Discussion 1: Watch The Brief Connect Video "Role Playing" ✓ Solved

Discussion 1 watch the brief Connect video "Role Playing: The

Watch the brief Connect video "Role Playing: The Power of the Situation." In your initial post, address the following: Describe your own reaction to this experiment and to watching the video. How did the mere playing of a role transform the participants into believing they were actually within that role? Do you believe the experiment was conducted in an ethical manner? Why or why not? In responding to the student posts, compare their reactions to the experiment and video to your own reaction. Offer any insight you have in relation to the experiment (and the ethics involved in it) and how your attitude may have been altered after reading their posts. Keep in mind that students within this class will have varying attitudes and beliefs from your own. It is okay to disagree, but it must be done in a respectful manner.

Paper For Above Instructions

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 serves as a profound illustration of the psychological effects of perceived power and how roles can shape human behavior. Upon watching the video "Role Playing: The Power of the Situation," I experienced a mixture of fascination and horror. My initial reaction echoed the sentiments of many who study social psychology—how deeply situational contexts can influence individual behavior. According to the video, participants fully embraced their roles, yielding to the expectations and environment crafted by the authority of the experimenters. This phenomenon, known as role engulfment, suggests that when individuals adopt specific roles—such as that of a guard or prisoner in the experiment—they often relinquish their individual moral judgments in favor of their assigned duties (Myers & Twenge, 2019).

The transformation witnessed among participants was attributed to several factors. First, the physical environment of the simulated prison played a critical role in shaping attitudes and behaviors. Participants were not merely actors playing a part; they were immersed in an environment crafted to resemble a real prison, complete with uniforms and bars, which enhanced the authenticity of their experience. This altered perception allowed participants to internalize their roles, leading to significant behavioral changes. Moreover, the psychological pressure exerted by the authority figures further facilitated the participants' immersion into these roles. The chicken-egg cycle of role playing led to a blurred line between the self and the character, complicating the distinction between reality and illusion (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973).

Despite the insights gained from the SPE, ethical concerns loom large over the study. Zimbardo’s experiment has been widely criticized for its lack of ethical oversight. Participants experienced psychological distress, humiliation, and emotional discomfort as a result of their roles. Many critics argue that the ethical principles of informed consent and the right to withdraw were not adequately upheld, as participants could not fully anticipate the severe psychological costs of their roles. The American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines mandate that participants should not be exposed to harm, either physical or psychological (American Psychological Association, 2017). In this case, the rapid escalation of abuse indicates a significant breach of these guidelines.

Moreover, the decision to terminate the experiment only after six days, despite an agreed-upon duration of two weeks, speaks volumes about the ethical considerations—or lack thereof—during the experiment. The necessity to prioritize the well-being of participants over the scientific inquiry is paramount; an ethical approach should always consider the potential harm to individuals involved. Reflecting on the views expressed by my classmates, I recognize the plurality of reactions towards the ethical implications of the study. While Tedra emphasizes the irrevocable harm experienced by participants, Linda offers a more conflicted perspective, suggesting that participants were aware of the experimental setting and therefore assumed some responsibility. This contrast highlights a significant aspect of psychological research—the subjectivity of interpreting ethical standards in experimental paradigms.

In light of these discussions, my stance on the ethicality of the SPE tends to align with Tedra’s perspective. The psychological consequences of participating in such a study cannot be understated, nor can the responsibilities of researchers in protecting their subjects be overlooked. Linda’s viewpoint introduces valuable insights into the proposed dynamics of awareness in experiments, but it does not sufficiently address the risks that emerge from an environment designed to manipulate social roles. The conversations surrounding the SPE have greatly informed my understanding of the ethics necessary in psychological research, prompting me to consider how these principles apply in contemporary studies.

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment serves as a compelling case study on the impact of situational forces on human behavior and emphasizes the necessity of ethical standards in psychological research. The reactions elicited by this experiment reveal important considerations about the role of environment and authority in shaping human conduct, while also urging a critical reflection on the responsibilities of researchers to safeguard participant welfare. Taking these perspectives into account enriches my comprehension of the complexities involved in social psychology and underscores the profound implications of such experiments on individual lives and ethical oversight.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
• Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 30, 4-17.
• Myers, D. G., & Twenge, J. M. (2019). Social psychology. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an experimental social influence. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 201-230). Wiley.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.
• Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). Pluralistic ignorance and conformity: The interplay of personal and social influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 468-478.
• Funder, D. C. (2006). The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). Norton.
• Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-40.
• Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. McGraw-Hill.