Anwika Palle Week 9 - The Stanford Prison Experiment
In August of 1921, Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University, wanted to test how a person’s role could influence their behavior. Curious about obedience, power dynamics, and the abuse of power, Zimbardo set up the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment to examine the effects of authority in a simulated prison environment. Twenty-four “mentally sound” participants were chosen for the experiment, and half would be prisoners, while the other half would be guards. The prison was simulated to be a harsh place that actual prisoners may have witnessed in a jail. Set up in the basement of a Stanford lab, tremendous efforts were taken to create a close simulation—even the arrests of the prisoners were unexpected and occurred in public. The guards had free range on how to treat the prisoners, with two conditions; they could not hit the prisoners, nor could they confine them for more than an hour. In Zimbardo’s search for an answer to the question that sparked this experiment, he and many others were surprised to witness the guards’ quick jump into abusing power. Within one day, a guard hit a prisoner with a nightstick, and other guards tried to severely deprive the prisoners of sleep, put bags on their heads, and even sprayed fire extinguishers through their prison cells. By the third day, a prisoner could not bear the torture and screamed and cried uncontrollably and was allowed to leave. A few other prisoners left in the next few days. Although the experiment was originally planned to be in the course of 14-days, Zimbardo ended the experiment on the sixth day due to the toll it was taking on the prisoners.
This classic experiment is one of the most widely-talked about studies in psychology history, and it reveals a great deal about power and the role it plays in “ordinary” people. These guards, who initially had no experience with having control over prisoners, clearly exercised their power to the highest degree they could. The experiment reveals that “people will readily conform to the social rules they are expected to play.” Roles that are heavily stereotyped, such as the view that guards treat prisoners in harsh ways as part of their authority over them, can play a big role in increasing the severity of people’s conformity. It was also found that power merely “amplifies” a person, giving their internal tendencies and personal dispositions a louder voice and a fuller expression. The guards experienced deindividuation, “a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.” The environment that the guards were surrounded by may have caused them to lose their sense of personal identity, causing them to follow a group norm that they would have never thought themselves to be involved in. Power gave rise to the unpredictable and surprising nature of the guard’s actions, and the experiment revealed that it is a natural tendency for humans to over-exercise power when it is in their authority.
Works Cited:
I remember reading about this in eighth grade with Mr. Powell and honestly this experiment (or at least the conclusion of this experiment) is common knowledge to anyone who has experienced the U.S. brand of politics. Instead I have some questions right off the bat: did the prison guards have specific instructions to berate the prisoners? If yes, that's a confounding factor in terms of causation. If no, then that’s unbelievable and there is no way I would believe these people are mentally sound. Also given that these prisoners are aware that this is an experiment I wouldn’t see any reasons for them to act out of line. I’d like to imagine myself as a participant of this experiment, and if I had the chance to talk to other prisoners, I would strike up conversations about our lives rather than plotting to escape a fake prison.
ReplyDeleteHi Anwika,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the effort you have put into this blog post, and your points regarding the experiment are certainly valid. However, after using the Stanford Prison Experiment as a piece of evidence in a 10th grade paper, I decided to look more into the validity and logistics of such an experiment. Upon further research, it seemed to me that the experiment was debunked due to the guards and prisoners already knowing the goal of the experiment beforehand. They were, at the very least, subconsciously aware Zimbardo's intent, making them more inclined to conform to the expected course of actions. Nevertheless, the outcome of the experiment still remains a launchpad for philosophical discussion, prompting more investigation into the fickle thing that is human nature.
Sincerely,
Sean Wang
Hey Anwika,
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part that it is a natural tendency for humans with power to leverage it where they see fit. While the Stanford Prison Experiment may not be the most credible example of this, it is a theme found throughout much of human history.
However, there are a few notable exceptions to the age-old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. An inspirational figure to me is Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. Groomed and thrust into power since birth, he refused to fall into its vain temptations and ruled his empire with a good heart and strong morals. Today, many study his book Meditations as a way of life and leadership.
Over-exercising power may be the norm, but it is not the rule, and I believe that power simply amplifies in one's heart—good or bad.
Hi Anwika,
ReplyDeleteI think it is really obvious seeing the amusement of power in the case of this experiment. I never really heard of it, so this was actually surprising. If I was a prisoner, I would probably try and make the guards be nicer, or I would devise an escape plan. Really its the first one and if it doesn't work then the escape plan. But at least I would try and get them to humanize the prisoners. At least I would do that, I don't know if anyone else would.
Sincerely,
Vivan Waghela
Hi Anwika,
ReplyDeleteThe Stanford Prisoner Experiment did reveal a lot about human nature, social roles, and power. While it has earned many criticisms, the results ultimately revealed how people often abuse power when they receive it. Social views of roles are also an important factor, with the guards performing what they felt was the correct actions of a prison guard and prisoners eventually falling into the perceived roles of prisoners. Although the experiment may be heavily criticized for its lack of ethics and scientific approach, the results are still a valuable lesson on the dangers of power.
Sincerely,
Raymond Yu
Hi Anwika,
ReplyDeleteThough the Stanford Prison Experiment would be a good example of how "ordinary people"
would react when receiving power, I believe that it was proven to be a null experiment. This is because footage was found of the man who was running the experiment explaining to the volunteers given power that they are not acting as they should be. This meant that the entire experiment was tainted by outside bias. A different social experiment that would benefit your argument, though, would be the Milgram Experiment, in which people would shock a person with electricity when told to by an authoritative figure. The data that came of the experiment showed how many people would obey the authoritative figure over their morality.
Hey Anwika, the Stanford prison experiment is such a good example of the negative effects of too much power. It really revealed how people can really abuse the power they were given, even if it wasn't even real. I guess that reveals something pretty noteworthy about human nature. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteHi Anwika,
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, I am taking AP Psych this year, yet we have not seemed to cover this experiment yet. I think that this is a prime example of "too much" power. This relates very well to Sophie's post on whether or not anyone can have "too much" power. The experiment helps to prove that undoubtedly it is unhealthy to give anyone too much power. I am sure that some of the guards participating in the experiment were uncomfortable with harming prisoners at first, but through peer pressure they were most definitely capable of it later on. This goes to show that no matter how moral a person, power can truly corrupt anyone.
Hey Anwika!
ReplyDeleteYet again your effort impresses me. The way you are able to research and speak about these historical figures so eloquently is really cool and something I aspire to be able to do with your ease. I think the prison experiment is a really good example of how too much power can negatively impact the people with and under that sort of power. It shows how power can warp true human nature, which says a lot about the power that power itself holds.