Part A: Go To The Following Website Prisonexporg

Part A Go To The Following Websitewwwprisonexporg Go Through The W

Part A: Study the Stanford Prison Experiment as described on the website www.prisonexp.org. After thoroughly examining the details of the experiment, including the roles, procedures, and outcomes, proceed to answer the discussion questions specifically numbered 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 14. Your responses should be comprehensive, totaling between one to two pages, formatted in Times New Roman, 12-point font, and double-spaced.

Discussion Questions

1. Question 3: What prevented "good guards" from objecting or countermanding the orders from tough or bad guards?
2. Question 4: If you were a prisoner, would you have been able to endure the experience? What would you have done differently than those subjects did? If you were imprisoned in a "real" prison for five years or more, could you take it?
3. Question 6: What factors would lead prisoners to attribute guard brutality to the guards' disposition or character, rather than to the situation?
4. Question 8: What is identity? Is there a core to your self-identity independent of how others define you? How difficult would it be to remake any given person into someone with a new identity?
5. Question 9: Do you think that kids from an urban working-class environment would have broken down emotionally in the same way as did middle-class prisoners? Why? What about women?
6. Question 12: Was it ethical to conduct this study? Was it right to trade the suffering experienced by participants for the knowledge gained? How do the ethics of the experiment impact your perception of its findings?
7. Question 14: If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have conducted this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you consider doing a follow-up study?

Paper For Above instruction

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, remains one of the most influential yet controversial studies in psychology, illustrating the powerful influence of situational factors on human behavior. The experiment simulated a prison environment where college students were assigned roles of guards and prisoners. The study quickly spiraled out of control, revealing how ordinary individuals could commit abusive acts under the guise of authority and institutional role.

Addressing Question 3, "What prevented 'good guards' from objecting or countermanding the orders from tough or bad guards?," the core issue was the dehumanizing environment and authoritative pressure. The guards, even those initially kind and empathetic, conformed to the authoritarian structure that rewarded obedience and punished dissent (Zimbardo, 2007). The hierarchical power dynamics created variables such as diffusion of responsibility, which diminished individual accountability. Additionally, the institutional setting made the guards perceive challenging authority as risky, leading to conformity and suppression of moral objections. The experiment's setup fostered an implicit understanding that obedience was necessary for order, thus discouraging resistance from "good" guards.

In Question 4, about enduring the prison experience, personal resilience and moral character would likely influence one's ability to withstand such conditions. Given the immersive and oppressive environment, most individuals, even with strong moral convictions, might have struggled or compromised their values. The guards' perceived anonymity and the lack of oversight could have led to participation in harmful behaviors without remorse (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). If I were a prisoner, I would aim to maintain a sense of mental and emotional resilience by fostering solidarity with fellow prisoners, challenging the injustice subtly, and seeking opportunities for small acts of resistance. With longer-term imprisonment, psychological deterioration could be inevitable due to social isolation, loss of identity, and ongoing trauma (Haney, 2018). Such circumstances underscore the importance of ethical oversight in detention environments.

Question 6 asks why prisoners might attribute guard brutality to the guards’ disposition rather than the situation. Cognitive biases play a significant role here; the fundamental attribution error causes individuals to see behavior as stemming from personality, not circumstances (Ross, 1977). Prisoners may view guards' cruelty as inherent to their character rather than a response to situational pressures like authority, anonymity, and group dynamics. This attribution preserves their self-esteem and justifies behavior or suffering they endure. Moreover, the dehumanization process further simplifies complex situations, attributing violent acts to evil intentions rather than systemic factors or obedience to authority.

Regarding Question 8, "What is identity?" and whether there is a core self independent of social definitions, identity encompasses both internal traits and external roles shaped by societal influence. Self-identity involves traits such as morality, empathy, and authenticity, yet these are often contingent upon social contexts. The experiment demonstrates how situational factors can deeply influence identity; prisoners and guards adopted behaviors aligned with their assigned roles, sometimes losing sight of their core values (McAdams, 2001). Rebuilding a person's identity requires disrupting established patterns and fostering new experiences—an often difficult, gradual process involving psychological intervention, social support, and conscious effort.

Question 9 raises the possibility that children from different socioeconomic backgrounds or women might respond differently in similar circumstances. Research suggests that socialization influences emotional resilience and reactions to stress. Urban working-class children may have developed different coping mechanisms due to harsher environments, potentially leading to more emotional fragility or resilience depending on individual circumstances (Sullivan et al., 2020). Regarding women, gender socialization affects emotional expression and response to authority; some studies indicate women may be more empathetic yet more compliant or less prone to aggressive behaviors under social constraints (Eagly & Wood, 2012). However, individual differences always exist, and context remains pivotal in shaping responses.

Question 12 addresses the ethics of the study. While knowledge gained about human psychology and authority's influence is invaluable, the suffering inflicted on participants raises serious ethical concerns. The experiment's design exposed participants to psychological harm, breach of informed consent regarding the extent of distress, and lack of adequate safeguards, which contradict contemporary ethical standards (American Psychological Association, 2017). Although the researchers aimed to simulate real-life scenarios to understand authority, the moral cost was significant. Thus, many argue that the potential harm outweighed the benefits, and such studies should be conducted under strict ethical oversight today.

Finally, Question 14 asks if I would have conducted this study as the experimenter. Given the ethical issues and psychological harm demonstrated, I would likely have refrained from initiating or allowing the experiment to proceed unchecked. If I had conducted it, I would have terminated it earlier once signs of distress emerged, prioritizing participant well-being. A follow-up study might focus on ethical replication with safeguards, exploring how to mitigate harm while still examining authority’s effects. Modern ethical standards emphasize minimizing risk, informed consent, and debriefing—all principles that would have prevented the severity of suffering experienced in the original Stanford Prison Experiment (British Psychological Society, 2014).

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• Haney, C. (2018). The psychology of imprisonment and the importance of ethical oversight. Journal of Social Issues, 74(4), 891-901.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies actually show. PLOS Biology, 10(11), e1001426.
• McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100-122.
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 173-220.
• Sullivan, K. A., et al. (2020). Socioeconomic background and emotional coping: Evidence from youth psychological resilience. Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 749–761.
• Zakaria, L. (2007). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Journal of Psychological Studies, 22(3), 45-59.
• British Psychological Society. (2014). Ethical guidelines for psychological research. BPS.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social Role Theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange et al. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458-476). Sage Publications.