Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Stanford Prison Experiment: The Stanford Prison Experiment was a 1971 psychological study led by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. It simulated a prison environment, randomly assigning college students roles as guards or prisoners. The experiment demonstrated the powerful influence of situational factors and social roles on behavior, as participants quickly adopted abusive or submissive behaviors. It raised ethical concerns and highlighted the impact of authority and dehumanization. See also Social behavior, Power, Authority, Situations, Behavior, Group behavior._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Philip Zimbardo on Stanford Prison Experiment - Dictionary of Arguments
Haslam I 130 - I 133 Stanford Prison Experiment/SPE/Zimbardo: In his August 1971 experiment in a cellar at Stanford University, Philip Zimbardo brought together two groups of 20 men each from a group of 70 who had volunteered for a psychological study for an experiment that was to last two weeks. The men in one group were supposed to be prisoners, the other guards. There was also an (alleged) superior, the deputy warden, who in reality was Zimbardo himself. A few days after the preliminary meeting, the members of the "prison group" were arrested and blindfolded by disguised „police officers“ and taken to the cellar of Stanford University. So they should believe it was a realistic situation. The behaviours of both groups should result in a self-developing dynamic. After a few days such excessive behaviours developed that the experiment had to be stopped on the sixth day. >Tyranny/psychological theories, >Tyranny/Reicher, >Method/Zimbardo. Haslam I 134 Results: the study was never written up in detail in a peer-reviewed psychology journal and hence no single ‘authorized’ publication provides a definitive account of events. Instead, key accounts of the study’s findings are provided in different outlets produced for different audiences, in different forms, Haslam I 135 and at different points in time. Phases: 1) neither prisoners nor guards were ‘completely into their roles’ and both groups displayed ‘considerable hesitation and some awkwardness’ (Zimbardo, 2007(1): 54). 2) Rebellion. Angered and frustrated by the treatment that the guards were starting to mete out, some of the prisoners started to formulate plans for rebellion. 3) Tyranny. The guards started by calling for reinforcements and together they decided to meet force with force. Haslam I 136 As the study moved towards its conclusion, then, it was not just the guards and prisoners who succumbed to the power of their role, but also the experimenters. Haslam I 135 (…) the scene was set for the guards to progressively dominate, oppress, and brutalize the prisoners. Haslam I 136 Importantly, not all of the guards went down this path. Zimbardo observes that ‘about a third became tyrannical in their arbitrary use of power … [becoming] quite inventive in their techniques of breaking the prisoners and making them feel worthless’ (Zimbardo 1971(2): 154). Of the remaining guards, some strove to be ‘tough but fair’ while others endeavoured to be ‘good guards’, being friendly to the prisoners and doing them small favours. However, it is for the behaviour of the most abusive guards – epitomized by ‘John Wayne’ – that the study is best known. >Milgram Experiment, >Cooperation, >Conformity, >Obedience. 1. Zimbardo, P. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil. London: Random House. 2. Zimbardo, P.G. (1971) ‘The psychological power and pathology of imprisonment’, Hearings before Subcommittee No.3 of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives Ninety-Second Congress, First sessions on corrections – Part II, Prisons, prison reform, and prisoners’ rights: California (Serial No. 15, 25 October). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. S. Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher, „Tyranny. Revisiting Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Zimbardo, Philip Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
||
> Counter arguments against Zimbardo
> Counter arguments in relation to Stanford Prison Experiment
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-24