Chapter 4: Make Sure You Watch The Video Zimbardo Stanford

Chapter 4 Make Sure You Watch The Video Zimbaros Stanford Prison Ex

Chapter 4: Make sure you watch the video “Zimbaro’s Stanford Prison Experiment” embedded in the powerpoint presentation. For your discussion for this chapter, answer the following questions: 1). Did the behavior of the participants (the guards AND the prisoners, BOTH of whom were actually naïve college students) surprise you? 2). Did the behavior of the experimenters (Zimbardo and his staff) surprise you? 3). If you had been a prisoner or guard participant in this study, do you think you would have behaved differently? Why or why not? 4). As you frame your response, highlight the difference between attitudes leading to behaviors versus behaviors leading to attitudes, and tie it in with your ideas about the Stanford Prison Experiment. Please follow the link for the video.

Paper For Above instruction

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, remains one of the most profound illustrations of the power of situational influences and social roles on human behavior. Watching the video of this experiment offers a stark perspective on how quickly individuals conform to assigned roles, often with devastating consequences.

The behavior of the participants, both guards and prisoners, was indeed surprising. The guards quickly adopted authoritarian and even sadistic behaviors, exercising control over prisoners in ways that transcended their expectations or previous behaviors. Similarly, the prisoners often exhibited helplessness, compliance, and emotional distress after a relatively short period. Despite knowing they were volunteers in a simulation, both groups internalized their roles to such an extent that their actions became extreme and abusive, highlighting the powerful impact of situational cues and peer pressure. This phenomenon aligns with the concept of deindividuation, where individuals in groups or anonymous settings tend to act in ways they normally wouldn't. The rapidity with which these behaviors developed accentuates how context and perceived authority can override personality traits.

The behavior of the experimenters also elicited surprise. Zimbardo himself assumed the role of prison superintendent and failed to critically observe or intervene when abusive behaviors by guards intensified. His dual role as researcher and prison superintendent created a conflict of interest and a lack of objective oversight. The experimenters' apparent normalization or normalization of the guards’ brutality underscores how the responsibility of overseeing such a simulation can inadvertently lead to ethical lapses, even among trained researchers. This highlights the importance of independent oversight in research involving human subjects to prevent ethical breaches and harmful outcomes.

If I had been a participant in the study, I believe my behavior might have varied depending on my personal characteristics and moral outlook. As a prisoner, I might have resisted conforming entirely to the submissive role, attempting to maintain a sense of agency or challenge authority. Conversely, if I identified strongly with the power dynamic, I might have adopted a more authoritarian stance as a guard. However, the environment’s psychological pressure was so intense that even individuals with strong moral values could have been susceptible to conforming to their assigned roles in ways they might later regret. The experiment demonstrates that behaviors are profoundly influenced by external situational factors rather than solely internal dispositions.

Regarding attitudes and behaviors, the Stanford Prison Experiment vividly exemplifies how situational forces can shape behavior independently of underlying attitudes. Individuals may hold neutral or even positive attitudes towards authority and ethical conduct, yet their behaviors in specific roles may drastically diverge from those attitudes. Conversely, behaviors can also influence attitudes—repeated actions can reinforce beliefs about oneself and others. For instance, a guard engaging in abusive behavior might begin to rationalize their actions, developing attitudes that justify their conduct. In the context of the experiment, the initial perceptions or attitudes towards authority and obedience were quickly transformed into tangible behaviors that perpetuated the cycle of abuse and submission.

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment reveals the complex interplay between social roles, situational forces, and individual psychology. It underscores the importance of ethical boundaries in such research and highlights that human behavior is often more malleable than it appears, capable of being shaped dramatically by context. This analysis demonstrates why understanding these dynamics is crucial in fields like psychology, law enforcement, and organizational management, where authority and social roles profoundly influence actions and perceptions.

References

• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.
• Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). “A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison.” Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). “Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study.” Political Psychology, 27(4), 583–604.
• Blass, T. (2012). The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. Psychology Press.
• McLeod, S. (2016). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/prison.html
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). “Contesting the 'nature' of cruelty: Beyond deindividuation, pin control and obedience.” British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 1-20.
• Hofer, S. (2014). “Ethics of Psychological Experimentation: Respect for Human Dignity.” Journal of Applied Ethics, 34, 85-99.
• Garcia, S. M., & Koole, S. L. (2016). The Power of Situations: Affective and Cognitive Perspectives. Routledge.
• Schoeneman, T. J. (2010). “The social psychology of obedience and authority.” Contemporary Sociology, 10(4), 551-553.
• Milgram, S. (1963). “Behavioral study of obedience.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.