Guidelines For Good Posts: Your Initial Post Each Week Shoul

Guidelines for good posts: Your initial post each week should connect to and reference the readings, videos, and/or lectures

Your initial post each week should connect to and reference the readings, videos, and/or lectures. You will not be able to receive an "A" grade in discussion if you do not do this. Your follow-up posts should be quality as well and should also be grounded in the course material. Strive to push the conversation deeper by raising new points, playing devil's advocate, or asking a provocative question (with some explanation, of course). In order to do well on this discussion, you need to be sure you have read Chapters 1 and 2 of Newman and watched the lecture and Stanford Prison Experiment video.

Paper For Above instruction

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, remains one of the most profound and controversial studies in social psychology. It vividly illustrates how individuals can conform to roles and how situational forces can influence behavior, often leading to unexpected or extreme actions. Reflecting on this experiment provides valuable insights into the power of authority, the influence of social roles, and the human capacity for conformity or resistance within structured environments.

One of the most striking aspects of the Stanford Prison Experiment was the rapid and extreme transformation of volunteer participants. Ordinary college students, randomly assigned as guards or prisoners, quickly internalized their roles. The guards became increasingly aggressive and dehumanizing, while the prisoners exhibited signs of stress and helplessness. This underscores how powerful situational forces and assigned roles can be in shaping behavior. The experiment demonstrates that beyond individual personality traits, external circumstances and social expectations can drive people to act in ways they might not in everyday life. As Zimbardo noted, the environment can evoke behaviors that are otherwise suppressed, emphasizing the situational nature of human conduct (Zimbardo, 2007).

The experiment also highlights the concept of conformity—how individuals adjust their actions to align with perceived social roles and expectations. The guards, initially instructed to maintain order, often acted abusively, partly because they felt it was part of their role. The prisoners, meanwhile, showed resistance at first but gradually succumbed to feelings of powerlessness, illustrating conformity to the oppressive environment. This raises questions about the mechanisms of authority and peer pressure as forces that can override personal morals. As Milgram's obedience studies suggest, people tend to comply with authority figures even when it conflicts with their personal conscience (Milgram, 1963). The Stanford prison scenario exemplifies how conformity can escalate to malicious behaviors given the right situational cues.

From this experiment, we learn that resistance is possible but often depends on individual moral resilience and the presence of checks on abusive authority. Some prisoners in the study attempted to resist or undermine the system, but their efforts were frequently suppressed by the environment. As participants or observers of such scenarios, questions arise: If I were part of the experiment, would I have acted differently? Would I have maintained my moral integrity or conformed to the role's expectations? Personal reflection suggests that environment and circumstances heavily influence behavior. Factors such as social support, awareness of manipulation, and moral courage are critical in resisting conformity (Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

In real life, environments similar to the Stanford setup are common in workplaces, military settings, or institutions where authority and hierarchy are prominent. For example, employees or soldiers may behave differently depending on organizational culture or peer influence. Changes in behavior often occur because individuals adapt to environmental cues for acceptance, safety, or achievement. Recognizing these influences allows us to better understand how to foster ethical behavior and resist harmful conformity. Personal experiences of changing attitudes or actions under different environmental pressures demonstrate that awareness and moral steadfastness are key to resisting negative conformity and promoting ethical conduct.

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment sheds light on the profound influence of environmental factors, social roles, and authority on human behavior. While it reveals the potential for destructive conformity, it also underscores the importance of moral resilience and awareness in resisting such influences. As society continues to grapple with issues related to authority and obedience, the lessons of this experiment remain relevant for understanding and improving social and organizational environments.

References

• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1-40.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001406.
• McLeod, S. (2019). The Stanford prison experiment. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
• Obedience to authority. (1974). In S. J. Reicher, S. A. Haslam, & M. J. Platow (Eds.), The psychology of tyranny. Routledge.
• Perry, B. (2013). The Stanford prison experiment: A simulation or a production? American Psychologist, 68(2), 164–169.
• Blass, T. (2004). The Milgram paradigm after 40 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(7), 1313–1330.
• Turner, J. C. (1982). The sociology of utterances: The role of language in social interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3), 123-143.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2002). Reconceptualizing crowd psychology: The case of Stanford. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 515-536.