The standard prison experiment was initiated in 1971 where young men are assume the roles of guard and prisoners as they have put in a prison-like an environment, in the psychology department basement at Stanford University. This study was to provide a graphic illustration of the strength of situations that are responsible for shaping the behavior of individuals. It was to investigate the causes of difficulties between prisoners and guards in the states marine corps and the navy.
This experiment made some participants develop their officer roles by being authoritative and subjecting their prison subjects to psychological torture as many of these prisoners accepted the psychiatric abuse passively while those who resisted the violence were actively harassed. This experiment organized by Zimbardo was to last two weeks but had to be terminated after only six days because of the extensive spread objections and quitting by the experiment subjects (Kulig et al., 2017),
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stanford prison study was to help determine whether the hypothesis of inherent personality traits of guards and prisoners were principal causes of abusive behaviors in prison. The team recruited 24 white middle-class males who were psychologically stable and healthy without any criminal backgrounds, medical problems or psychological impairments. It was conducted in the ten-centimeter section of Jordan hall basement, as the prison was a fabricated by two walls one at the cell wall to eliminate observation and one at the entrance. Every cell was six by nine feet and had some prisoners contrasted the environment in which the guards lived in as they were separated from the prisoners. The guards are offered relaxation areas and comfort of restrooms.
Out of the twenty-four volunteers, twelve were selected to be prisoners as the remaining assigned the role of being correctional officers as Zimbardo performed the position of superintendent. The experiment is designed to induce depersonalization, disorientation and participant’s de-individualization. Guards had instructions to withhold drinks and food without physically harming the prisoners. Zimbardo told the guards to create the feeling of boredom in prisoners, sense of fear to some extent, a notion of arbitrariness you show they are in control of their lives, as they will have no privacy. The guards are given clothing similar to the actual prison guard clothing’s, batons and mirrored glasses to prevent eye contact while prisoners were in uncomfortable poorly fitted mocks and chains around the ankle and were to be referred to by their numbers instead of their names.
Prisoners were arrested from their respective homes without warning and taken to local police stations. These individuals’ fingerprints were taken, photographed and booked. They are covered in blindfolds as they are being driven into the psychology department of Stanford University where the de-individualization commences. These prisoners were stripped naked, their possessions taken away, deloused and issued beddings with prison clothing. The use of their numbers instead of their names in the prison cells was intended to make them anonymous.
Guards and prisoners settled in their new roles and after a short, while some of the guards begun harassing the prisoners as they woke prisoners at two in the morning by whistles based on their counts to familiarize them with their numbers and offer guards the privilege of being in control of the prisoners. The prisoners were soon adapted to their prison-like behavior as they engaged in conversation about prison matters at most times and told each other to the guards, took prison rules with seriousness as they thought they were to benefit. Violations were to bring disaster to them which made some of them take sides with guards towards those who were perceived not to obey the rules. Prisoners were insulted, issued tedious tasks to perform, insulted so that they are dehumanized. They were punished by push-ups by the guards as some were stepping on their backs, ordered other prisoners to sit on their backs while they did their press-ups. The correctional officers were taken aback by the rebellion that broke out the second day as the prisoners did away with their stocking caps, their numbers and barricaded the cell entry points by using their beds and this prompted the guards to request or reinforcement. Correctional officers retaliated by making use of the fire extinguishers with a stream of cold carbon dioxide to force the prisoners away from the doors as they broke into each cell stripping the prisoners and confiscating the prisoner's beds.
Those who masterminded the rebellion are confined in solitary confinements as the guards picked up the general prisoner harassment attitude. The harassment of prisoners changed the relationship between them and the guards as the guards took control, making prisoners dependent on them making them submissive as the guards became more and more assertive and aggressive. Prisoners who were not involved in the rebellion enjoyed special privileges as they are put in designated privilege cells. They are issued back their uniforms, beds, and allowed to take a bath, comb their hair and brush their teeth. These prisoners were given special meals in the presence of other prisoners who temporarily lost this privilege to break solidarity present in the prisoners (Zimbardo 2011).
Less than two days into the simulation, prisoner number 8612-started suffering from emotional instability, uncontrolled crying and anger, and disorganized thinking. He met with the guards who informed him of his weak status an offered him a new role, as he was not allowed to quit which prompted his crazy, bizarre behavior, which reported the psychologist’s decision to release him. In Day 3, guards allowed parents to visit their kids as they cleaned the jail, offered better food to impress them. Guards behaviors led to the damaging physiological problems experienced by the inmates as one-third of the guards exhibited sadistic tendencies as they are dehumanized which emotionally traumatized the inmates as five of the subjects had to leave before the experiment could reach its stipulated timeline. These research methods are inhuman as they put the guards and prisoners subjects are grossly absorbed into their respective roles questioning their ethical basis as conclusions and observations that are often drawn from these experiments are subjective and anecdotal rendering it impractical for other researchers to use. The study lacks informed consent by the test subjects, as they were not protected from psychological harm as incidents of distress and humiliation an example of the prisoner who was released after barely two days for acting crazy, as the experiment does not provide a conclusive report. This research is gender biased, as it cannot be ethically recommended to be used in the case of female respondents, as all the test subjects were male.
These experiments are not suitable to use on test subjects as they apply authoritarian dynamics of mass control as the issues find it difficult to leave the study because of their roles. The participating group personalities bear little influence on the experiments despite being tested in the recruitment of the subjects. Stanford prison experiment is most of the psychologies dramatic illustrations of how friendly people can be transformed into evil perpetrators and the healthy mentally stable people able to begin experiencing pathological reactions that are based on situational forces. People should not be subjects to depersonalization; disorientation and participant’s de-individualization treatment that alters their standard psychological stability to gather information on a study that makes the test subjects demean each other even when signs of negative effect show
References
Cardwell, M., & Flanagan, C. (2005). Psychology AS: The complete companion . Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes
Kulig, T. C., Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2017). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A case study in organized skepticism. Journal of Criminal Justice Education , 28 (1), 74-111.
Zimbardo, P. (2011). The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil . London: Ebury Digital
