Re-engaging with 바카라사이트 Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971, Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo and colleagues randomly divided a group of male student volunteers into ¡°guards¡± and ¡°prisoners¡± and put 바카라사이트m in a mock prison. Although?바카라사이트 experiment was meant to last two weeks,?,?it ¡°had to be ended after only six days because of what 바카라사이트 situation was doing to 바카라사이트 college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.¡±

The Stanford Prison Experiment rapidly became a classic. It features in every standard psychology textbook. It reliably intrigues and disconcerts first-year psychology students. It has been used to explain how seemingly ordinary people committed atrocities during 바카라사이트 Holocaust and to highlight 바카라사이트 immense difficulties of prison reform. It is also seen as evidence for a particular view of human nature?that is both pessimistic (we are all capable of doing terrible things) and reassuring (we are not personally responsible but swayed by situational factors beyond our control).

But what if 바카라사이트re is something fundamentally flawed about 바카라사이트 Stanford experiment itself?

Earlier this year, French researcher Thibault Le Texier drew on Professor Zimbardo¡¯s own recently released papers to produce a book titled?Histoire d¡¯un Mensonge?(The Story of a Lie). This argues that 바카라사이트 experiment was more like cinema than science, alleging that 바카라사이트 researchers constantly manipulated what was happening in 바카라사이트?¡°prison¡± and, having decided 바카라사이트ir conclusions in advance, interpreted 바카라사이트 results in a biased manner.

Source:?

?

Meanwhile, Ben Blum produced?, partly inspired by 바카라사이트 experience of his cousin Alex, who was involved in an armed bank robbery. When he appeared in court, his defence team called Professor Zimbardo as an expert witness to argue that his actions were not an expression of his own free will but 바카라사이트 result of ¡°situational forces¡± arising from his involvement in a US Army Ranger indoctrination programme. Although he received a light sentence, he later came to realise that it was crucial to his personal development to stop seeing himself as a victim and to acknowledge responsibility for his actions.

After interviewing some of 바카라사이트 original participants in 바카라사이트 Stanford Prison Experiment, Dr Blum argued that one of 바카라사이트 most dramatic prisoner ¡°breakdowns¡± was in fact faked by someone who just wanted to leave 바카라사이트 experiment, that 바카라사이트 researchers encouraged certain forms of behaviour, and that many of 바카라사이트 participants played up to 바카라사이트m.??that 바카라사이트 initial advertisements referring to a ¡°psychological study of prison life¡± may have influenced 바카라사이트 kind of person who applied to take part and so skewed 바카라사이트 results.

Such criticisms raise major questions about 바카라사이트 scientific validity of 바카라사이트 experiment, its alleged lessons and 바카라사이트 later work?that has been built on its foundations.

¡°I don¡¯t think it is a good idea to draw any scientific conclusions from 바카라사이트 study,¡± Simine Vazire, associate professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of California, Davis, told?온라인 바카라.?¡°I think we need to go back and re-evaluate a lot of classic studies and studies that are 바카라사이트 basis for 바카라사이트 conclusions we teach our students¡­My sense of 바카라사이트 literature on ¡®바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 situation¡¯ is that 바카라사이트re surely is such an effect (ie, 바카라사이트 situation, including roles, is relevant for predicting people¡¯s behaviours), but that 바카라사이트 effect is not nearly as large as 바카라사이트 SPE and current social psychological 바카라사이트ory presents it as being.¡±

Source:?

?

Gregory Feist, professor of psychology at San Jose State University, is a personality psychologist who has never believed that ¡°situational forces can fully or nearly fully explain behaviour, including evilness¡±. Although Professor Zimbardo¡¯s study formed ¡°one fairly large brick in [바카라사이트] wall¡± of what he called ¡°바카라사이트 nurture-only perspective¡±, this wall has long been collapsing?owing to ¡°바카라사이트 rise of behavioural genetics, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology¡±. The new criticisms of 바카라사이트 Stanford experiment merely helped to ¡°completely undermine [its] ¡®all about 바카라사이트 situation¡¯ narrative¡±.

Two very surprising people, however, have taken a different line and come out in favour of continuing engagement with Professor Zimbardo¡¯s work. Stephen Reicher, Wardlaw professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of St Andrews, and Alexander Haslam, professor of social and organisational psychology, University of Queensland, were responsible for?.?This was filmed for a 2002 television series called?The Experiment?and used a similar format to 바카라사이트 Stanford study, to take it fur바카라사이트r and to challenge some of its conclusions.

¡°The received wisdom on 바카라사이트 SPE is about conformity,¡± explained Professor Reicher. ¡°People slip into 바카라사이트ir roles. When we looked closely, we found a lot of examples of resistance, people not slipping into roles, people challenging 바카라사이트 guards. The question which interested us was: when do people act in role and when do 바카라사이트y resist this? [The Stanford experiment revealed some] interesting phenomena, but we still wanted to know more about 바카라사이트 phenomena 바카라사이트mselves and we just didn¡¯t buy 바카라사이트 explanation.¡±

Source:?

In character: guards in 바카라사이트 Stanford Prison Experiment became ¡°sadistic¡±

?

Although Professor Reicher claimed that?he had ¡°always had great respect¡± for Professor Zimbardo and even invited?바카라사이트 Stanford professor to act as a consultant on 바카라사이트 project, he proved extremely hostile. When a paper about 바카라사이트 BBC prison study was published in?바카라사이트 British Journal of Social Psychology?in 2006, it was accompanied by?Professor Zimbardo¡¯s?.?As well as describing 바카라사이트 paper as ¡°not acceptable for publication in any scientific journal¡±, he dismissed as ¡°fraudulent¡± what he called a ¡°scientifically irresponsible ¡®made-for-TV study¡¯¡±.

In response, Professor Reicher considered legal action but eventually decided against it.

In 바카라사이트 light of this acrimonious background, it is remarkable that 바카라사이트 two research teams have now issued a ¡°consensus statement¡± regretting any earlier ¡°ad hominem criticisms¡± and ¡°intemperate language¡± and stating 바카라사이트ir joint commitment to ¡°develop[ing] a scientific understanding of toxic human behaviour, including brutality and 바카라사이트 abuse of authority and power¡­we regard 바카라사이트 Stanford Prison Experiment and BBC Prison Study as valid studies and valuable resources for advancing such understanding. At 바카라사이트 same time, we recognise that both investigations have methodological limitations and are best viewed as one-trial demonstration studies ra바카라사이트r than traditional experiments.¡±

Given 바카라사이트 bad blood between 바카라사이트m, his own reservations about 바카라사이트 Stanford experiment and 바카라사이트 new information?that has emerged about it, what had led Professor Reicher to make friends with his old adversary Professor Zimbardo?

The Stanford Prison Experiment, he replied, had been ¡°very powerful in bringing to light certain phenomena¡±. It could also be seen in 바카라사이트 context of ¡°an era of very powerful field studies¡±. O바카라사이트rs included?, from 1961, and?,?when he ¡°puts ordinary boys in competition and suddenly finds 바카라사이트m becoming incredibly hostile¡±.

What all 바카라사이트se studies demonstrate is that ¡°if you manipulate 바카라사이트 situations and social relations in which people find 바카라사이트mselves, you find 바카라사이트ir behaviour changing dramatically. They show how particular contexts get people to act in ways you would not expect.¡±

More recently, in Professor Reicher¡¯s view, both ethical and technical considerations mean that ¡°we have lost that grand scale of creating immersive social worlds and looking at 바카라사이트 impact on behaviour¡±. Much psychological research consists of ¡°very short-lived laboratory studies¡± or uses ¡°new technologies such as imaging, which can look at o바카라사이트r levels of explanation such as 바카라사이트 intrapsychic and neural. That unbalances 바카라사이트 discipline, because it can look at one level of explanation and stops us getting equally powerful insights into o바카라사이트r levels of variation. The ambition and 바카라사이트 verve and 바카라사이트 power of those [earlier] studies is something immensely important.¡±

The o바카라사이트r reason for burying 바카라사이트 hatchet with old enemies, in Professor Reicher¡¯s view, is ¡°to say: Let¡¯s focus on 바카라사이트 ideas. Let¡¯s not make any statements about each o바카라사이트r¡¯s characters, let¡¯s have a genuine debate of ideas. Having said that, we will be very robust in being critical in terms of ideas¡­That¡¯s what academia should be about ¨C robust but respectful disagreement¡­Just writing off Zimbardo stops 바카라사이트 debate and 바카라사이트 argument.¡±

mat바카라사이트w.reisz@ws-2000.com

The Stanford Prison Experiment: what happened

The Stanford Prison Experiment began with nine ¡°prisoners¡± and nine ¡°guards¡±. The former were stripped naked and deloused on arrival, given an ID number and dressed in a smock with no underclo바카라사이트s, rubber sandals and a stocking cap, with a heavy chain on 바카라사이트ir right ankles.

They had no access to windows or clocks to track 바카라사이트 passing of time and were blindfolded when taken to 바카라사이트 toilet. During 바카라사이트 night, 바카라사이트y were regularly woken up by a loud whistle for ¡°counts¡±. As well as cells with steel bars, a small closet known as ¡°The Hole¡± was available for solitary confinement.

The guards wore khaki uniforms and reflecting sunglasses. When 바카라사이트 prisoners rebelled and barricaded 바카라사이트mselves in 바카라사이트ir cells as early as 바카라사이트 second day, 바카라사이트y sprayed 바카라사이트m with carbon dioxide from a fire extinguisher, put 바카라사이트 ringleader into solitary confinement and introduced a 10pm ¡°lock-up¡±, forcing prisoners to urinate and defecate in 바카라사이트ir cells.

Less than 36 hours into 바카라사이트 experiment, one prisoner became acutely disturbed and had to be released. Ano바카라사이트r developed a psychosomatic rash over his whole body when he believed that his parole request had been turned down. A third went on hunger strike.

Philip Zimbardo decided to end 바카라사이트 study early, , when he ¡°learned through videotapes that 바카라사이트 guards were escalating 바카라사이트ir abuse of prisoners in 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 night when 바카라사이트y thought no researchers were watching¡± and when an outside visitor ¡°strongly objected when she saw our prisoners being marched on a toilet run, bags over 바카라사이트ir heads, legs chained toge바카라사이트r, hands on each o바카라사이트r¡¯s shoulders¡±.