Zimbardo's Experiment : The Stanford Prison ExperimentVedang Vatsa
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: how our environment can affect our behaviourBee Heller
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 ExperimentVedang Vatsa
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: how our environment can affect our behaviourBee Heller
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.
Obedience is compliance with commands given by an authority figure. In the 1960s, the social psychologist Stanley Milgram did a famous research study called the obedience study.
It showed that people have a strong tendency to comply with authority figures.
Obedience is compliance with commands given by an authority figure. In the 1960s, the social psychologist Stanley Milgram did a famous research study called the obedience study.
It showed that people have a strong tendency to comply with authority figures.
The Milgram Experimentby Saul McLeod published 2007Milgram sel.docxcdorothy
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.
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1974; Haney, Banks, & Zimbard.docxMadonnaJacobsenfp
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.
.
Read Zimbardo’s Experiment The Individual and the Social Role,” lo.docxniraj57
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 ...
TranscriptsClassic Studies in Psychology216. Stanford Pris.docxturveycharlyn
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 ...
Option #1The Stanford University Prison Experiment Structu.docxmccormicknadine86
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.docxjacksnathalie
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.
This presentation, created by Syed Faiz ul Hassan, explores the profound influence of media on public perception and behavior. It delves into the evolution of media from oral traditions to modern digital and social media platforms. Key topics include the role of media in information propagation, socialization, crisis awareness, globalization, and education. The presentation also examines media influence through agenda setting, propaganda, and manipulative techniques used by advertisers and marketers. Furthermore, it highlights the impact of surveillance enabled by media technologies on personal behavior and preferences. Through this comprehensive overview, the presentation aims to shed light on how media shapes collective consciousness and public opinion.
Collapsing Narratives: Exploring Non-Linearity • a micro report by Rosie WellsRosie Wells
Insight: In a landscape where traditional narrative structures are giving way to fragmented and non-linear forms of storytelling, there lies immense potential for creativity and exploration.
'Collapsing Narratives: Exploring Non-Linearity' is a micro report from Rosie Wells.
Rosie Wells is an Arts & Cultural Strategist uniquely positioned at the intersection of grassroots and mainstream storytelling.
Their work is focused on developing meaningful and lasting connections that can drive social change.
Please download this presentation to enjoy the hyperlinks!
4. THIS EXPERIMENT ILLUSTRATES
DEINDIVIDUATION …
WHAT IS DEINDIVIDUATION?
• Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is
generally thought of as the loss of self-awareness in groups
and feels lessened responsibility for one’s actions.
5. Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the
prisoner's 'final submission'. Deindividuation may
explain the behavior of the participants; especially the
guards.
Now that we know what is Deindividuation; we will
talk more about the experiment.
6. • The Stanford experiment was
conducted at Stanford University.
• Done by team of researchers led by
psychology professor Philip
Zimbardo on August 14–20, 1971
using college students as the subjects
of his experiment.
• This experiment was funded by the
U.S. Office of Naval Research.
7. • The aim of this experiment was to
investigate how people would comply
with rules and laws of guard and
prisoner in prison life.
• Zimbardo made an ad in the Palo Alto
city newspaper: “wanted, college
students for a psychological study of
prison life for two weeks; paid $15 per
day.
• He got more than 75 people applying.
He and his team gave people a battery
of psychological tests and interviews.
8. • Then they picked two dozen of the
most normal, healthiest young men
they could find.
• Those were kids from all over the
United States who were in the Stanford
area finishing summer school.
9. Then he and his team did what's basic to
every research: they randomly assigned
half to be guards and half to be prisoners.
They were going to play those roles in a
fairly realistic prison-like setting in the
basement of the psychology department.
The prisoners were going to live there
24 hours a day, and the guards were
going to work eight-hour shifts.
10. • The hypothesis was that prisoners and
guards behave in a non-aggressive
manner.
• The situational explanation was if they
behaved the same way as real prisoners
and guards would in a prison.
• They even found that within hours guards
started to harass prisoners, other guards
even started to join them, other prisoners
were tormented.
• Prisoners soon started to adopt their new
roles, even snitching on each other to gain
the guards trust.
• Things started to get out of control and
were basically dehumanizing.
11. • The “prison” environment was an important factor in
creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the
participants who acted as guards showed sadistic
tendencies before the study).
• Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. strongly
objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by
the guards. She said, "It's terrible what you are doing
to these boys!" she was the only one who ever
questioned its morality
• Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment
should run for a fortnight, but on the sixth day it was
terminated.
12. • It was concluded that people would conform to the social
role that’s expected of them.
• Most of the time if the social roles were of stereo typical
identity like the prisoner and guard role.
• Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation
of behavior rather than the dispositional one.
13. • ‘Most of the participants said they had felt
involved and committed. The research had
felt "real" to them.
• After the prison experiment was terminated
Zimbardo interviewed the
• participants. Here’s an excerpt:
• One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I
made them call each other names and clean
the toilets out with their bare hands.
• And another: "... during the inspection I went
to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a
prisoner had just made and he grabbed me.
He grabbed me by the throat and although he
was laughing I was pretty scared.
• Another guard said "Acting authoritatively
can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure."
14. CONCLUSION
• To conclude, Zimbardo finally proved his
experiment after investigating how people
would comply with rules and regulations in
prison life. Therefore, as mentioned the
results support the situational of behavior
rather than the dispositional one.