Stanford Prison Experiment Haney Banks and Zimbardo Social

Stanford Prison Experiment Haney, Banks and Zimbardo Social Psychology

Bellringer This study demonstrated Zimbardo’s theory of the “pathology of power. ” Describe how.

1971

The Stanford What happened after 6. . . nobody could have days. . . predicted Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo was a Psychology Professor at Stanford University in California.

The research project looked at the mentality of prisoners and correctional staff, as well as the psychological behaviour associated with prison life. A mock prison was built in the basement of Stanford University and a group of university students were randomly allocated the role of prisoner or guard. The guards were instructed to ‘maintain a reasonable degree of order within the prison necessary for effective functioning’.

Stanford Prison Experiment https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=Z 0 j. Yx 8 nwj. F Q As you watch: Think…What is going on here? In journals: 1. What is the agentic state? Connect the prisoners’ reactions to this phenomenon.

Aim 1. To test the dispositional hypothesis vs. the situational hypothesis. Dispositional hypothesis: A person’s behavior is determined by their natural disposition, or personality traits. 1. To show the taking of social roles would lead to excessive conformity to those roles

Hypothesis(es) Dispositional hypothesis : prisons are bad because of the people who live and work there. i. e. guards= sadistic, uneducated and insensitive Prisoners: antisocial attitude and behavior

Variables • The conditions the participants were randomly assigned: prisoner or guard Independent Variable Dependent Variable • The resulting behavior

Sample No of participants= 22 All Male White Recruited through a newspaper advertisement (75 responded) • College students • Strangers to each other • Ethnocentric sampling bias • •

Method Lab Experiment Observation Self Report Method

Both guards and prisoners were screened before the study and deemed to be “normal, healthy male college students who were predominantly middle class and white. ” The 24 participants did not know each other prior to the study. The prisoners remained in the mock prison for 24 hours a day, and the guards worked on an 8 hour shift – allowing them to return home at the end of their shift. Participants were all paid $15 a day to take part in the study, which was to last 14 days.

The Guards: • Mirrored sunglasses • Khaki shirt and Trousers • Night stick • Whistle The Prisoners: • Stocking cap • Smock with ID number sewn on front & back • No underwear • Rubber sandals • Chain and lock around the ankle

The study was ended after 6 days. . . Five prisoners had to be released earlier because of extreme emotional depression. The guards behaviour towards the prisoners had become so deeming and inhumane, it was clear they had become immersed into their prison guard roles. Prisoners minds ventured far from the reality of the situation as they were continuously woken during the night, deprived of basic human rights and forced to perform degrading exercises for the guards own amusement. Zimbardo himself became so immersed in his role as Prison Superintendent, he found his ability to be impartial was compromised. Zimbardo believes that the study demonstrate the powerful effect roles can have on peoples’ behaviour. Basically the participants were playing the role that they thought was expected of, either a prisoner or prison guard.

Procedure: Up Close http: //www. prisonexp. org/psychology/14 In journals: 1. What is the agentic state? Connect the prisoners’ reactions to this phenomenon.

Results • Qualitative Data • The experiment disintegrated very quickly • On the second day the prisoners organized a mass revolt & riot, as a protest about the conditions. • Guards worked extra hours & developed a plan to stop the riot, using fireextinguishers.

Results • Effects on prisoners: Pathological prisoner syndrome – Disbelief followed by rebellion (which resulted in failure)followed by a range negative emotions and behaviors) – Passivity (some became very obedient) – Dependency (initiating very little activity without instructions) – Flattened mood – Half the prisoners showed signs of depression, crying, fits of rage and acute anxiety and had to be released early.

Results Effects on guards: Pathology of power – Many seemed to really enjoy the new found power & control that went with the uniform. – All prisoners’ rights were redefined as privileges – They punished the prisoners with little or no justification – They verbally insulted the prisoners – Some of them volunteered to work extra shifts for no pay and were disappointed when the study was over. – They continued to behave in an authoritarian way even when they believed the cameras were not on.

Results • Stopped after just 6 days instead of the planned 14 days because of the pathological reactions of the participants. • 5 prisoners had to be released even earlier because of extreme emotional reactions

Ecological Validity State the good and bad eco. validity parts • Method: Lab experiment so low in eco validity because of controls and artificiality • Sample: ethnocentric sampling bias- low ecological validity (subjects had not committed any crime or guard duty or had any prison experience) • Location : mock prison in lab hence some many aspects of a real prison lacking (physical, sexual abuse etc. ) • Procedure: good: arrests made by police uniforms, priest, etc. bad: lack of physical violence, minimum prison sentence, self report, newspaper advert.

Ethics • Informed Consent • Deception • Confidentiality • Debriefing • Withdrawal • Protection

Reliability and Validity Reliability

Remember all participants beforehand were deemed to be; “normal, healthy male college students. . . ” The study provides a situational explanation for behaviour – any person when put in the wrong situation is capable of behaviour they didn’t think was possible.

Homework Visit the website www. prisonexp. org and look for the following: -characteristics of the simulated prison -Overall, was the prison ecologically valid? Why or why not? Provide detail.