How Did Philip Zimbardo Conform

As I was choosing which 8 point project to do, a friend in the class suggested researching Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. Prior to this assignment, I actually had not heard about this experiment. After researching this happening, and reading the full story, as written by Dr. Zimbardo, I, in all honesty, immediately began to feel ill. How could people be so horrible to one another? How could the people portraying the guards live with themselves after treating the prisoners so poorly?

Second, The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study that was too inhumane to continue because of the behavior of the prison guards when handed with superiority and the mental breakdowns of the prisoners. E: “Now, you 'll all be given sunglasses and uniforms to give the prisoners a sense of a unified, singular authority… And from this point forward you should never refer to this as a study or experiment again,’’ (Dr. Phil Zimbardo).

They set out to create an experiment where they would become prisoners or prison guards. Zimbardo was interested in investigating further variables which explained human behavior. Researchers wanted to see how participants would survive in the prison environment. In one interview Zimbardo asked the question, if put in a bad place would an individual's goodness triumph? The researchers set up a mock prison where 24 undergraduate students would play the roles of prisoners and prison guards.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most infamous and controversial psychological experiments to ever take place to this day. In 1971, Phillip Zimbardo created an experiment that tested the changes one endures when they have to adapt in a prison environment and provided an explanation for the dehumanizing effects of the penile system. 24, college-aged, men were chosen to participate in the 2 week long experiment by flipping a coin to decide whether they’re given the role of prisoner or guard. After their roles were determined, they were given uniforms, cells, identification numbers, etc. Little did he know that the results of this experiment would give some of the most ethically challenged results of time.

On the evening of August 19th 1971, he invited her and a few other of their colleagues to the “prison” to see what their opinion of the environment was. Christina was also a psychologist who felt that she was overreacting, yet her first response was disgust. As Christina described the experiment, “I was sick to my stomach.” (O’Toole). She was at first mocked by the fellow researchers, but as she went home with Philip and explained to him the ways that he had lost touch with reality, that he was not truly a warden of a prison, and that the men in those cells had truly done nothing wrong, Zimbardo listened to her.

Situational effects and personality come into conflict when discussing behavior. Personality is someone’s “usual pattern of behavior, feelings, and thoughts” (Twenge, 2017, p.20). It remains constant throughout different situations, but some situations can be stressful enough to make a person act out of character. The transition between a person’s normal personality and behavior to a more evil, sinister behavior fascinates a man named Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the infamous Zimbardo Prison Experiment, or Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Zimbardo is an American psychologist at Stanford University and the mastermind behind the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (The Story).

The guards became abusive, the prisoners started to rebel, and it did not stop because Zimbardo gave himself a role with the guards. The clips and descriptions of the experiment’s results were one of the most shocking things I have ever seen or heard, although I had read a paragraph about the same experiment prior to taking this course. Unethical was an understatement, as prisoners would go crazy. “F___ your experiment!

The significance of the events that occurred at the Abu Ghraib Prison is evident as Zimbardo goes on to mention his realization that the happenings are directly parallel to the results found during the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). He points out that just like the unprepared US Military personnel in Abu Ghraib, the students chosen to play the roles of guards in the SPE were forced to operate the

They have to uphold a professional code of fidelity and responsibility, by clarifying their professional roles, and obligations, accepting appropriate responsibility for their actions and seeking to reduce any conflict of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm” (American Psychological Association, 2017). Zimbardo and his researchers injected themselves into the study by playing the roles of superintendent and warden. Instead of merely observing as a neutral observer and reviewing the information later, Zimbardo made himself an authoritative figure in this experiment, which had an impact on the guard's and affected his own behavior. He became intertwined in the role of superintendent just as much as the guards and prisoners had become. Zimbardo admittedly said, “One reason we did not end the experiment on day 2 was because of the conflicts created by my dual roles as principal investigator, thus the guardian of the research ethics of the experiment, and as prison superintendent, thus eager to maintain the integrity of my prison" (Zimbardo et al, 2000).

In summary, the purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment was supposed to demonstrate that powerful situational forces, much like Abu Ghraib, could over-ride individual dispositions and choices, leading good people to do bad things simply because of the role they found themselves

During the 1960’s Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments to test how a person reacts to authority. He started these tests in response to World War Two and the reports of the German soldiers who claimed they were “just following orders’ when asked about

This experiment consisted of a roaster of students who were enrolled to either act as guards or inmates in an imaginary prison setting. This was to test the behavior of humans when put in a non-restrictive authority position over someone with lesser power through labeling. This experiment was set to last for two weeks, but by the sixth day, the guards had become so abusive to the ‘inmates’ that Zimbardo was forced to end the experiment early. Some of the fake inmates had to leave the experiment even earlier due to the abuse they received. After the experiment, almost all the students who participated as guards felt guilty about their actions.

Stanford Experiment: Unethical or Not Stanford Prison Experiment is a popular experiment among social science researchers. In 1973, a psychologist named Dr. Philip Zimbardo wants to find out what are the factors that cause reported brutalities among guards in American prisons. His aim was to know whether those reported brutalities were because of the personalities of the guards or the prison environment. However, during the experiment, things get muddled unexpectedly. The experiment became controversial since it violates some ethical standards while doing the research.

Zimbardo’s method of conducting The Stanford Prison Experiment is unethical for a plethora of reasons. First, the selection of guards, none of them have any prior training in correctional duties. Consequently, you can see the guards using Nazi strategies to enforce their version of prions standards. Second, the chain that is constantly attached to the inmate’s ankle to reinforce that there is no escape. Now, in real prisons guards are only allowed to connect items such as full body restraints, spit guards, mouth guards, wrist restraints, and ankle restraints to aid in the safety of the prisoner, surrounding prisoners, and guards.

For example, one study testing the situational role in affecting behavior was done by Philip Zimbardo (1971) in the Stanford Prison Experiment where 22 males were selected depending on their social skills and mental