Stanford Prison Experiment

[Calienta]

Back in 1971 psychologist Dr. Zimbardo led a study in which 24 male undergraduate students (volunteers) were put in the basement of Stanford University (which had been turned into a mock prison) and were assigned the role of either a prison guard, or a prisoner. (Let it be noted that the prisoners were paid $15 a day ... in 1971 that wasn't a heck of a lot but it was better than a kick in the pants.)

'Guards' wore uniform-like clothing, wooden batons and mirrored sunglasses, and the prisoners wore crappy little smocks on which were sewn numbers. These numbers became their names for the duration of the experiment.

Some of the guards became verbally abusive, shaming the prisoners and turning them against each other. Some prisoners were forced to go naked, or simulate homosexual sex. They became withdrawn and taciturn, accepting the treatment (in one case they asked to leave via 'parole' but when it was denied, they stayed on).

The experiment was ended 6 days in (instead of the full 14 days) due to questions of morality.

So what do you think this shows us (if anything) about human nature? Do you think there is some sort of 'dark side' to humans, as this study would seem to suggest (also see the Milgram experiment with electric shock, or read Lord of the Flies) ... or do you think this was all a result of the situation, where the volunteers were essentially role-playing?

[Drunken Monk]

Well there are various similarities between the Stanford Prison Study and Milgram's experiment and I'll highlight those in a second.

As far as this particular experiment was concerned, wasn't the aims to see the effect of social roles on human behaviour? This is a perfect example of what social modelling and labelling can do and actually fits in with some of the debates in the Glamourised Crime thread posted earlier.

Basically the theory forming a link between social roles and human behaviour states that we all have certain "roles" or purposes in society. The nature and definition of these roles is not only what society imposes on us, but our own interpretation of them as well. The interactionist theory in Sociolgy says that the way we behave in a social situation (i.e. in the presence of at least one more individual) is determined by these very social roles and is then called "role playing". The guards in the Stanford Experiment (SE for future reference) saw themselves in a position of authority and accepted that as their social roles while the prisoners accepted subjugation and punishment because they believed that was their role in the aritificially created society - prison. The guards obviously at this point not only complied with the behaviour they perceived as being expected from this sort of social role, but they modelled themselved on pre-conceived notions of prison behaviour. The prisoners' behaviour i feel was more interesting because in addition to undergoing the same phenomenon as the guards, they exhibited another common human experience - extreme obedience to authority..this is where Milgram's Experiment (ME for future reference) links in.


Milgram asked a group of students to administer electric shocks to a participant (who was part of the study) everytime they got an answer wrong and gradually increase the dose to the point where it was fatal. The participant getting shocked was merely acting and the shocks themselves were fake but he noticed that 60% (i think :S) of the students obeyed his orders and administered shocks which were beyond the fatal level thus implying that the participant was dead. Thus we see that this form of extremem obedience to authority is not uncommon in human nature and may be linked to the prisoner's lack of objecting at being humiliated and subjugated to the point where they were reduced to sub-human conditions. Maybe we can assume that they expected absolute obedience from prisoners in real life situations and hence complied with the image they had conjured in their heads, thus using the social model to justify their obedience. Ofcourse interpreting human nature is will only lead us into a labyrinth of unexplored and often times inexplicable phenomenon but both these experiments highlight the importance that society, societal pressure as well as social modelling as factors in framing and even distorting our personalities. Kudos on the post (Y) Another one of my favourites for sure :D

[Doobz]

thats a bullshit experiment, the prison one is... just my thoughts... unless thats not the full grasp of the experiment there were to many variables left out and 24 people isnt enough to come to a realistic conclusion... just my 2 cents

[Calienta]

That's what a lot of the criticism surrounding the experiment was about. Also the fact that Zimbardo was playing a role himself, instead of just being a neutral observer.

I'm asking in general though, not just based on this study.

[Infidel]

read "The perils of obedience" by Stanley Milgram

much more in depth and detailed than what you posted. i'll be back with my opinion in a bit

i hate you monk... :glare:

[Drunken Monk]

thats a bullshit experiment, the prison one is... just my thoughts... unless thats not the full grasp of the experiment there were to many variables left out and 24 people isnt enough to come to a realistic conclusion... just my 2 cents


But Dr. Zimbardo would argue that his sample was random and so mirrored all walks of social life. Perhaps it's best to say that his sample wasn't a stratified reflection of society, and yes there are several criticisms based on the fact that he didn't really explore personal history of his samples, nor did he factor any other personal experiences or charecteristics but hey that's why he's been smashed from all possible angles! Lack of ecological validty, population validity, sample bias, experimenter bias, presence of sentience in human beings as well as the ice berg effect are all popular topics to smash him with..have your pick!

I hate you monk...:glare:
But why? :hehe:

[Infidel]

But why? :hehe:
you stole my thunder....

but you forgot a few things, they did the tests all aroudn the world, with women and men, and they did multiple tests, such as the effects of an authoritative figure over the phone rather in person

[Dai]

I suppose the validity of the study to be applied to larger populations generally is questionable, but I still think it's fascinating.

Does everyone else have the internal feeling "well....that wouldn't happen to me...?"

But I'd be fascinated to see how much of my "morality" would remain if I was left with absolute power and no accountability on a desert island for 30 years.

[Calienta]

Does everyone else have the internal feeling "well....that wouldn't happen to me...?"

Me! But I'm sure that I'm wrong. I will do little things if I know I can get away with them. After 30 years ... oo boy, I'm sure I don't even want to know.

[Drunken Monk]

you stole my thunder....

but you forgot a few things, they did the tests all aroudn the world, with women and men, and they did multiple tests, such as the effects of an authoritative figure over the phone rather in person


Ah yes it's coming back to me now..I remember they did this one as well where they dressed up 3 figures in different outfits - a milk man, a security guard and something else (i can't remember) and they were asked to stop random people on the road and ask them to pick up a piece of paper. They found out that most people listened to the security guard and not the other two figures because he repsented traditional authority and evoked submission in our natures. There's tons of others as well, you're right. Just having trouble recalling them right now. I guess I have a cue-dependent memory :P



Oh and Dai, I've oftened wondered myself if I was a despot, how I'd manage my country. Then again I do feel that enlightened despotism is the cheapest and most efficient way of running a country. It depends greatly on personality and the degree of self preservation we choose to endure doesn't it? I mean I would want to be a just and fair person if nothing else, to prove to myself that I am capable of displaying a substantial degree of altruism and moral spirit. Then again I have neither a desert island nor a territory to govern autocratically so I guess we'll never really discover a root answer to that question. Anyone want to donate some land? :hehe:

[Doobz]

Me! But I'm sure that I'm wrong. I will do little things if I know I can get away with them. After 30 years ... oo boy, I'm sure I don't even want to know.

well i guess to answer the question you originaly asked, "do people have a dark side?"

absolutely... people are carnal by nature. its how we are... and we are opportunistic as you have stated... i guess everyone has it, but some people worse than others. Then i guess you would want to bring up the social factor... is a person who grew up poor in a rough urban enviroment more likely to sell drugs and resort to violence to "earn his keep" i would say yes to this but then we see people who were brought up with money and still do those same things... so its an observation of survival versus opportunity... would i steal some food for my kid to eat if he was starving and i was broke... hell yea i would... is that right or wrong... some people would say go get a job you lazy bum, but at that very moment i had to do what i had to do... if someone raped my sister and killed my mom i can justify murder... but out of cold blood i couldnt... so im mixed about it, but there is a dark side for sure...


as for the prison thing... there is a code of conduct followed in prison, its not just a bunch of college kids thrown in a cell, and around here prison gaurds get fucked up for that kind of treatment... all people have in prison is their balls and their words, most prisons are segregated by prison gangs, wich in turn are usualy segregated by race... peoples crimes are considered wrong or right depending on what they have been convicted of, there is a certain mind frame that cant be achieved by that kind of experiment. a convicts experiences and thoughts about the things they have lost ,and remorse, anger, etc. all dictate the way one acts in those circumstances... id really have to research more about the experiment to give a full point of view but i guess to keep it simple, from my own experience... thats a bullshit experiment, but im sure it had some kind a value in it.

[HellRaiser]

So what do you think this shows us (if anything) about human nature? Do you think there is some sort of 'dark side' to humans.

Human nature is not much different then the animal kingdom.
Yes, we have may have a significant level of intelligence as the top species but we don't act it.
Human nature I believe is way darker and way more dangerous then any animal.
Everyone has a dark side, everyone at some point in their life, (for most more often)
have come across ther dark side in various instances or events. In the end, we all will
do what we have to do if pushed hard enough, especially when a threat of loss or survival is on the line.

[Doobz]

Human nature is not much different then the animal kingdom.
Yes, we have may have a significant level of intelligence as the top species but we don't act it.
Human nature I believe is way darker and way more dangerous then any animal.
Everyone has a dark side, everyone at some point in their life, (for most more often)
have come across ther dark side in various instances or events. In the end, we all will
do what we have to do if pushed hard enough, especially when a threat of loss or survival is on the line.

quoted for truth...

the only real difference is the thought process we as humans possess... lower species of animals are predominantly dictated by instinct... we have the ability to say no i dont want to do this, this is something we need to do, or im going to do it no matter what... we can be impulsive and careless but its almost like an advanced natural selection... its survival of the fittest and some people just choose not to be "socialy acceptable" about it

[Drunken Monk]

Human nature is not much different then the animal kingdom.
Yes, we have may have a significant level of intelligence as the top species but we don't act it.
Human nature I believe is way darker and way more dangerous then any animal.
Everyone has a dark side, everyone at some point in their life, (for most more often)
have come across ther dark side in various instances or events. In the end, we all will
do what we have to do if pushed hard enough, especially when a threat of loss or survival is on the line.



I agree with your point but that's what makes this experiment all the more fascinating! The prison guards weren't "threatened" was their "survival" on the line and yet they displayed brutality in parallel to how some Coalition forces treat POWs in Iraq. Conversely for the prisoners, they were "pushed" and they were "threatened" and their "survival" was very much on the line however they did not do anything to prevent the abuse being inflicted on them. What does that say about human nature then? Do have a breaking point as far as being 'pushed' is concerned and after that point, do we stop retaliating? As for the guards, do we inherently possess a tendancy to assert authority and dominance when we are acredited with the ability and means to do so over individuals we know are not in a position to offer suitable resistance? If that be true, then our dark side manifests itself at the slightest opportunity which would hence make us devious, opportunistic beings. Interesting to ponder.

PS The quotations in the post are not sarcasm, merely links to your post. Please don't take it otherwise :)

[Doobz]

you got a good point monk... you know we see it in every day life, even though not as brutal at times where intimidation tecniques are used for personal gain or self gratification... i know ive used intimidation to get things i wanted out of "weaker" people.. matter of fact i do it all the time for my job and yea it does work... but you get some people that retaliate back... you definately have the alpha nature, and there is a breaking point i would assume if it were torture or humiliation being used against an individual... it is pretty interesting to think about

[HellRaiser]

I agree with your point but that's what makes this experiment all the more fascinating! The prison guards weren't "threatened" was their "survival" on the line and yet they displayed brutality in parallel to how some Coalition forces treat POWs in Iraq.


Simple actually, since it was a game, they played the part asked of them.
They had fun abusing that power knowing full well there was no repercussions.
They did exactly what they thought a prison guard portrays, enough movies help.
Everyone I believe in a place of "power" even with the best of intentions will eventually abuse it.

Conversely for the prisoners, they were "pushed" and they were "threatened" and their "survival" was very much on the line however they did not do anything to prevent the abuse being inflicted on them. What does that say about human nature then?

Tainted game, tainted results, because I don't know anyone on this planet who would actually agree to be tormented mentally or physically on a daily basis for a supposed game or project.

Do have a breaking point as far as being 'pushed' is concerned and after that point, do we stop retaliating?

Everyone has a breaking point but why would anyone break from a game?
If we put aside the game aspect here and talk frankly as reality, our individual
"make up" we all would come to the same end kill or be killed.

As for the guards, do we inherently possess a tendancy to assert authority and dominance when we are acredited with the ability and means to do so over individuals we know are not in a position to offer suitable resistance?

Absolutely, it doesn't only relate to that position but any position of power.
The only true differential is the individuals intelligence level of acting out that application to be percieved as wicked or understanding.
In the end the individual still got what he/she wants.

If that be true, then our dark side manifests itself at the slightest opportunity which would hence make us devious, opportunistic beings.

You nailed it on the head here, in my opinion.

PS The quotations in the post are not sarcasm, merely links to your post. Please don't take it otherwise :)

Nah, it takes a lot to piss me off anyway lol.

;)

[Tony The Tiger]

Humans are animals, and nothing else. That's what it shows :goodevil:

[Drunken Monk]

Brilliant points there HellRaiser! I shall contribute a little bit more to that last post of yours but I'm a bit too lazy to keep editing and bringing in the quotes right now hehe. But do watch this space for some more details being discussed very shortly :)

[HellRaiser]

Hehehe..