This psychological experiment had unforeseen consequences. I do not think that anyone would have predicted that such a sadistic outcome would have occurred. Zimbardo, a sociologist, used the experiment to demonstrate that 'evil' can arise more frequently out of situation rather than existing innately. By choosing the 'good apples' and proving that these people could be corrupted, he demonstrated the power of a situation to dictate outcomes and the inability of one's personality or morals to prevail. But was the experiment wrong? I do not think so. The aim of Zimbardo's experiment was to demonstrate that situations dictate outcomes. He probably foresaw and was hoping that these "good apples" would behave poorly. The extent to which this happened was obviously surprising and scarred many good people, but the data from the experiment outweighs the bad effects. From a sociological lens the experiment proved that situations are just as powerful as morals. But extension of this fact creates important advancements in society. The Stanford Prison Experiment reached the public eye most notably when prisoners were abused at Abu Graib prison a few years ago. Many wanted to blame only the guards for what happened, but we can see that the situation dictated, to some extent, what happened. The way that the Stanford Prison Experiment helped is that it demonstrated a situation that produced bad results. Recognizing that a situation can produce bad results means that one can change the conditions and significantly lessen the chances of the occurrence of 'evil.' What happened at Abu Graib prison was unfortunate and embarrassing for the US Army and attempting to reform prisons or even the layout of the army could help to reduce incidents like this. It is even possible to reduce the chances of these bad acts simply by informing people of the power of situations. In this situation knowledge is power. If people can understand the power a situation could have over them then they are more likely to understand how to combat it. In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment the knowledge acquired was worth the evil that occurred in that prison in 1971. It was knowledge that needed to be uncovered to prevent future, more heinous crimes from being committed.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971 in the basement of Stanford's psychology department, is an controversial psychological study involving human experimentation. In the study Dr. Philip Zimbardo selected a number of students that he considered to be "good apples." They had good grades, came from stable family situations, and had no previous record of violence. Within the experiment he set up a mock prison in which he designated some of the volunteers as prisoners and some of the volunteers as guards. He told them to fully assume their roles and make the prison run as effectively as possible. Within six days of the commencement the experiment had to be shut down. In assuming their roles, these "good apples" and classmates began to abuse each other. The guards acted sadistically towards the prisoners and the prisoners became distressed and anti social. The guards had begun to brutally beat the prisoners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree very passionately with this blog post. Dr. Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was absolutely an abuse of his subjects and, in that case, utterly unethical. It is not just to claim that “the data outweighed the effects” (Bowman). Yes, from this experiment we are given key insight into the human mind. However, there were procedural flaws and lasting effects on both parties involved in this experiment.
While the trial was in motion, Zimbardo himself took on the role as warden of the prison. In this way, Zimbardo also was put in a situation that would make him act much less caring and less emotionally involved in the suffering of his “prisoners”. He was so encompassed by the situation he was in that he was unable to view the experiment from an outside perspective. One website explains, “In fact, Zimbardo believes the most powerful result of his experiment was his own transformation into a rigid institutional figure, more concerned with his prison's security than the welfare of his participants” (www.spring.org). As the guards would humiliate and demoralize the prisoners, Zimbardo lost his own identity as a scientist. Only one day into the experiment, one prisoner had already suffered a complete mental breakdown and begged to be released. Zimbardo’s website on his experiment states, “Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to fool us into releasing him… It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him” (prisonexo.org). This is only one example of the complete negligence involved in this study. In fact, Zimbardo only called off his experiment once his girlfriend Christina Maslach, after interviewing the prisoners, pulled him aside and demanded that he close his “prison”. She was the only one who saw the damaging and long-lasting effects. The subjects involved in that seven-day experiment continue to be affected by the abuse they were forced to suffer. What happened this week in 1971 in California was the definition of unethical.
Thanks to:
http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/22
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/our-dark-hearts-stanford-prison.php
This is the big "fight" that came up in class? Two well written posts with differing points of view?
Post a Comment