The Stanford Prison Experiment

[annabenedetti]

I recently saw the film The Stanford Prison Experiment.

One of the things that really intrigues me about the experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 is how it was only chance which determined who was a 'guard' and who was a 'prisoner.' The participants didn't know it, but each individual's placement into one of the two groups was determined by a coin toss.

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed. There are a multitude of variables, of course, but to what extent does environment affect the moral choices people make every day? How culpable are people for poor decisions they make when their environment has had a significant effect in shaping their behavior, when their good intentions are overwhelmed by a bad environment over which they have little or no control?

What's shocking about the Stanford prison experiment is how quickly the psychological changes came about. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but it was terminated after only six days because of the sadistic behavior of the guards and the psychological deterioration of the prisoners. Only six days. The calculated degradation and dehumanization of the prisoners by the guards was extremely effective, and there was little rebellion shown by the prisoners. What rebellion was attempted was quickly contained, and it only served to unify the guards and harden their resolve while dividing the prisoners and making them more passive.

There are some controversies concerning the experiment:

Whether it was an actual experiment (the question to Zimbardo by a colleague, "What's the Independent Variable?")

Whether the students playing the role of guard made their own rules and weren't coached in any way (according to Zimbardo) or whether they had been given suggestions (according to Zimbardo's consultant, ex-convict Carlo Prescott).

Whether the experiment suffered from extraneous variables that would have affected validity, such as self-selection bias (did the study description attract a certain type of participant?) or demand effect (did the participants consciously or unconsciously try to meet the expectation of the experiment)?​

There's a BBC documentary about the experiment, and they interview the guard known as "John Wayne," the most creatively sadistic of the guards, and he looks so, well, normal. There's something chilling about his normalcy, it's a reminder that the most ordinary among us are capable of the most inhuman behavior - or of enabling it by looking the other way. He talks about how appalling his behavior was, but even as he admits it, he laughs. He's nonchalant. He talks about how none of the guards questioned his abusiveness, and none intervened to put a stop to it.

To me that's one of the biggest takeaways. People in a position of power are able to abuse that power because their less dominant peers allow it, and because people in submission are often incapable of escaping that submission because of the disorienting effects of degradation, dehumanization, depersonalization, isolation, fear, helplessness, etc.

And then apply it to a dominant/submissive dynamic, whether it's a situation where you wonder how people can be so depraved, why peers don't intervene to stop abusive behavior, or why victims don't "do something" to save themselves.

The Holocaust. Civil rights abuses. Domestic abuse. Child abuse. Abu Ghraib.

The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Trailer #1

The Stanford Prison Experiment (BBC documentary)

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment (PDF)


The Stanford prison experiment was funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Compare the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment with the movie Unbroken.

Louis "Louie" Zamperini was a real prisoner who had every reason to become as demoralized as any of the prisoners in the experiment.

He refused to be broken.

Unbroken

 

[rexlunae]

It really kinda shows us a darker side of human nature, specifically what happens when people who have no training are placed in an unearned position of power. Which means, we need to be a lot more careful about who we allow to hold power, and we need to ensure that there are always safeguards.

 

[GFR7]

Yes, people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, given power. They have to be watched, and regulated , stringently.

 

[MarcATL]

I recently saw the film The Stanford Prison Experiment.

One of the things that really intrigues me about the experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 is how it was only chance which determined who was a 'guard' and who was a 'prisoner.' The participants didn't know it, but each individual's placement into one of the two groups was determined by a coin toss.

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed. There are a multitude of variables, of course, but to what extent does environment affect the moral choices people make every day? How culpable are people for poor decisions they make when their environment has had a significant effect in shaping their behavior, when their good intentions are overwhelmed by a bad environment over which they have little or no control?

What's shocking about the Stanford prison experiment is how quickly the psychological changes came about. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but it was terminated after only six days because of the sadistic behavior of the guards and the psychological deterioration of the prisoners. Only six days. The calculated degradation and dehumanization of the prisoners by the guards was extremely effective, and there was little rebellion shown by the prisoners. What rebellion was attempted was quickly contained, and it only served to unify the guards and harden their resolve while dividing the prisoners and making them more passive.

There are some controversies concerning the experiment:

Whether it was an actual experiment (the question to Zimbardo by a colleague, "What's the Independent Variable?")

Whether the students playing the role of guard made their own rules and weren't coached in any way (according to Zimbardo) or whether they had been given suggestions (according to Zimbardo's consultant, ex-convict Carlo Prescott).

Whether the experiment suffered from extraneous variables that would have affected validity, such as self-selection bias (did the study description attract a certain type of participant?) or demand effect (did the participants consciously or unconsciously try to meet the expectation of the experiment)?​

There's a BBC documentary about the experiment, and they interview the guard known as "John Wayne," the most creatively sadistic of the guards, and he looks so, well, normal. There's something chilling about his normalcy, it's a reminder that the most ordinary among us are capable of the most inhuman behavior - or of enabling it by looking the other way. He talks about how appalling his behavior was, but even as he admits it, he laughs. He's nonchalant. He talks about how none of the guards questioned his abusiveness, and none intervened to put a stop to it.

To me that's one of the biggest takeaways. People in a position of power are able to abuse that power because their less dominant peers allow it, and because people in submission are often incapable of escaping that submission because of the disorienting effects of degradation, dehumanization, depersonalization, isolation, fear, helplessness, etc.

And then apply it to a dominant/submissive dynamic, whether it's a situation where you wonder how people can be so depraved, why peers don't intervene to stop abusive behavior, or why victims don't "do something" to save themselves.

The Holocaust. Civil rights abuses. Domestic abuse. Child abuse. Abu Ghraib.

The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Trailer #1

The Stanford Prison Experiment (BBC documentary)

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment (PDF)


The Stanford prison experiment was funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research.

Great post Anna, this experiment should explain the blue code of silence practiced by our current law enforcement authorities. The so-called "good ones" cede to the so-called "bad ones."

 

[annabenedetti]

It really kinda shows us a darker side of human nature, specifically what happens when people who have no training are placed in an unearned position of power. Which means, we need to be a lot more careful about who we allow to hold power, and we need to ensure that there are always safeguards.

What you see a little of in the trailer but is more apparent in the film is that even though a coin toss decides which participants are assigned as guards, they're told they're "chosen." That's important. I don't remember the exact dialogue but they're told something positive about their qualities that was the factor in their being chosen, and you can see their demeanor shift when they hear it. They feel special all of a sudden. Elite. I think that's a big part of it, that sense of being chosen.

Of course, the elite need a support team. That's what toadies are for. And then there are the ones who keep their heads down and pretend they don't see what's going on because they're just doing their job. And so on.

 

[patrick jane]

I recently saw the film The Stanford Prison Experiment.

One of the things that really intrigues me about the experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 is how it was only chance which determined who was a 'guard' and who was a 'prisoner.' The participants didn't know it, but each individual's placement into one of the two groups was determined by a coin toss.

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed. There are a multitude of variables, of course, but to what extent does environment affect the moral choices people make every day? How culpable are people for poor decisions they make when their environment has had a significant effect in shaping their behavior, when their good intentions are overwhelmed by a bad environment over which they have little or no control?

What's shocking about the Stanford prison experiment is how quickly the psychological changes came about. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but it was terminated after only six days because of the sadistic behavior of the guards and the psychological deterioration of the prisoners. Only six days. The calculated degradation and dehumanization of the prisoners by the guards was extremely effective, and there was little rebellion shown by the prisoners. What rebellion was attempted was quickly contained, and it only served to unify the guards and harden their resolve while dividing the prisoners and making them more passive.

There are some controversies concerning the experiment:

Whether it was an actual experiment (the question to Zimbardo by a colleague, "What's the Independent Variable?")

Whether the students playing the role of guard made their own rules and weren't coached in any way (according to Zimbardo) or whether they had been given suggestions (according to Zimbardo's consultant, ex-convict Carlo Prescott).

Whether the experiment suffered from extraneous variables that would have affected validity, such as self-selection bias (did the study description attract a certain type of participant?) or demand effect (did the participants consciously or unconsciously try to meet the expectation of the experiment)?​

There's a BBC documentary about the experiment, and they interview the guard known as "John Wayne," the most creatively sadistic of the guards, and he looks so, well, normal. There's something chilling about his normalcy, it's a reminder that the most ordinary among us are capable of the most inhuman behavior - or of enabling it by looking the other way. He talks about how appalling his behavior was, but even as he admits it, he laughs. He's nonchalant. He talks about how none of the guards questioned his abusiveness, and none intervened to put a stop to it.

To me that's one of the biggest takeaways. People in a position of power are able to abuse that power because their less dominant peers allow it, and because people in submission are often incapable of escaping that submission because of the disorienting effects of degradation, dehumanization, depersonalization, isolation, fear, helplessness, etc.

And then apply it to a dominant/submissive dynamic, whether it's a situation where you wonder how people can be so depraved, why peers don't intervene to stop abusive behavior, or why victims don't "do something" to save themselves.

The Holocaust. Civil rights abuses. Domestic abuse. Child abuse. Abu Ghraib.

The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Trailer #1

The Stanford Prison Experiment (BBC documentary)

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment (PDF)


The Stanford prison experiment was funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research.

awesome post anna b. - as always

this post rings true to me, along the lines of a recent post i made -

 

[aikido7]

I recently saw the film The Stanford Prison Experiment.

One of the things that really intrigues me about the experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 is how it was only chance which determined who was a 'guard' and who was a 'prisoner.' The participants didn't know it, but each individual's placement into one of the two groups was determined by a coin toss.

It makes me think how fine the line is between good and evil, and how easily it can be crossed. There are a multitude of variables, of course, but to what extent does environment affect the moral choices people make every day? How culpable are people for poor decisions they make when their environment has had a significant effect in shaping their behavior, when their good intentions are overwhelmed by a bad environment over which they have little or no control?

What's shocking about the Stanford prison experiment is how quickly the psychological changes came about. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but it was terminated after only six days because of the sadistic behavior of the guards and the psychological deterioration of the prisoners. Only six days. The calculated degradation and dehumanization of the prisoners by the guards was extremely effective, and there was little rebellion shown by the prisoners. What rebellion was attempted was quickly contained, and it only served to unify the guards and harden their resolve while dividing the prisoners and making them more passive.

There are some controversies concerning the experiment:

Whether it was an actual experiment (the question to Zimbardo by a colleague, "What's the Independent Variable?")

Whether the students playing the role of guard made their own rules and weren't coached in any way (according to Zimbardo) or whether they had been given suggestions (according to Zimbardo's consultant, ex-convict Carlo Prescott).

Whether the experiment suffered from extraneous variables that would have affected validity, such as self-selection bias (did the study description attract a certain type of participant?) or demand effect (did the participants consciously or unconsciously try to meet the expectation of the experiment)?​

There's a BBC documentary about the experiment, and they interview the guard known as "John Wayne," the most creatively sadistic of the guards, and he looks so, well, normal. There's something chilling about his normalcy, it's a reminder that the most ordinary among us are capable of the most inhuman behavior - or of enabling it by looking the other way. He talks about how appalling his behavior was, but even as he admits it, he laughs. He's nonchalant. He talks about how none of the guards questioned his abusiveness, and none intervened to put a stop to it.

To me that's one of the biggest takeaways. People in a position of power are able to abuse that power because their less dominant peers allow it, and because people in submission are often incapable of escaping that submission because of the disorienting effects of degradation, dehumanization, depersonalization, isolation, fear, helplessness, etc.

And then apply it to a dominant/submissive dynamic, whether it's a situation where you wonder how people can be so depraved, why peers don't intervene to stop abusive behavior, or why victims don't "do something" to save themselves.

The Holocaust. Civil rights abuses. Domestic abuse. Child abuse. Abu Ghraib.

The Stanford Prison Experiment Official Trailer #1

The Stanford Prison Experiment (BBC documentary)

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment (PDF)


The Stanford prison experiment was funded by a grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research.

You might also be interested in the Milgram Experiment:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

As Christians we are so wedded to the idea of following authority, whether it is an obedience-based father model or the "authority of the Bible" we are taught from the pulpit and other authority figures.

The results of Milgram's experiment is horrific and truly chilling.

As long as someone who we believe is an "authority" we will kill for them without a second thought.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Now that the little Marxists at Black Lives Matter have had their say*, let's view a documentary from almost 40 years ago and the follow-up to show that people have FREE WILL and can make choices in their lives.

* Zimbardo has also been a social-political activist, challenging the Government's wars in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as the American Correctional System...
http://www.lucifereffect.com/aboutphil_bio.htm

WARNING! Foul language.

Scared Straight 1978

 

[annabenedetti]

* Zimbardo has also been a social-political activist, challenging the Government's wars in Vietnam and Iraq, as well as the American Correctional System...

Nothing wrong with that. Challenging the system is good.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Nothing wrong with that. Challenging Changing the Judeo-Christian based system is good.

Fixed that for you.

 

[annabenedetti]

Fixed that for you.

I don't need your "fixes," you were ready to set aside your Judeo-Christian crusade to tell us that Shah of Iran was a great guy who didn't torture enough.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I don't need your "fixes," you were ready to set aside your Judeo-Christian crusade to tell us that Shah of Iran was a great guy who didn't torture enough.

We can talk about the Left's love of Islam another time, for now let's talk about it's HATRED of Judaism and Christianity. How about you tell us what your little Marxist hero Hanoi Jane Fonda Philip Zimbardo has in store for the US criminal justice system?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I found this article by the former President of the ultra left wing American Psychological Association (Philip Zimbardo) very revealing:

"Third, our system of criminal legal justice over relies on common-sense lay views held by the general pubic about what things cause people to commit crimes, usually motivational and personality determinants. It is time for the legal justice system to take into account the substantial body of evidence from the behavioral sciences about the power of the social context in influencing behavior, criminal actions as well as moral ones. My colleagues, Lee Ross and Donna Shestowsky have offered a penetrating analysis of the challenges that contemporary psychology poses to legal theory and practice. Their conclusion is that the legal system might adopt the model of medical science and practice by taking advantage of current research on what goes wrong, as well as right, in how the mind and body work.

”The workings of the criminal justice system should not continue to be guided by illusions about cross-situational consistency in behavior, by erroneous notions about the impact of dispositions versus situations in guiding behavior, or by failures to think through the logic of ‘person by situation’ interactions, or even comforting but largely fanciful notions of free will, any more than it should be guided by once common notions about witchcraft or demonic possession.”
http://www.lucifereffect.com/aboutphil_bio.htm

Don't cha just hate people that come from low income homes and make use of their FREE WILL to make something of themselves?

 

[annabenedetti]

We can talk about the Left's love of Islam another time

Because it's rather inconvenient to be reminded about what you've said in the past, isn't it?

for now let's talk about it's HATRED of Judaism and Christianity. How about you tell us what your little Marxist hero Hanoi Jane Fonda Philip Zimbardo has in store for the US criminal justice system?

That's not what this thread is about. Don't you have a table of contents to work on?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
We can talk about the Left's love of Islam another time

Because it's rather inconvenient to be reminded about what you've said in the past, isn't it?

I could talk about the barbarianism of Islam/ISIS all day long, but I don't want you to be responsible for derailing your own thread.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

for now let's talk about it's HATRED of Judaism and Christianity. How about you tell us what your little Marxist hero Hanoi Jane Fonda Philip Zimbardo has in store for the US criminal justice system?

That's not what this thread is about. Don't you have a table of contents to work on?

I do have to get started on Part 4 which I've entitled "Living so quietly that no one would ever know", but I thought since no one else would expose your little Marxist/anti US criminal justice system thread, that I would.

Care to discuss what Phil Z and his band of communist thugs have in store for the Judeo Christian based US criminal justice system?

 

[annabenedetti]

I don't want you to be responsible for derailing your own thread.

Not to worry, you've already taken care of that.

I do have to get started on Part 4

What a shame about Parts 1 and 2. (Not really.)

which I've entitled "Living so quietly that no one would ever know",

but I thought since no one else would expose your little Marxist/anti US criminal justice system thread, that I would.

Care to discuss what Phil Z and his band of communist thugs have in store for the Judeo Christian based US criminal justice system?

Because that's not what the thread is. Either connect to the OP in some sane fashion, or go back to your basement.

 

[kmoney]

What you see a little of in the trailer but is more apparent in the film is that even though a coin toss decides which participants are assigned as guards, they're told they're "chosen." That's important. I don't remember the exact dialogue but they're told something positive about their qualities that was the factor in their being chosen, and you can see their demeanor shift when they hear it. They feel special all of a sudden. Elite. I think that's a big part of it, that sense of being chosen.

That is interesting. It would be interesting to see the same experiment done without the being chosen part.

 

[patrick jane]

That is interesting. It would be interesting to see the same experiment done without the being chosen part.

yeah, like they just find out when they get there and told they are being watched (guards). because if the prisoners found out some guards should be in population they'd get kilt ? otherwise, the prisoner guards would have to sleep in a different wing with perks to make it work ? it could be done again, better maybe -

 

[patrick jane]

or everybody knows and it's all on camera - big bro