoners showed signs of severe emotional trauma and distress. The rapid emergence of abusive behavior from students assigned guard roles showed how social roles and situations can profoundly impact human behavior and mental states.
Pamela Dollar Stanford Prison Experiment 1971
The Stanford prison experiment was a study conducted in 1971 that examined the psychological effects of assigning college students to play the roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison. The experiment quickly spiraled out of control as the participants adapted too strongly to their roles. The guards began to exhibit sadistic behavior and abuse their power over the prisoners. The experiment was ended after only 6 days instead of the planned 2 weeks due to the unethical treatment of prisoners and risks to their psychological well-being. The results demonstrated how situational roles and environments can strongly influence human behavior rather than individual personality traits alone.
The stanford prison experiment ppt
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo that investigated the psychological effects of perceived power and roles on participants. 24 male college students were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners in a mock prison set up in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but was stopped after only six days as the guards began to exhibit increasingly cruel behavior towards the prisoners, including physical and emotional abuse. The findings supported the situational hypothesis that the prison environment itself was the primary cause of the escalating brutality rather than any dispositional traits of the individuals involved. The experiment raised serious ethical issues around informed consent and protecting participants from psychological harm.
The Milgram Experimentby Saul McLeod published 2007Milgram sel.docx
The Milgram Experiment
by Saul McLeod published 2007
Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University. The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).
The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).
Milgram's Experiment
Procedure:
At the beginning of the experiment, each participant was introduced to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram). They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a grey lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).
Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used - one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.
The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the "teacher" tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).
The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock the experimenter was to give a series of orders / prods to ensure they continued. There were 4 prods and if one was not obeyed then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.
Prod 1: please continue.
Prod 2: the experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue.
Results:
65% of all the participants (teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).
Conclusion:
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way.
TranscriptsClassic Studies in Psychology216. Stanford Pris.docx
Transcripts
Classic Studies in Psychology
2
16. Stanford Prison Experiment Transcript
Speakers: Dr. Steve Taylor, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Male
(Music)
DR. STEVE TAYLOR: If you go to Google and type in the word "Experiment," one of the first things you'll see is the Stanford Prison Experiment. It's probably the best known psychological study of all time.
It all began in West Coast America on a summer's day back in 1971, when college students grew their hair long, protested against their government, were pro-peace and totally anti-authority, or so we thought until Philip Zimbardo.
(Music)
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: So the Stanford Prison Study very simply is an attempt to see what happens when you put really good people in a bad place.
We put an ad in the city newspaper, wanted students for study of prison life lasting up to 2 weeks. We're going to pay you $15 a day. This is back in 1971. It's pretty good money, and we picked 75 volunteers, gave them a battery of psychological tests, and we picked two dozen who in all dimensions were normal and healthy to begin with. And then we did what is critical for all research. We randomly assigned half of them to the role of playing guards or the role of playing prisoners. It's literally like flipping a coin.
And then what we did is we told the guards, “Come down a day early,” and we had them pick their own uniform. We had them help set up the prison so they'd feel like it was their prison, and the prisoners were coming into their place. The prisoners, we simply said, “Wait at home in the dormitories.” Well, what we didn't tell them, which is a little bit of the deception of omission, is that they were arrested by the city police.
MALE: Right there, they took me out the door. They put my hands against the car. It was a real cop car. It was a real policeman that took me to the police station, the basement of the police station.
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: I had told the policeman to put a blindfold on the prisoners. Since they had never been arrested, they didn't know that doesn't happen. The reason for the blindfold is my assistants would come, put them in our car, bring them down to our prison, and they'd be in our prison now blindfolded. The guards would strip them naked, delouse them, pretending that they were lice. It's kind of a degradation ritual. And after the first day, I was about to end it because nothing was happening.
[End of audio]
From “Classic Studies in Psychology.” Copyright 2012 by Films Media Group. All rights reserved. Adapted with permission.
17. Rebellion Transcript
Speakers: Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Guard 1, Guard 2, Prisoner 1, Prisoner 2, Prisoners
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: But the next day, on the morning of the next day, the prisoners rebelled. And what the guards did, they came to me and said, “The prisoners are rebelling. What are we going to do?” I said, “It's your prison, whatever you want. I will do it, but you've got to tell me.” And they said, “We have to treat force with for ...
Read Zimbardo’s Experiment The Individual and the Social Role,” lo.docx
Read “Zimbardo’s Experiment: The Individual and the Social Role,” located on page 48 of the textbook. Discuss one (1) alternative approach to the one used in the Zimbardo experiment to investigate how role expectations shape behavior. Provide a rationale for your response.
Here is the information :
Zimbardo’s Experiment: The Individual and the Social Role Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) wanted to investigate how role expectations shape behavior. He was intrigued by the possibility that the frequently observed cruelty of prison guards was a consequence of the institutional setting and role, not the guards’ personalities. In an experiment that has since become well known, Zimbardo converted the basement of a Stanford University building into a makeshift prison. A newspaper ad seeking young men to take part in the experiment for pay drew 70 subject candidates, who were given a battery of physical and psychological tests to assess their emotional stability and maturity. The most mature 24 were selected for the experiment and randomly assigned to roles as “guards” or “prisoners.” Those assigned to be prisoners were “arrested,” handcuffed, and taken to the makeshift prison by the Palo Alto police. The behavior of the guards and the prisoners was filmed. Within a week, the prison setting took on many of the characteristics of actual prisons. The guards were often aggressive and seemed to take pleasure in being cruel. The prisoners began planning escapes and expressed hostility and bitterness toward the guards. The subjects in the experiment so identified with their respective roles that many of them displayed signs of depression and anxiety. As a result, some were released early, and the experiment was canceled before the first week was over. Since the participants had all been screened for psychological and physical problems, Zimbardo concluded that the results could not be attributed to their personalities. Instead, the prison setting itself (the independent variable) appeared to be at the root of the guards’ brutal behavior and the prisoners’ hostility and rebelliousness (the dependent variable). Zimbardo’s research shows how profoundly private lives are shaped by the behavioral expectations of the roles we occupy in social institutions.
Despite questions about the ethics of Philip Zimbardo’s experiment, sociologists still study his work. Is it wrong to use research data gathered by means we now consider unethical? Do the results of research ever justify subjecting human beings to physical or psychological discomfort, invasion of privacy, or deception? Stanford University archives Think It Through
▶
Zimbardo’s experiment could not be repeated today, as it would violate guidelines for ethical research with human subjects. How might a researcher design an ethical experiment to test the question of the circumstances under which apparently “normal” individuals will engage in violent or cruel acts?
Refer ...
Rebellion TranscriptClassic Studies in Psychology2Rebellio.docx
Rebellion Transcript
Classic Studies in Psychology
2
Rebellion Transcript
Speakers: Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Guard 1, Guard 2, Prisoner 1, Prisoner 2, Prisoners
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: But the next day, on the morning of the next day, the prisoners rebelled. And what the guards did, they came to me and said, “The prisoners are rebelling. What are we going to do?” I said, “It's your prison, whatever you want. I will do it, but you've got to tell me.” And they said, “We have to treat force with force,” so they broke down the doors --
GUARD 1: (Indiscernible) take your bed (Indiscernible).
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: -- stripped the prisoners naked, dragged them out. Some of them, they tied up their feet. They put them in solitary confinement which is a tiny little hole in the closet oh, about this big and dark, and they said, “At this point, everything but breathing air is a privilege. Food is a privilege. Clothes are a privilege. Having a bed is a privilege.” And so the guards began to say, “Here are the new rules. And the new rules are you are dangerous and we are going to treat you as such.” And then, it began to escalate. Each day, the level of abuse, aggression, violence against prisoners got more and more extreme.
And so the guards changed to become more dominant, and, you see, it's all about power. It's the whole institution that empowers the guards who are the representative of this institution called prison to do whatever is necessary to prevent prisoners from escaping, maintain law and order.
GUARD 2: Keep going. Once I was blind.
PRISONER 1: (Singing) Once, I was blind.
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: The way -- the direction it took was having them engage in ever more humiliating tasks, cleaning toilet bowls out with their bare hands, taking their blankets and putting them in dirt with nettles, and the prisoner had to spend hours taking the nettles out if they wanted to, you know, sleep. And it's essentially saying, “We have the power to create a totally arbitrary, mindless environment, and that's the environment you have to live in.”
So some of the prisoners are now crushed. And in 36 hours, the first kid has an emotional breakdown meaning crying, screaming, irrational thinking.
PRISONER 2: I've got to go to a doctor, anything. I want out! I want out now! Goddamnit!
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: And we have to release him. In 5 days, we had to release five of the prisoners because the situation was so overwhelming.
What about the kids who didn't break down? They became zombies, zombies in the sense that they became almost all mindlessly obedient. Whatever the guards would say, they did. Do this, they did. “Do 10 pushups. Do 20 pushups. Step on him while he's doing pushups. Tell him he's a bastard.”
PRISONERS: Prisoner 819 did a bad thing. Prisoner 819 did a bad thing.
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: It was horrifying to see the kids break down. It was even more horrifying to see these other kids just become mindlessly obedient.
PRISONERS: Because of what pr.
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1:
The Stanford University Prison Experiment: Structure, Behavior, and Results
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford University Prison Experiment could be described as a system whose systemic properties enabled the behaviors of the system's actors, leading to disturbing results.
Analyze the situation. What were the key elements of the system? How did the system operate? Why did the participants behave as they did? What lessons can be learned from this experiment about systems in relation to management?
Your well-written paper should meet the following requirements:
Be six pages in length.
Be formatted according to the APA
Include at least seven scholarly or peer-reviewed articles.
Include a title page, section headers, introduction, conclusion, and references page.
Reference:
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007).
Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation (Links to an external site.)
.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(
30), B6.
BY THE 1970s, psychologists had done a series of studies establishing the social power of groups. They showed, for example, that groups of strangers could persuade people to believe statements that were obviously false. Psychologists had also found that research participants were often willing to obey authority figures even when doing so violated their personal beliefs. The Yale studies by Stanley Milgram in 1963 demonstrated that a majority of ordinary citizens would continually shock an innocent man, even up to near-lethal levels, if commanded to do so by someone acting as an authority. The "authority" figure in this case was merely a high-school biology teacher who wore a lab coat and acted in an official manner. The majority of people shocked their victims over and over again despite increasingly desperate pleas to stop.
In my own work, I wanted to explore the fictional notion from William Golding's Lord of the Flies about the power of anonymity to unleash violent behavior. In one experiment from 1969, female students who were made to feel anonymous and given permission for aggression became significantly more hostile than students with their identities intact. Those and a host of other social-psychological studies were showing that human nature was more pliable than previously imagined and more responsive to situational pressures than we cared to acknowledge. In sum, these studies challenged the sacrosanct view that inner determinants of behavior--personality traits, morality, and religious upbringing--directed good people down righteous paths.
Missing from the body of social-science research at the time was the direct confrontation of good versus evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations. It was evident from everyday life that smart people made dumb decisions when they were engaged in mindless groupthink, as in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by the smart guys in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet. It was also clear that smart people su.
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1:
The Stanford University Prison Experiment: Structure, Behavior, and Results
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford University Prison Experiment could be described as a system whose systemic properties enabled the behaviors of the system's actors, leading to disturbing results.
Analyze the situation. What were the key elements of the system? How did the system operate? Why did the participants behave as they did? What lessons can be learned from this experiment about systems in relation to management?
Your well-written paper should meet the following requirements:
Be six pages in length.
Be formatted according to the APA
Include at least seven scholarly or peer-reviewed articles.
Include a title page, section headers, introduction, conclusion, and references page.
Reference:
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007).
Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation (Links to an external site.)
.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(
30), B6.
BY THE 1970s, psychologists had done a series of studies establishing the social power of groups. They showed, for example, that groups of strangers could persuade people to believe statements that were obviously false. Psychologists had also found that research participants were often willing to obey authority figures even when doing so violated their personal beliefs. The Yale studies by Stanley Milgram in 1963 demonstrated that a majority of ordinary citizens would continually shock an innocent man, even up to near-lethal levels, if commanded to do so by someone acting as an authority. The "authority" figure in this case was merely a high-school biology teacher who wore a lab coat and acted in an official manner. The majority of people shocked their victims over and over again despite increasingly desperate pleas to stop.
In my own work, I wanted to explore the fictional notion from William Golding's Lord of the Flies about the power of anonymity to unleash violent behavior. In one experiment from 1969, female students who were made to feel anonymous and given permission for aggression became significantly more hostile than students with their identities intact. Those and a host of other social-psychological studies were showing that human nature was more pliable than previously imagined and more responsive to situational pressures than we cared to acknowledge. In sum, these studies challenged the sacrosanct view that inner determinants of behavior--personality traits, morality, and religious upbringing--directed good people down righteous paths.
Missing from the body of social-science research at the time was the direct confrontation of good versus evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations. It was evident from everyday life that smart people made dumb decisions when they were engaged in mindless groupthink, as in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by the smart guys in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet. It was also clear that smart people su.
Byline PHILIP G. ZIMBARDOBy the 1970s, psychologists had .docx
Byline: PHILIP G. ZIMBARDO
By the 1970s, psychologists had done a series of studies establishing the social power of groups. They showed, for example, that groups of strangers could persuade people to believe statements that were obviously false. Psychologists had also found that research participants were often willing to obey authority figures even when doing so violated their personal beliefs. The Yale studies by Stanley Milgram in 1963 demonstrated that a majority of ordinary citizens would continually shock an innocent man, even up to near-lethal levels, if commanded to do so by someone acting as an authority. The "authority" figure in this case was merely a high-school biology teacher who wore a lab coat and acted in an official manner. The majority of people shocked their victims over and over again despite increasingly desperate pleas to stop.
In my own work, I wanted to explore the fictional notion from William Golding's Lord of the Flies about the power of anonymity to unleash violent behavior. In one experiment from 1969, female students who were made to feel anonymous and given permission for aggression became significantly more hostile than students with their identities intact. Those and a host of other social- psychological studies were showing that human nature was more pliable than previously imagined and more responsive to situational pressures than we cared to acknowledge. In sum, these studies challenged the sacrosanct view that inner determinants of behavior -- personality traits, morality, and religious upbringing -- directed good people down righteous paths.
Missing from the body of social-science research at the time was the direct confrontation of good versus evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations. It was evident from everyday life that smart people made dumb decisions when they were engaged in mindless groupthink, as in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by the smart guys in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet. It was also clear that smart people surrounding President Richard M. Nixon, like Henry A. Kissinger and Robert S. McNamara, escalated the Vietnam War when they knew, and later admitted, it was not winnable. They were caught up in the mental constraints of cognitive dissonance -- the discomfort from holding two conflicting thoughts -- and were unable to cut bait even though it was the only rational strategy to save lives and face. Those examples, however, with their different personalities, political agendas, and motives, complicated any simple conceptual attempt to understand what went wrong in these situations.
I decided that what was needed was to create a situation in a controlled experimental setting in which we could array on one side a host of variables, such as role-playing, coercive rules, power differentials, anonymity, group dynamics, and dehumanization. On the other side, we lined up a collection of the "best and brightest" of young college men in coll ...
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbard.docx
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) wanted to investigate how role expectations shape behavior. He was intrigued by the possibility that the frequently observed cruelty of prison guards was a consequence of the institutional setting and role, not the guards’ personalities.
In an experiment that has since become well known, Zimbardo converted the basement of a Stanford University building into a makeshift prison. A newspaper ad seeking young men to take part in the experiment for pay drew 70 subject candidates, who were given a battery of physical and psychological tests to assess their emotional stability and maturity. The most mature 24 were selected for the experiment and randomly assigned
to roles as “guards” or “prisoners.” Those assigned to be prisoners were “arrested,” handcuffed, and taken
to the makeshift prison by the Palo Alto police. The behavior of the guards and the prisoners was filmed. Within a week, the prison setting took on many of the characteristics of actual prisons. The guards were often aggressive and seemed to
take pleasure in being cruel. The prisoners began planning escapes and expressed hostility and bitterness toward the guards.
The subjects in the experiment so identified with their respective roles that many of them displayed
Despite questions about the ethics of Philip Zimbardo’s experiment, sociologists still study his work. Is it wrong to use research data gathered by means we now consider unethical? Do the results of research ever justify subjecting human beings to physical or psychological discomfort, invasion of privacy, or deception?
signs of depression and anxiety.
As a result, some were released early, and the experiment was canceled
before the first week was over. Since the participants had all been screened for psychological and physical problems, Zimbardo concluded that the results could not be attributed to their personalities. Instead, the prison setting itself (the
independent variable
) appeared to be at the root of the guards’ brutal behavior and the prisoners’ hostility and rebelliousness (the
dependent variable
). Zimbardo’s research
shows how profoundly private
lives are shaped by the behavioral expectations of the roles we occupy in social institutions.
.
Stanford Prison Experiment Analysis
The document discusses similarities between The Lord of the Flies novel and the Stanford Prison Experiment film, noting they both show how important power can be in desperate times and how it can change a person. It provides background on the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University, which investigated the psychological effects of roles as prisoners and guards. Throughout, the document examines how both the novel and experiment demonstrate that it is human nature to abuse power when given the opportunity.
The Lucifer Effect Understanding How Good People Turn Evil .docx
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil
Author(s): Joon K. Hong Source: Army Lawyer. (Dec. 2012): p55.
Document Type: Book review
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Judge Advocate General's School
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Army_Lawyer.html
This behavior lies just under the surface of any of us. The simplified accounts of genocide allow distance
between us and the perpetrators of genocide. They are so evil we couldn't ever see ourselves doing the
same thing. But if you consider the terrible pressure under which people were operating, then you
automatically reassert their humanity--and that becomes alarming. You are forced to look at the situation
and say "What would I have done?" Sometimes the answer is not encouraging (2)
I. Introduction
On 11 May 2009, Sergeant (SGT) John M. Russell of the U.S. Army shot five American Soldiers while
he was undergoing treatment at a military mental stress clinic in Bagdad, Iraq. (3) In the days and months
following the shootings, more information regarding SGT Russell's background surfaced. (4) He had been
in the military for over twenty years, and believed that the military was "the most wonderful thing that
ever happened to him." (5) He was serving his third deployment in six years without prior incident. (6)
However, more than a week before the shootings, SGT Russell had expressed suicidal wishes as his
colleagues became more alarmed by his behavior. (7) He had visited the mental health clinic four times
before the shootings. (8) During those visits, SGT Russell stated that he had seen several doctors, who
had made him angry while one particular doctor mocked him. (9) On 11 May 2013, nearly three weeks
after SGT Russell pled guilty to the shootings, (10) more information about his mental conditions
emerged. (11) The Army's mental health board had discovered that SGT Russell suffered from severe
depression with psychotic features and post-combat stress. (12) A brain scan also showed damage to the
part of his brain that affected his impulse control. (13) Other than these shootings, it appeared that SGT
Russell lived a rather mundane life. So how could such a person who had been in the military for over
twenty years commit such a heinous act? Did he act out on his latent sadistic impulses, or were there other
environmental forces at work? The Lucifer Effect, authored by Philip Zimbardo, may provide an
explanation as to how a seemingly ordinary man could commit such a crime of extraordinary moral
magnitude.
In The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo clearly explains at the outset that his intent is to "understand the
processes of transformation at work when good or ordinary people do bad or evil things." (14)
Specifically, he aims "to understand the nature of their character transformations when they are faced
with powerful situational forces." (15) Zimbardo is the original creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment
(SPE), which was conducted ...
Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology.docx
Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology
(Maxfield & Babbie, 2016)
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Few people would disagree that prisons are dehumanizing. Inmates forfeit freedom, of course, but their incarceration also results in a loss of privacy and individual identity. Violence is among the realities of prison life that people point to as evidence of the failure of prisons to rehabilitate inmates.
Although the problems of prisons have many sources, psychologists Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo (1973) were interested in two general explanations. The first was the dispositional hypothesis—prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of the types of people who run them and are incarcerated in them. Inmates have demonstrated their disrespect for legal order and their willingness to use deceit and violence; persons who work as prison guards may be disproportionately authoritarian and sadistic. The second was the situational hypothesis—the prison environment itself creates brutal, dehumanizing conditions independent of the kinds of people who live and work in the institutions.
Haney and associates set out to test the situational hypothesis by creating a functional prison simulation in which healthy, psychologically nor- mal male college students were assigned to roles as prisoners and guards. The “prison” was constructed in the basement of a psychology department building: three 6x9-foot “cells” furnished with only a cot, a prison “yard” in a corridor, and a 2x7-foot “solitary confinement cell.” Twenty-one subjects were selected from 75 volunteers after screening to eliminate those with physical or psychological problems. Offered $15 per day for their participation, the 21 subjects were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners.
All subjects signed contracts that included instructions about prisoner and guard roles for the planned two-week experiment. “Prisoners” were told that they would be confined and under surveillance throughout the experiment, and their civil rights would be suspended; they were, how- ever, guaranteed that they would not be physically abused.
“Guards” were given minimal instructions, most notably that physical aggression or physical punishment of “prisoners” was prohibited. Together with a “warden,” however, they were generally free to develop prison rules and procedures. The researchers planned to study how both guards and prisoners reacted to their roles, but guards were led to believe that the purpose of the experiment was to study prisoners.
If you had been a prisoner in this experiment, you would have experienced something like the following after signing your contract: First, you would have been arrested without notice at your home by a real police officer, perhaps with neighbors looking on. After being searched and taken to the police station in handcuffs, you would have been booked, fingerprinted, and placed in a police detention facility. Next, you would have b ...
Social Roles In The Stanford Experiment
The document discusses the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, in which college students were randomly assigned to play the roles of prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment. Zimbardo aimed to study how social roles and situations can influence behavior. The experiment showed that both the prisoners and guards quickly adapted their behaviors to conform to their assigned roles, with the guards becoming increasingly authoritarian and abusive, demonstrating how social situations and roles can powerfully shape human behavior and identity.
Presidential Introduction
This document discusses a lesson on presidential introductions that is split into 5 parts. It asks how the lyrics of the song "Fortunate Son" relate to the American presidency and what the overall message of the songwriter is. The lesson aims to introduce students to concepts around the US presidency.
Fiscal Policy
This document discusses fiscal policy and the multiplier effect through a series of scenarios. It explains that an increase in spending, such as from government spending or tax cuts, can have a multiplier effect as that new spending becomes income for others and continues circulating. However, increased government borrowing to fund spending can raise interest rates and "crowd out" private investment. It also discusses how fiscal policy tools like tax increases can combat inflation by reducing aggregate demand.
The sovereign state
This document appears to be a lesson on the concept of sovereign states. It includes definitions and examples related to the four key features that define a sovereign state: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and sovereignty. It discusses topics like what makes a country a country, the roles of government, and features of a state's population and territory. The lesson uses questions, diagrams, and activities to engage students in understanding the concept of sovereign states.
ECongress Certificate
The document contains certificates from the 2021 session of the HHS E-Congress certifying that 12 bills authored by students passed in the House of Representatives. The bills cover topics including minor consent to vaccines, humane disciplinary acts, increased funding for opportunities, renewable energy incorporation, teacher salary accommodation, reduction and prevention of homelessness, job programs to combat homelessness, nectar bearing flower's tax credit, and fixing the system. All bills were sponsored by the Youth Leadership Initiative.
AP Review Day 2
The document appears to be a series of slides from an AP review lesson on day 2. It covers various topics related to US constitutional law and Supreme Court cases, including discussions of enumerated vs implied powers, the impact of key cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison, and comparisons of different court cases. It also includes brief quizzes on required court cases and foundational documents like the Articles of Confederation.
The 2nd amendment firearm regulation
The document appears to be a 14-page lesson on the 2nd Amendment and firearm regulation in the United States. It presents 4 proposals related to gun laws and asks the reader to state if they would personally support each proposal and if the Supreme Court would find it constitutional, explaining their reasoning for both. The proposals relate to restrictions on carrying handguns in public, banning high-capacity magazines, restricting gun ownership for those living with felons, and limiting the rate of fire for certain weapons.
Generic academic honesty
This document provides an overview of Unit 3 in AP Government, which covers civil liberties and civil rights. It notes that the unit will include 2 chapters, 9 court cases, and 1 required document. It also provides test dates and formats for the AP exam in May, with the paper and pencil exam on May 3 at the student's high school, and the digital exam from home on May 20. The document indicates civil liberties are rooted in the Bill of Rights and protect individuals from government overreach, while civil rights rely on the 14th Amendment and protect individuals from discrimination.
Supreme court nominations
The document discusses the Supreme Court nomination process. It explains that the President nominates Supreme Court justices and the Senate holds confirmation hearings and votes on whether to approve the nomination. It also discusses different judicial philosophies that influence a President's selection of nominees and how the nomination and confirmation process allows the executive and legislative branches to check the judicial branch.
More Related Content
Similar to Groups- Obedience_Stanford Prison
Pamela Dollar Stanford Prison Experiment 1971
The Stanford prison experiment was a study conducted in 1971 that examined the psychological effects of assigning college students to play the roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison. The experiment quickly spiraled out of control as the participants adapted too strongly to their roles. The guards began to exhibit sadistic behavior and abuse their power over the prisoners. The experiment was ended after only 6 days instead of the planned 2 weeks due to the unethical treatment of prisoners and risks to their psychological well-being. The results demonstrated how situational roles and environments can strongly influence human behavior rather than individual personality traits alone.
The stanford prison experiment ppt
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo that investigated the psychological effects of perceived power and roles on participants. 24 male college students were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners in a mock prison set up in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University. The experiment was intended to last two weeks but was stopped after only six days as the guards began to exhibit increasingly cruel behavior towards the prisoners, including physical and emotional abuse. The findings supported the situational hypothesis that the prison environment itself was the primary cause of the escalating brutality rather than any dispositional traits of the individuals involved. The experiment raised serious ethical issues around informed consent and protecting participants from psychological harm.
The Milgram Experimentby Saul McLeod published 2007Milgram sel.docx
The Milgram Experiment
by Saul McLeod published 2007
Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University. The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).
The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).
Milgram's Experiment
Procedure:
At the beginning of the experiment, each participant was introduced to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram). They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a grey lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).
Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used - one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.
The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the "teacher" tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).
The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock the experimenter was to give a series of orders / prods to ensure they continued. There were 4 prods and if one was not obeyed then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.
Prod 1: please continue.
Prod 2: the experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue.
Results:
65% of all the participants (teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).
Conclusion:
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way.
TranscriptsClassic Studies in Psychology216. Stanford Pris.docx
Transcripts
Classic Studies in Psychology
2
16. Stanford Prison Experiment Transcript
Speakers: Dr. Steve Taylor, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Male
(Music)
DR. STEVE TAYLOR: If you go to Google and type in the word "Experiment," one of the first things you'll see is the Stanford Prison Experiment. It's probably the best known psychological study of all time.
It all began in West Coast America on a summer's day back in 1971, when college students grew their hair long, protested against their government, were pro-peace and totally anti-authority, or so we thought until Philip Zimbardo.
(Music)
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: So the Stanford Prison Study very simply is an attempt to see what happens when you put really good people in a bad place.
We put an ad in the city newspaper, wanted students for study of prison life lasting up to 2 weeks. We're going to pay you $15 a day. This is back in 1971. It's pretty good money, and we picked 75 volunteers, gave them a battery of psychological tests, and we picked two dozen who in all dimensions were normal and healthy to begin with. And then we did what is critical for all research. We randomly assigned half of them to the role of playing guards or the role of playing prisoners. It's literally like flipping a coin.
And then what we did is we told the guards, “Come down a day early,” and we had them pick their own uniform. We had them help set up the prison so they'd feel like it was their prison, and the prisoners were coming into their place. The prisoners, we simply said, “Wait at home in the dormitories.” Well, what we didn't tell them, which is a little bit of the deception of omission, is that they were arrested by the city police.
MALE: Right there, they took me out the door. They put my hands against the car. It was a real cop car. It was a real policeman that took me to the police station, the basement of the police station.
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: I had told the policeman to put a blindfold on the prisoners. Since they had never been arrested, they didn't know that doesn't happen. The reason for the blindfold is my assistants would come, put them in our car, bring them down to our prison, and they'd be in our prison now blindfolded. The guards would strip them naked, delouse them, pretending that they were lice. It's kind of a degradation ritual. And after the first day, I was about to end it because nothing was happening.
[End of audio]
From “Classic Studies in Psychology.” Copyright 2012 by Films Media Group. All rights reserved. Adapted with permission.
17. Rebellion Transcript
Speakers: Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Guard 1, Guard 2, Prisoner 1, Prisoner 2, Prisoners
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: But the next day, on the morning of the next day, the prisoners rebelled. And what the guards did, they came to me and said, “The prisoners are rebelling. What are we going to do?” I said, “It's your prison, whatever you want. I will do it, but you've got to tell me.” And they said, “We have to treat force with for ...
Read Zimbardo’s Experiment The Individual and the Social Role,” lo.docx
Read “Zimbardo’s Experiment: The Individual and the Social Role,” located on page 48 of the textbook. Discuss one (1) alternative approach to the one used in the Zimbardo experiment to investigate how role expectations shape behavior. Provide a rationale for your response.
Here is the information :
Zimbardo’s Experiment: The Individual and the Social Role Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) wanted to investigate how role expectations shape behavior. He was intrigued by the possibility that the frequently observed cruelty of prison guards was a consequence of the institutional setting and role, not the guards’ personalities. In an experiment that has since become well known, Zimbardo converted the basement of a Stanford University building into a makeshift prison. A newspaper ad seeking young men to take part in the experiment for pay drew 70 subject candidates, who were given a battery of physical and psychological tests to assess their emotional stability and maturity. The most mature 24 were selected for the experiment and randomly assigned to roles as “guards” or “prisoners.” Those assigned to be prisoners were “arrested,” handcuffed, and taken to the makeshift prison by the Palo Alto police. The behavior of the guards and the prisoners was filmed. Within a week, the prison setting took on many of the characteristics of actual prisons. The guards were often aggressive and seemed to take pleasure in being cruel. The prisoners began planning escapes and expressed hostility and bitterness toward the guards. The subjects in the experiment so identified with their respective roles that many of them displayed signs of depression and anxiety. As a result, some were released early, and the experiment was canceled before the first week was over. Since the participants had all been screened for psychological and physical problems, Zimbardo concluded that the results could not be attributed to their personalities. Instead, the prison setting itself (the independent variable) appeared to be at the root of the guards’ brutal behavior and the prisoners’ hostility and rebelliousness (the dependent variable). Zimbardo’s research shows how profoundly private lives are shaped by the behavioral expectations of the roles we occupy in social institutions.
Despite questions about the ethics of Philip Zimbardo’s experiment, sociologists still study his work. Is it wrong to use research data gathered by means we now consider unethical? Do the results of research ever justify subjecting human beings to physical or psychological discomfort, invasion of privacy, or deception? Stanford University archives Think It Through
▶
Zimbardo’s experiment could not be repeated today, as it would violate guidelines for ethical research with human subjects. How might a researcher design an ethical experiment to test the question of the circumstances under which apparently “normal” individuals will engage in violent or cruel acts?
Refer ...
Rebellion TranscriptClassic Studies in Psychology2Rebellio.docx
Rebellion Transcript
Classic Studies in Psychology
2
Rebellion Transcript
Speakers: Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Guard 1, Guard 2, Prisoner 1, Prisoner 2, Prisoners
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: But the next day, on the morning of the next day, the prisoners rebelled. And what the guards did, they came to me and said, “The prisoners are rebelling. What are we going to do?” I said, “It's your prison, whatever you want. I will do it, but you've got to tell me.” And they said, “We have to treat force with force,” so they broke down the doors --
GUARD 1: (Indiscernible) take your bed (Indiscernible).
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: -- stripped the prisoners naked, dragged them out. Some of them, they tied up their feet. They put them in solitary confinement which is a tiny little hole in the closet oh, about this big and dark, and they said, “At this point, everything but breathing air is a privilege. Food is a privilege. Clothes are a privilege. Having a bed is a privilege.” And so the guards began to say, “Here are the new rules. And the new rules are you are dangerous and we are going to treat you as such.” And then, it began to escalate. Each day, the level of abuse, aggression, violence against prisoners got more and more extreme.
And so the guards changed to become more dominant, and, you see, it's all about power. It's the whole institution that empowers the guards who are the representative of this institution called prison to do whatever is necessary to prevent prisoners from escaping, maintain law and order.
GUARD 2: Keep going. Once I was blind.
PRISONER 1: (Singing) Once, I was blind.
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: The way -- the direction it took was having them engage in ever more humiliating tasks, cleaning toilet bowls out with their bare hands, taking their blankets and putting them in dirt with nettles, and the prisoner had to spend hours taking the nettles out if they wanted to, you know, sleep. And it's essentially saying, “We have the power to create a totally arbitrary, mindless environment, and that's the environment you have to live in.”
So some of the prisoners are now crushed. And in 36 hours, the first kid has an emotional breakdown meaning crying, screaming, irrational thinking.
PRISONER 2: I've got to go to a doctor, anything. I want out! I want out now! Goddamnit!
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: And we have to release him. In 5 days, we had to release five of the prisoners because the situation was so overwhelming.
What about the kids who didn't break down? They became zombies, zombies in the sense that they became almost all mindlessly obedient. Whatever the guards would say, they did. Do this, they did. “Do 10 pushups. Do 20 pushups. Step on him while he's doing pushups. Tell him he's a bastard.”
PRISONERS: Prisoner 819 did a bad thing. Prisoner 819 did a bad thing.
DR. PHILIP ZIMBARDO: It was horrifying to see the kids break down. It was even more horrifying to see these other kids just become mindlessly obedient.
PRISONERS: Because of what pr.
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1:
The Stanford University Prison Experiment: Structure, Behavior, and Results
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford University Prison Experiment could be described as a system whose systemic properties enabled the behaviors of the system's actors, leading to disturbing results.
Analyze the situation. What were the key elements of the system? How did the system operate? Why did the participants behave as they did? What lessons can be learned from this experiment about systems in relation to management?
Your well-written paper should meet the following requirements:
Be six pages in length.
Be formatted according to the APA
Include at least seven scholarly or peer-reviewed articles.
Include a title page, section headers, introduction, conclusion, and references page.
Reference:
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007).
Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation (Links to an external site.)
.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(
30), B6.
BY THE 1970s, psychologists had done a series of studies establishing the social power of groups. They showed, for example, that groups of strangers could persuade people to believe statements that were obviously false. Psychologists had also found that research participants were often willing to obey authority figures even when doing so violated their personal beliefs. The Yale studies by Stanley Milgram in 1963 demonstrated that a majority of ordinary citizens would continually shock an innocent man, even up to near-lethal levels, if commanded to do so by someone acting as an authority. The "authority" figure in this case was merely a high-school biology teacher who wore a lab coat and acted in an official manner. The majority of people shocked their victims over and over again despite increasingly desperate pleas to stop.
In my own work, I wanted to explore the fictional notion from William Golding's Lord of the Flies about the power of anonymity to unleash violent behavior. In one experiment from 1969, female students who were made to feel anonymous and given permission for aggression became significantly more hostile than students with their identities intact. Those and a host of other social-psychological studies were showing that human nature was more pliable than previously imagined and more responsive to situational pressures than we cared to acknowledge. In sum, these studies challenged the sacrosanct view that inner determinants of behavior--personality traits, morality, and religious upbringing--directed good people down righteous paths.
Missing from the body of social-science research at the time was the direct confrontation of good versus evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations. It was evident from everyday life that smart people made dumb decisions when they were engaged in mindless groupthink, as in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by the smart guys in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet. It was also clear that smart people su.
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1:
The Stanford University Prison Experiment: Structure, Behavior, and Results
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford University Prison Experiment could be described as a system whose systemic properties enabled the behaviors of the system's actors, leading to disturbing results.
Analyze the situation. What were the key elements of the system? How did the system operate? Why did the participants behave as they did? What lessons can be learned from this experiment about systems in relation to management?
Your well-written paper should meet the following requirements:
Be six pages in length.
Be formatted according to the APA
Include at least seven scholarly or peer-reviewed articles.
Include a title page, section headers, introduction, conclusion, and references page.
Reference:
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007).
Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation (Links to an external site.)
.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(
30), B6.
BY THE 1970s, psychologists had done a series of studies establishing the social power of groups. They showed, for example, that groups of strangers could persuade people to believe statements that were obviously false. Psychologists had also found that research participants were often willing to obey authority figures even when doing so violated their personal beliefs. The Yale studies by Stanley Milgram in 1963 demonstrated that a majority of ordinary citizens would continually shock an innocent man, even up to near-lethal levels, if commanded to do so by someone acting as an authority. The "authority" figure in this case was merely a high-school biology teacher who wore a lab coat and acted in an official manner. The majority of people shocked their victims over and over again despite increasingly desperate pleas to stop.
In my own work, I wanted to explore the fictional notion from William Golding's Lord of the Flies about the power of anonymity to unleash violent behavior. In one experiment from 1969, female students who were made to feel anonymous and given permission for aggression became significantly more hostile than students with their identities intact. Those and a host of other social-psychological studies were showing that human nature was more pliable than previously imagined and more responsive to situational pressures than we cared to acknowledge. In sum, these studies challenged the sacrosanct view that inner determinants of behavior--personality traits, morality, and religious upbringing--directed good people down righteous paths.
Missing from the body of social-science research at the time was the direct confrontation of good versus evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations. It was evident from everyday life that smart people made dumb decisions when they were engaged in mindless groupthink, as in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by the smart guys in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet. It was also clear that smart people su.
Byline PHILIP G. ZIMBARDOBy the 1970s, psychologists had .docx
Byline: PHILIP G. ZIMBARDO
By the 1970s, psychologists had done a series of studies establishing the social power of groups. They showed, for example, that groups of strangers could persuade people to believe statements that were obviously false. Psychologists had also found that research participants were often willing to obey authority figures even when doing so violated their personal beliefs. The Yale studies by Stanley Milgram in 1963 demonstrated that a majority of ordinary citizens would continually shock an innocent man, even up to near-lethal levels, if commanded to do so by someone acting as an authority. The "authority" figure in this case was merely a high-school biology teacher who wore a lab coat and acted in an official manner. The majority of people shocked their victims over and over again despite increasingly desperate pleas to stop.
In my own work, I wanted to explore the fictional notion from William Golding's Lord of the Flies about the power of anonymity to unleash violent behavior. In one experiment from 1969, female students who were made to feel anonymous and given permission for aggression became significantly more hostile than students with their identities intact. Those and a host of other social- psychological studies were showing that human nature was more pliable than previously imagined and more responsive to situational pressures than we cared to acknowledge. In sum, these studies challenged the sacrosanct view that inner determinants of behavior -- personality traits, morality, and religious upbringing -- directed good people down righteous paths.
Missing from the body of social-science research at the time was the direct confrontation of good versus evil, of good people pitted against the forces inherent in bad situations. It was evident from everyday life that smart people made dumb decisions when they were engaged in mindless groupthink, as in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion by the smart guys in President John F. Kennedy's cabinet. It was also clear that smart people surrounding President Richard M. Nixon, like Henry A. Kissinger and Robert S. McNamara, escalated the Vietnam War when they knew, and later admitted, it was not winnable. They were caught up in the mental constraints of cognitive dissonance -- the discomfort from holding two conflicting thoughts -- and were unable to cut bait even though it was the only rational strategy to save lives and face. Those examples, however, with their different personalities, political agendas, and motives, complicated any simple conceptual attempt to understand what went wrong in these situations.
I decided that what was needed was to create a situation in a controlled experimental setting in which we could array on one side a host of variables, such as role-playing, coercive rules, power differentials, anonymity, group dynamics, and dehumanization. On the other side, we lined up a collection of the "best and brightest" of young college men in coll ...
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbard.docx
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) wanted to investigate how role expectations shape behavior. He was intrigued by the possibility that the frequently observed cruelty of prison guards was a consequence of the institutional setting and role, not the guards’ personalities.
In an experiment that has since become well known, Zimbardo converted the basement of a Stanford University building into a makeshift prison. A newspaper ad seeking young men to take part in the experiment for pay drew 70 subject candidates, who were given a battery of physical and psychological tests to assess their emotional stability and maturity. The most mature 24 were selected for the experiment and randomly assigned
to roles as “guards” or “prisoners.” Those assigned to be prisoners were “arrested,” handcuffed, and taken
to the makeshift prison by the Palo Alto police. The behavior of the guards and the prisoners was filmed. Within a week, the prison setting took on many of the characteristics of actual prisons. The guards were often aggressive and seemed to
take pleasure in being cruel. The prisoners began planning escapes and expressed hostility and bitterness toward the guards.
The subjects in the experiment so identified with their respective roles that many of them displayed
Despite questions about the ethics of Philip Zimbardo’s experiment, sociologists still study his work. Is it wrong to use research data gathered by means we now consider unethical? Do the results of research ever justify subjecting human beings to physical or psychological discomfort, invasion of privacy, or deception?
signs of depression and anxiety.
As a result, some were released early, and the experiment was canceled
before the first week was over. Since the participants had all been screened for psychological and physical problems, Zimbardo concluded that the results could not be attributed to their personalities. Instead, the prison setting itself (the
independent variable
) appeared to be at the root of the guards’ brutal behavior and the prisoners’ hostility and rebelliousness (the
dependent variable
). Zimbardo’s research
shows how profoundly private
lives are shaped by the behavioral expectations of the roles we occupy in social institutions.
.
Stanford Prison Experiment Analysis
The document discusses similarities between The Lord of the Flies novel and the Stanford Prison Experiment film, noting they both show how important power can be in desperate times and how it can change a person. It provides background on the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University, which investigated the psychological effects of roles as prisoners and guards. Throughout, the document examines how both the novel and experiment demonstrate that it is human nature to abuse power when given the opportunity.
The Lucifer Effect Understanding How Good People Turn Evil .docx
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil
Author(s): Joon K. Hong Source: Army Lawyer. (Dec. 2012): p55.
Document Type: Book review
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Judge Advocate General's School
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Army_Lawyer.html
This behavior lies just under the surface of any of us. The simplified accounts of genocide allow distance
between us and the perpetrators of genocide. They are so evil we couldn't ever see ourselves doing the
same thing. But if you consider the terrible pressure under which people were operating, then you
automatically reassert their humanity--and that becomes alarming. You are forced to look at the situation
and say "What would I have done?" Sometimes the answer is not encouraging (2)
I. Introduction
On 11 May 2009, Sergeant (SGT) John M. Russell of the U.S. Army shot five American Soldiers while
he was undergoing treatment at a military mental stress clinic in Bagdad, Iraq. (3) In the days and months
following the shootings, more information regarding SGT Russell's background surfaced. (4) He had been
in the military for over twenty years, and believed that the military was "the most wonderful thing that
ever happened to him." (5) He was serving his third deployment in six years without prior incident. (6)
However, more than a week before the shootings, SGT Russell had expressed suicidal wishes as his
colleagues became more alarmed by his behavior. (7) He had visited the mental health clinic four times
before the shootings. (8) During those visits, SGT Russell stated that he had seen several doctors, who
had made him angry while one particular doctor mocked him. (9) On 11 May 2013, nearly three weeks
after SGT Russell pled guilty to the shootings, (10) more information about his mental conditions
emerged. (11) The Army's mental health board had discovered that SGT Russell suffered from severe
depression with psychotic features and post-combat stress. (12) A brain scan also showed damage to the
part of his brain that affected his impulse control. (13) Other than these shootings, it appeared that SGT
Russell lived a rather mundane life. So how could such a person who had been in the military for over
twenty years commit such a heinous act? Did he act out on his latent sadistic impulses, or were there other
environmental forces at work? The Lucifer Effect, authored by Philip Zimbardo, may provide an
explanation as to how a seemingly ordinary man could commit such a crime of extraordinary moral
magnitude.
In The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo clearly explains at the outset that his intent is to "understand the
processes of transformation at work when good or ordinary people do bad or evil things." (14)
Specifically, he aims "to understand the nature of their character transformations when they are faced
with powerful situational forces." (15) Zimbardo is the original creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment
(SPE), which was conducted ...
Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology.docx
Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology
(Maxfield & Babbie, 2016)
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Few people would disagree that prisons are dehumanizing. Inmates forfeit freedom, of course, but their incarceration also results in a loss of privacy and individual identity. Violence is among the realities of prison life that people point to as evidence of the failure of prisons to rehabilitate inmates.
Although the problems of prisons have many sources, psychologists Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo (1973) were interested in two general explanations. The first was the dispositional hypothesis—prisons are brutal and dehumanizing because of the types of people who run them and are incarcerated in them. Inmates have demonstrated their disrespect for legal order and their willingness to use deceit and violence; persons who work as prison guards may be disproportionately authoritarian and sadistic. The second was the situational hypothesis—the prison environment itself creates brutal, dehumanizing conditions independent of the kinds of people who live and work in the institutions.
Haney and associates set out to test the situational hypothesis by creating a functional prison simulation in which healthy, psychologically nor- mal male college students were assigned to roles as prisoners and guards. The “prison” was constructed in the basement of a psychology department building: three 6x9-foot “cells” furnished with only a cot, a prison “yard” in a corridor, and a 2x7-foot “solitary confinement cell.” Twenty-one subjects were selected from 75 volunteers after screening to eliminate those with physical or psychological problems. Offered $15 per day for their participation, the 21 subjects were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners.
All subjects signed contracts that included instructions about prisoner and guard roles for the planned two-week experiment. “Prisoners” were told that they would be confined and under surveillance throughout the experiment, and their civil rights would be suspended; they were, how- ever, guaranteed that they would not be physically abused.
“Guards” were given minimal instructions, most notably that physical aggression or physical punishment of “prisoners” was prohibited. Together with a “warden,” however, they were generally free to develop prison rules and procedures. The researchers planned to study how both guards and prisoners reacted to their roles, but guards were led to believe that the purpose of the experiment was to study prisoners.
If you had been a prisoner in this experiment, you would have experienced something like the following after signing your contract: First, you would have been arrested without notice at your home by a real police officer, perhaps with neighbors looking on. After being searched and taken to the police station in handcuffs, you would have been booked, fingerprinted, and placed in a police detention facility. Next, you would have b ...
Social Roles In The Stanford Experiment
The document discusses the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, in which college students were randomly assigned to play the roles of prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment. Zimbardo aimed to study how social roles and situations can influence behavior. The experiment showed that both the prisoners and guards quickly adapted their behaviors to conform to their assigned roles, with the guards becoming increasingly authoritarian and abusive, demonstrating how social situations and roles can powerfully shape human behavior and identity.
Similar to Groups- Obedience_Stanford Prison (14)
The Milgram Experimentby Saul McLeod published 2007Milgram sel.docx
The Milgram Experimentby Saul McLeod published 2007Milgram sel.docx
TranscriptsClassic Studies in Psychology216. Stanford Pris.docx
TranscriptsClassic Studies in Psychology216. Stanford Pris.docx
Read Zimbardo’s Experiment The Individual and the Social Role,” lo.docx
Read Zimbardo’s Experiment The Individual and the Social Role,” lo.docx
Rebellion TranscriptClassic Studies in Psychology2Rebellio.docx
Rebellion TranscriptClassic Studies in Psychology2Rebellio.docx
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docx
Byline PHILIP G. ZIMBARDOBy the 1970s, psychologists had .docx
Byline PHILIP G. ZIMBARDOBy the 1970s, psychologists had .docx
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbard.docx
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbard.docx
The Lucifer Effect Understanding How Good People Turn Evil .docx
The Lucifer Effect Understanding How Good People Turn Evil .docx
Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology.docx
Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology.docx
More from shoetzlein
Presidential Introduction
This document discusses a lesson on presidential introductions that is split into 5 parts. It asks how the lyrics of the song "Fortunate Son" relate to the American presidency and what the overall message of the songwriter is. The lesson aims to introduce students to concepts around the US presidency.
Fiscal Policy
This document discusses fiscal policy and the multiplier effect through a series of scenarios. It explains that an increase in spending, such as from government spending or tax cuts, can have a multiplier effect as that new spending becomes income for others and continues circulating. However, increased government borrowing to fund spending can raise interest rates and "crowd out" private investment. It also discusses how fiscal policy tools like tax increases can combat inflation by reducing aggregate demand.
The sovereign state
This document appears to be a lesson on the concept of sovereign states. It includes definitions and examples related to the four key features that define a sovereign state: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and sovereignty. It discusses topics like what makes a country a country, the roles of government, and features of a state's population and territory. The lesson uses questions, diagrams, and activities to engage students in understanding the concept of sovereign states.
ECongress Certificate
The document contains certificates from the 2021 session of the HHS E-Congress certifying that 12 bills authored by students passed in the House of Representatives. The bills cover topics including minor consent to vaccines, humane disciplinary acts, increased funding for opportunities, renewable energy incorporation, teacher salary accommodation, reduction and prevention of homelessness, job programs to combat homelessness, nectar bearing flower's tax credit, and fixing the system. All bills were sponsored by the Youth Leadership Initiative.
AP Review Day 2
The document appears to be a series of slides from an AP review lesson on day 2. It covers various topics related to US constitutional law and Supreme Court cases, including discussions of enumerated vs implied powers, the impact of key cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison, and comparisons of different court cases. It also includes brief quizzes on required court cases and foundational documents like the Articles of Confederation.
The 2nd amendment firearm regulation
The document appears to be a 14-page lesson on the 2nd Amendment and firearm regulation in the United States. It presents 4 proposals related to gun laws and asks the reader to state if they would personally support each proposal and if the Supreme Court would find it constitutional, explaining their reasoning for both. The proposals relate to restrictions on carrying handguns in public, banning high-capacity magazines, restricting gun ownership for those living with felons, and limiting the rate of fire for certain weapons.
Generic academic honesty
This document provides an overview of Unit 3 in AP Government, which covers civil liberties and civil rights. It notes that the unit will include 2 chapters, 9 court cases, and 1 required document. It also provides test dates and formats for the AP exam in May, with the paper and pencil exam on May 3 at the student's high school, and the digital exam from home on May 20. The document indicates civil liberties are rooted in the Bill of Rights and protect individuals from government overreach, while civil rights rely on the 14th Amendment and protect individuals from discrimination.
Supreme court nominations
The document discusses the Supreme Court nomination process. It explains that the President nominates Supreme Court justices and the Senate holds confirmation hearings and votes on whether to approve the nomination. It also discusses different judicial philosophies that influence a President's selection of nominees and how the nomination and confirmation process allows the executive and legislative branches to check the judicial branch.
A Very Big Branch (Bureaucracy)
This document appears to be a series of slides from an online lesson about the executive branch of the US government and bureaucracy. It includes definitions of key terms, examples of executive agencies and their roles, quizzes and discussion questions about regulations and enforcement. The goal seems to be helping students understand the large network of departments, agencies, and roles within the executive branch.
The legislative process
This document is a 30-page lesson on the legislative process. It includes sections on when a congressman might act as a delegate or trustee, an open-ended question, a Schoolhouse Rock video, another open-ended question on why so few bills become law, and a quiz on the legislative process. The lesson covers the typical steps bills go through in Congress, from introduction to committee work to floor debates to the president.
How Congress Works
This document appears to be a 31-slide lesson on how Congress works. It includes slides with text, questions for students to answer, and political cartoons. The slides cover topics like the composition of Congress, differences between the House and Senate, the role of party leadership and committees, and the legislative process. The goal seems to be to educate students on the structure and functions of the U.S. Congress.
Peaceful Transition of Power 2021
The document is a lesson about the peaceful transfer of power in the US presidency. It includes sections on Ronald Reagan's 1981 inaugural address, where he notes that the regular transfer of power through elections seems miraculous globally. It asks how cooperation in transitions safeguards the American Republic. Learners are prompted to explain why transitions illustrate the success of the US experiment or are important domestically and internationally.
The role of media
This document appears to be a lesson plan on the role of media. It includes links to various news articles and videos. The lesson discusses how different types of media outlets have different agendas that influence which stories they choose to cover. It also addresses how commercial news sources make money through advertising and aim to attract audiences. The lesson quizzes students on these concepts and asks them to reflect on questions about media influence and setting the public agenda.
Interest groups
This document is a 50-page lesson on interest groups. It includes definitions of interest groups, examples of different types of interest groups like the Sierra Club and AARP, activities they engage in like lobbying and donating money, and quizzes about interest groups. The lesson explains how interest groups try to influence public policy and elections by informing the public, endorsing political candidates, and lobbying the government.
Show me the money
This document is a 38-page lesson on the connection between money and politics. It includes a Pink Floyd music video, discussion questions, explanations of terms like interest groups, political action committees (PACs), and super PACs. It also discusses how these groups can raise and spend unlimited sums to influence elections, and covers the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that deregulated campaign finance laws. The lesson aims to explain how interest groups, political donations, and spending work within the political process in the United States.
Primaries caucuses
This document is a lesson on primaries and caucuses that is presented over 35 slides. It includes information about the general process of the presidential election, a timeline activity, an election calendar, videos explaining how primaries and caucuses work, quizzes comparing primaries and caucuses, and open-ended discussion questions about advantages of each and a state's primary process. Students are asked to create a Venn diagram to contrast primaries and caucuses. The lesson provides information to help students understand the differences between primaries and caucuses and how the presidential nomination process unfolds.
One big party
The document discusses political parties and the two-party system in the United States. It includes questions about party roles, platforms, and voter registration. There are also true/false questions testing understanding of independent voters, third party candidates, party access and information, and the balance of power between parties in Congress. The purpose is to help students learn about the characteristics and functions of the two dominant political parties in the US.
Fiscal and-monetary-policy
This document discusses fiscal and monetary policy tools used by governments and central banks to influence aggregate demand and stabilize economies. Fiscal policy tools include changes to government spending and taxes by Congress and the President. Monetary policy tools are used by the Federal Reserve and include open market operations, reserve requirements, and interest rates. Both fiscal and monetary policies can be either expansionary or contractionary depending on whether their goal is to increase or decrease aggregate demand to address recessionary or inflationary gaps in the economy.
Examining global opinion
This document appears to be a series of lessons examining global opinion on various topics based on poll data and graphs. It includes open-ended questions asking students to summarize information, identify trends or inconsistencies, and compare opinions across different countries and time periods. Students are prompted to analyze differences in how favorably various nations view the American people versus the United States. The lesson examines topics like priorities around jobs versus the environment, views of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, and support for continued Western military presence.
Federalism with McCulloch
This document discusses the concept of federalism in the United States, focusing on the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland. It presents information on the enumerated and reserved powers of the federal and state governments. It also considers whether the federal government has the authority to establish a national bank and whether states can tax that bank, addressing arguments made in McCulloch v. Maryland. Open-ended questions ask about the advantages of a national bank, why states may feel threatened by one, and whether certain laws are justified by implied federal powers.
More from shoetzlein (20)
Recently uploaded
Educational Technology in the Health Sciences
Plenary presentation at the NTTC Inter-university Workshop, 18 June 2024, Manila Prince Hotel.
مصحف القراءات العشر أعد أحرف الخلاف سمير بسيوني.pdf
مصحف أحرف الخلاف للقراء العشرةأعد أحرف الخلاف بالتلوين وصلا سمير بسيوني غفر الله له
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two Hearts
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptx
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
skeleton System.pdf (skeleton system wow)
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
إضغ بين إيديكم من أقوى الملازم التي صممتها
ملزمة تشريح الجهاز الهيكلي (نظري 3)
💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
تتميز هذهِ الملزمة بعِدة مُميزات :
1- مُترجمة ترجمة تُناسب جميع المستويات
2- تحتوي على 78 رسم توضيحي لكل كلمة موجودة بالملزمة (لكل كلمة !!!!)
#فهم_ماكو_درخ
3- دقة الكتابة والصور عالية جداً جداً جداً
4- هُنالك بعض المعلومات تم توضيحها بشكل تفصيلي جداً (تُعتبر لدى الطالب أو الطالبة بإنها معلومات مُبهمة ومع ذلك تم توضيح هذهِ المعلومات المُبهمة بشكل تفصيلي جداً
5- الملزمة تشرح نفسها ب نفسها بس تكلك تعال اقراني
6- تحتوي الملزمة في اول سلايد على خارطة تتضمن جميع تفرُعات معلومات الجهاز الهيكلي المذكورة في هذهِ الملزمة
واخيراً هذهِ الملزمة حلالٌ عليكم وإتمنى منكم إن تدعولي بالخير والصحة والعافية فقط
كل التوفيق زملائي وزميلاتي ، زميلكم محمد الذهبي 💊💊
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...
Whether you're new to SEO or looking to refine your existing strategies, this webinar will provide you with actionable insights and practical tips to elevate your nonprofit's online presence.
Geography as a Discipline Chapter 1 __ Class 11 Geography NCERT _ Class Notes...
Geography as discipline
RHEOLOGY Physical pharmaceutics-II notes for B.pharm 4th sem students
Physical pharmaceutics notes for B.pharm students
How to deliver Powerpoint Presentations.pptx
"How to make and deliver dynamic presentations by making it more interactive to captivate your audience attention"
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit Innovation
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
Stack Memory Organization of 8086 Microprocessor
The stack memory organization of 8086 microprocessor.
Benner "Expanding Pathways to Publishing Careers"
This presentation was provided by Rebecca Benner, Ph.D., of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, for the second session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session Two: 'Expanding Pathways to Publishing Careers,' was held June 13, 2024.
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH LỚP 9 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2024-2025 - ...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH LỚP 9 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2024-2025 - ...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
https://app.box.com/s/tacvl9ekroe9hqupdnjruiypvm9rdaneRecently uploaded (20)
مصحف القراءات العشر أعد أحرف الخلاف سمير بسيوني.pdf
مصحف القراءات العشر أعد أحرف الخلاف سمير بسيوني.pdf
NEWSPAPERS - QUESTION 1 - REVISION POWERPOINT.pptx
NEWSPAPERS - QUESTION 1 - REVISION POWERPOINT.pptx
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptx
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptx
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...
Elevate Your Nonprofit's Online Presence_ A Guide to Effective SEO Strategies...
Geography as a Discipline Chapter 1 __ Class 11 Geography NCERT _ Class Notes...
Geography as a Discipline Chapter 1 __ Class 11 Geography NCERT _ Class Notes...
SWOT analysis in the project Keeping the Memory @live.pptx
SWOT analysis in the project Keeping the Memory @live.pptx
RHEOLOGY Physical pharmaceutics-II notes for B.pharm 4th sem students
RHEOLOGY Physical pharmaceutics-II notes for B.pharm 4th sem students
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit Innovation
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit Innovation
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH LỚP 9 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2024-2025 - ...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH LỚP 9 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2024-2025 - ...
Groups- Obedience_Stanford Prison
- 1. Groups and Obedience The Stanford Prison Experiment 1
- 2. The Stanford Prison Experiment 2
- 3. Experiment Questions ► What happens when you put good people in an evil place? ► Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? ► These are some of the questions posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University. 3
- 4. Experiment Design ► Social psychologist Phillip Zimbardo ► Experiment to study the behaviors of people without criminal records in a mock prison ► Selected 24 healthy young men volunteers ► Normal, intelligent, middle class college students ► Half were assigned the roles of guards; the other half were prisoners 4
- 5. Experiment Design ► ► ► ► Guards made their rules Prisoners were unexpectedly picked up from their homes, handcuffed and searched Then stripped, deloused, groin uniforms, and put in a cell The experiment was supposed to last two weeks… 5
- 6. Experiment Results ► ► ► But the experiment was stopped after only six days! Each group could no longer distinguish between their roles and real life In only a few days, the guards became sadistic and the prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress. 6
- 7. ► Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment of August 1971 quickly became a classic. ► Using realistic methods, Zimbardo and others were able to create a prison atmosphere that transformed its participants. ► The young men who played prisoners and guards revealed how much circumstances can distort individual personalities -- and how anyone, when given complete control over others, can act like a monster. 7
- 8. Let’s see what happened . . . ► www.prisonexp.org 8
- 9. Implications ► "It shows how easy it is for good people to become perpetrators of evil." ► Zimbardo maintains that the student-participants suffered no long-term harm -- even though some had symptoms of mental breakdown during the experiment. But now, the standards for using human subjects in research wouldn't permit such an experiment, ► "Because of the rules, it's unlikely to ever be replcated" 9
- 10. Implications ► Zimbardo has strong opinions on the harmful effects of harsh prison sentences. "Prisons are evil places that demean humanity. ... They are as bad for the guards as they are for the prisoners," he said, pointing to results of his experiment showing that both guards' and prisoners' personalities were warped by their given roles. 10