The experiment showed, in Dr. To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the experiment the University Archives is holding an exhibit of materials from the Archives and the recently-acquired Zimbardo papers in the display cases of the Albert M.
Materials on display include application materials, original prison gowns, photographs, transcripts, press material, news clippings, and a follow-up evaluation form. The exhibit is accessible whenever Green Library is open and hours vary with the academic schedule. For Library hours, call The chaplain interviewed each prisoner individually. The priest told them the only way they would get out was with the help of a lawyer.
Eventually while talking to the priest, broke down and began to cry hysterically, just two previously released prisoners had. The psychologists removed the chain from his foot, the cap off his head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the prison yard. They told him they would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor. While this was going on, one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud:.
The psychologists realized could hear the chanting and went back into the room where they found him sobbing uncontrollably. The psychologists tried to get him to agree to leave the experiment, but he said he could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner.
Zimbardo had intended that the experiment should run for two weeks, but on the sixth day it was terminated, due to the emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression of the guards. Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.
Filled with outrage, she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys! According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards.
Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal lives. Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one. Deindividuation may explain the behavior of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility. The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally — it was a group norm.
The also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore. Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner's submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.
After the prison experiment was terminated, Zimbardo interviewed the participants. The research had felt "real" to them. One guard said, "I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something.
Another guard said "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure. He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry. Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutalizing ways that they had.
Several claimed to be assertive types normally. When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel. A further explanation for the behaviour of the participants can be described in terms of reinforcement. The escalation of aggression and abuse by the guards could be seen as being due to the positive reinforcement they received both from fellow guards and intrinsically in terms of how good it made them feel to have so much power.
Similarly the prisoners could have learnt through negative reinforcement that if they kept their heads down and did as they were told they could avoid further unpleasant experiences. Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behavior may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behavior in real life.
This means the study's findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real.
The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay. When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out. The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students.
The study's findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture were people are generally less conforming and the results may be different in collectivist cultures such as Asian countries. A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners due to the risk of violence against them.
Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participant led to the formal recognition of ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association. In many ways, the film is critical of the study: Crudup plays Zimbardo as an overzealous researcher overstepping his bounds, trying to create a very specific outcome among the students he observes.
The filmmakers even underscore the flimsiness of the experimental design, inserting characters who point out that Zimbardo is not a disinterested observer. Based on my experience, and what I saw and what I felt, I think that was a real stretch. If the Stanford Prison Experiment had simulated a less brutal environment, would the prisoners and guards have acted differently?
Their guards also had uniforms, and were given latitude to dole out rewards and punishments; their prisoners were placed in three-person cells that followed the layout of the Stanford County Jail almost exactly. The main difference was that, in this prison, the preset expectations were gone. The BBC Prison Study, as it came to be called, differed from the Stanford experiment in a few other ways, including prisoner dress; for a while, moreover, the prisoners were told that they could become guards through good behavior, although, on the third day, that offer was revoked, and the roles were made permanent.
The prisoners, on the other hand, developed a collective identity. In a change from the Stanford study, the psychologists asked each participant to complete a daily survey that measured the degree to which he felt solidarity with his group; it showed that, as the guards grew further apart, the prisoners were growing closer together. On the fourth day, three cellmates decided to test their luck. At lunchtime, one threw his plate down and demanded better food, another asked to smoke, and the third asked for medical attention for a blister on his foot.
The guards became disorganized; one even offered the smoker a cigarette. Soon, more prisoners began to challenge the guards. They acted out during roll call, complained about the food, and talked back.
Instead, they suggest that our behavior largely conforms to our preconceived expectations. Suggest, as the Stanford setup did, that we should behave in stereotypical tough-guard fashion, and we strive to fit that role. This understanding might seem to diminish the power of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
At sixteen, Browder was arrested, in the Bronx, for allegedly stealing a backpack; after the arrest, he was imprisoned at Rikers for three years without trial. Ultimately, the case against him was dismissed.
0コメント