Stanford Prison Experiment

blockhead · 06-12-2006, 11:22 PM

Can the situation a person is put in cause them to abandon their morals and commit heinous acts or become victims? This what Doctor Phillip Zimbardo was trying to discover with the Stanford Prison Experiment.

In the summer of 1971, a newspaper ad was put out requesting male volunteers to participate in a mock prison enviorment for fifteen dollars a day. Roughly seventy college men volunteered, and around 24 of the most psychologically sound, with the least history of anti-social behaviors were chosen. The men were split up into guards and prisoners. The guards were in complete control other than not being able to physically abuse the prisoners. The prisoners were abducted from their houses by real police officers and brought down to the "prison"(Stanford's Pschology Department Basement) and forced to where smocks with no underwear, with a chain around their leg.

The prisoners were referred to by numbers to dehumanize them and things like going to the bathroom became a privilege by guard rule. The guards behavior became increasingly sadistic and the prisoners were forced to clean toilets with their bare hands, perform homosexual acts, urinate and defecate in buckets, and forced into confinement cells. The guards used psychological tactics to disperse solidarity in the prisoners by making a "privileged cell" which they would randomly put people in to create distrust between the prisoners.

Due to the escalating sadism and the mental breakdowns of several patients the experiment was shut down after six days when it was supposed to last 2 weeks. The patients were extremely happy, but the guards were dissapointed and confused.

Do you think extreme situations such as this can push normal people to do cruel things with little thought? What are your opinions on the Stanford Prison Experiment? What can we do to help make prisons a place to encourage positive pschological change and not mental scarring? Discuss how the guards were able to commit heinous acts which do not count as physical torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

davser · 06-13-2006, 03:51 AM

They re-created this on UK tv a few years back. After a time the people who originally were guards ceded all power to the prisoners who then in turn ordered paramilitary clothes and launched a coup! Needless to say the experiment ended then.

~~coheneran~~ · 06-13-2006, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davser

They re-created this on UK tv a few years back. After a time the people who originally were guards ceded all power to the prisoners who then in turn ordered paramilitary clothes and launched a coup! Needless to say the experiment ended then.

Fucking Brits can't take anything seriously.

davser · 06-13-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coheneran

Fucking Brits can't take anything seriously.

They took it very seriously. The prisoners gradually eroded the authority of the guards by complaining constantly. This led to the 'guards' feeling sympathetic to them and letting them do what they want. The prisoners then took the logical step of taking over.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1986889.stm

We wanted to see if those with the power would turn towards tyranny, as in the original experiment, but we found it to be the opposite," said Mr Holmes.

"The guards did not want to adopt their roles. They felt uncomfortable and this made them ineffective, whereas the prisoners were a more unified group."

In fact, the prisoners became such a tight team they staged a break out and wanted to form a commune.

But having found their freedom they had no leader and fell into a "power vacuum" which Mr Holmes said the participants found difficult and ultimately some wanted to set up a tyrannical "society" to restore order back.

czar · 06-13-2006, 07:57 AM

interesting

YouGottaBeCrazy · 06-13-2006, 09:33 AM

we did some stuff on this in sociology. pretty interesting

Jude · 06-13-2006, 09:37 AM

That's some crazy crap. That and many similar findings have convinced me that situations have far more influence on how people act than personality or predisposition.

blockhead · 06-13-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jude

That's some crazy crap. That and many similar findings have convinced me that situations have far more influence on how people act than personality or predisposition.

Could you give me some info on these "similar findings"? I'd like to do some more research.

Cain · 06-13-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blockhead

Could you give me some info on these "similar findings"? I'd like to do some more research.

Well, there's that other "failed ethics" sociological case in which a person who was ordered by an authority figure to administer a lethal electric shock to a captive person upon the captive's failure to answer a series of set questions correctly did so with no trouble, as a way to explain the Holocaust. I forget the name of the experiment though.

EDIT: Davser, if that's really true, I'm rather intrigued about the possibility that there might be something uniquely American that led to the results of the Stamford experiment here.

peeted · 06-13-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain

Well, there's that other "failed ethics" sociological case in which a person who was ordered by an authority figure to administer a lethal electric shock to a captive person upon the captive's failure to answer a series of set questions correctly did so with no trouble, as a way to explain the Holocaust. I forget the name of the experiment though.

EDIT: Davser, if that's really true, I'm rather intrigued about the possibility that there might be something uniquely American that led to the results of the Stamford experiment here.

millgrams electric shock experement

both millgram and zimbardo offerd extensive counseling and therepy and did frequent checkups on the participants up to 2 years after the origional experiments took place, both profiled there participants to find the most mentaly sound and they checked there hypothesies with other psychologists before carying out the experements, the hypothesies turned out to be wrong obviousley.
in millgrams case they predicted that less than 2% of participants would administer what they thought was a leatal shock wereas allmost 65% did in real life. the experement was cleared to be repeted many times in diffrent circumstances, its findings are very intresting and relevant.

EinzingerIsGod · 06-13-2006, 01:05 PM

Milgrams experiment is some scary stuff. I saw a video of the procedings, and the fact that some people were able to continue "shocking" others is very interesting and concerning.

blockhead · 06-13-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EinzingerIsGod

Milgrams experiment is some scary stuff. I saw a video of the procedings, and the fact that some people were able to continue "shocking" others is very interesting and concerning.

Yeah, it's pretty sick. People do adhere to authority that easily though.

YouGottaBeCrazy · 06-13-2006, 01:51 PM

Yeah, I watched a video of a shock treatment where the guy getting electrocuted wasn't really being electrocuted, he was a hired actor. Is that the one you guys are talking about? The most disturbing part of the video was the fact that some people laughed when they heard the guy screaming from the shocks.

~~coheneran~~ · 06-13-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain

Well, there's that other "failed ethics" sociological case in which a person who was ordered by an authority figure to administer a lethal electric shock to a captive person upon the captive's failure to answer a series of set questions correctly did so with no trouble, as a way to explain the Holocaust. I forget the name of the experiment though.

EDIT: Davser, if that's really true, I'm rather intrigued about the possibility that there might be something uniquely American that led to the results of the Stamford experiment here.

The experiment you outlined was conducted to see if there was something "wrong" with the German people, they conducted it both in the States and in Europe I think, from what I remember of my psychology class a long time ago.

peeted · 06-13-2006, 02:45 PM

eye they did it all over the place poor and communist countries had the highest levels of obedience, the other conditions they used were the inclusion of co actors, the experimenter giving instructions over the phone, the experiment being carried out in an office block (as opposed to Yale university) and the participant actually having to physically force the other persons hand onto the plate.

the most sick one was the one were they were just given the stuff and not even told to shock the people but something like 4% just administered dangerous shocks by themselves, just asuming that its what they were supposed to do i guse. its pretty disturbing.

blockhead · 06-13-2006, 04:16 PM

Do you guys think showing this kind of data to people is unethical since it displays our dark potential? I think it's good for us to know.

***Smokey D*** · 06-13-2006, 04:26 PM

How could it possibly be construed as unethical to reveal findings of study?

Jude · 06-13-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blockhead

Do you guys think showing this kind of data to people is unethical since it displays our dark potential? I think it's good for us to know.

What kind of question is that?

In any case, I don't think it reveals our "dark" side, just how easily manipulated people are by situational influences and perceived norms.

blockhead · 06-13-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokey D

How could it possibly be construed as unethical to reveal findings of study?

Some people said those kind of experiments are unethical.

peeted · 06-13-2006, 07:07 PM

the experiments were arguabley unethical because they didnt gain informed consent, were desietfull and caused long lasting mental harm to some of the participants. that doesnt make the results any less valid or important, it would be a waste of those peoples suffering if nothing even came from it.

06-12-2006, 11:22 PM	#1
blockhead psuedowitty comment Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 3,628	Stanford Prison Experiment Can the situation a person is put in cause them to abandon their morals and commit heinous acts or become victims? This what Doctor Phillip Zimbardo was trying to discover with the Stanford Prison Experiment. In the summer of 1971, a newspaper ad was put out requesting male volunteers to participate in a mock prison enviorment for fifteen dollars a day. Roughly seventy college men volunteered, and around 24 of the most psychologically sound, with the least history of anti-social behaviors were chosen. The men were split up into guards and prisoners. The guards were in complete control other than not being able to physically abuse the prisoners. The prisoners were abducted from their houses by real police officers and brought down to the "prison"(Stanford's Pschology Department Basement) and forced to where smocks with no underwear, with a chain around their leg. The prisoners were referred to by numbers to dehumanize them and things like going to the bathroom became a privilege by guard rule. The guards behavior became increasingly sadistic and the prisoners were forced to clean toilets with their bare hands, perform homosexual acts, urinate and defecate in buckets, and forced into confinement cells. The guards used psychological tactics to disperse solidarity in the prisoners by making a "privileged cell" which they would randomly put people in to create distrust between the prisoners. Due to the escalating sadism and the mental breakdowns of several patients the experiment was shut down after six days when it was supposed to last 2 weeks. The patients were extremely happy, but the guards were dissapointed and confused. Do you think extreme situations such as this can push normal people to do cruel things with little thought? What are your opinions on the Stanford Prison Experiment? What can we do to help make prisons a place to encourage positive pschological change and not mental scarring? Discuss how the guards were able to commit heinous acts which do not count as physical torture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

06-13-2006, 03:51 AM	#2
davser Joy Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,422	They re-created this on UK tv a few years back. After a time the people who originally were guards ceded all power to the prisoners who then in turn ordered paramilitary clothes and launched a coup! Needless to say the experiment ended then.

06-13-2006, 07:57 AM	#5
czar Registered User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 245	interesting

06-13-2006, 09:33 AM	#6
YouGottaBeCrazy ------------------------- Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,334	we did some stuff on this in sociology. pretty interesting

06-13-2006, 09:37 AM	#7
Jude 60 years Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Why is this grey piece of **** still here? Posts: 11,999	That's some crazy crap. That and many similar findings have convinced me that situations have far more influence on how people act than personality or predisposition.

06-13-2006, 01:05 PM	#11
EinzingerIsGod A hero kills people. Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Beantown Posts: 3,151	Milgrams experiment is some scary stuff. I saw a video of the procedings, and the fact that some people were able to continue "shocking" others is very interesting and concerning.

06-13-2006, 01:51 PM	#13
YouGottaBeCrazy ------------------------- Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,334	Yeah, I watched a video of a shock treatment where the guy getting electrocuted wasn't really being electrocuted, he was a hired actor. Is that the one you guys are talking about? The most disturbing part of the video was the fact that some people laughed when they heard the guy screaming from the shocks.

06-13-2006, 02:45 PM	#15
peeted O.o Join Date: May 2004 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 5,389	eye they did it all over the place poor and communist countries had the highest levels of obedience, the other conditions they used were the inclusion of co actors, the experimenter giving instructions over the phone, the experiment being carried out in an office block (as opposed to Yale university) and the participant actually having to physically force the other persons hand onto the plate. the most sick one was the one were they were just given the stuff and not even told to shock the people but something like 4% just administered dangerous shocks by themselves, just asuming that its what they were supposed to do i guse. its pretty disturbing.

06-13-2006, 04:16 PM	#16
blockhead psuedowitty comment Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 3,628	Do you guys think showing this kind of data to people is unethical since it displays our dark potential? I think it's good for us to know.

06-13-2006, 04:26 PM	#17
*Smokey D* Moderator Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 14,332	How could it possibly be construed as unethical to reveal findings of study?

06-13-2006, 07:07 PM	#20
peeted O.o Join Date: May 2004 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 5,389	the experiments were arguabley unethical because they didnt gain informed consent, were desietfull and caused long lasting mental harm to some of the participants. that doesnt make the results any less valid or important, it would be a waste of those peoples suffering if nothing even came from it.