How Does Zimbardo Play In The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Human Nature and the Power of Social Roles

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (as well as Milgram’s obedience study) are absolutely fascinating. In fact, their studies are largely the reason why I became interested in pursing psychology as my major. I have seen numerous documentaries about the psychology of evil, as well as read many books and articles pertaining to this area. I find these types of social psychology studies enthralling because I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that normal people are capable of such heinous acts. Moreover, theses classic studies leave me constantly questioning whether or not I would have behaved in a similar fashion. Both studies assume the same conclusion: Social

Normal and healthy people showed extraordinary sadistic behavior that resulted in the nervous breakdowns of five ordinary individuals. Obviously, the students were not adequately informed beforehand, or protected from the situational factors. Zimbardo himself became so deeply involved in his role as the prison warden that he was blind to the depth of psychological distress that the students were experiencing. On that note, Zimbardo should not have played a role in the experiment to begin with. Being the superintendent of the prison shows a lack of objectivity. In addition, the use of deception in studies (implicit or explicit) is a major ethical concern. Nobody could have predicted how the study played out. Consequently, the participants were not made aware of the psychological impact that the simulation would have. Would the students have signed up if they had known what the true situation entailed? Additionally, the participants were not informed of the mock arrest that would take place. More importantly, would the students have willingly participated if they had known the boundless authoritative power the guards would be given? Moreover, the “guards” were forced to accept that they were capable of acting in such an inconceivable manner. There were unclear rules and limitations laid out; and few protective measures were

Therefore, it would be difficult to try to replicate the study with complete accuracy to determine if the same results would be reached. Moreover, Zimbardo’s study could not be conducted again due to the ethical standards set in place today. Hypothetically, if we were to conduct the Stanford Prison Experiment study again, I believe we would see the same results. For example, subsequent similar studies have taken place that have similar findings to the Stanford experiment. At the end of the day it is not the characteristics of the guards or the inmates, but the social situation and the system in which the situation occurs that influences such behavior. That being said, this type of research is necessary. Not only is there room for this type of research, but it is imperative that this area is extensively studied. This type of research is imperative to understanding morality and justice as a whole. For instance, the public was horrified when the events at Abu Ghraib unveiled. Those unaware of the psychological variables involved automatically placed blame on the “evil” night shift soldiers at Tier 1-A. However, thanks to the Stanford Prison Experiment, we are better able to understand what factors attributed to the such atrocities. The Army reservists were not prepared for the military operation; and the military police placed pressure on the soldiers to “break the will” of the prisoners in