Stanford University, USA 1971.
"That's what happens when you put good people in an evil place? Can humanity overcome evil or is this the one that succeeds? These are some of the questions we try to respond in a dramatic simulation of prison life, conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University. "
- Extract from the Official Site Zimbardo Experiment -
The experiment Stanford Prison was a milestone in the psychological study of human response to captivity, in particular, to the real conditions of life in prison and the effects of the imposition of social roles on behavior. Was conducted in 1971 by a group of researchers led by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. Participants voluntarily assume the roles of guards and prisoners and lived in a simulated prison. Either way, the experiment quickly got out control and had to be aborted prematurely.
Some ethical concerns surrounding the famous experiment, make a series of matches to the Milgram Experiment, which was conducted at Yale University in 1963 by Stanley Milgram, a former schoolmate of Zimbardo.
The study was sponsored by the United States Navy, in order to study the possible conflicts in its prison system. Participants were recruited through an advertisement in a newspaper that were given the sum of $ 15 per day as a "simulated prison" for a period of two weeks. Of the 70 people who answered the call, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 that appeared to be the most healthy and psychologically stable. These participants were predominantly middle class white men. All were college students.
"More than 70 people who responded to our call
were subjected to diagnostic interviews and personality tests, in order to eliminate
candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities or
criminal history or substance abuse drugs. In the end, we are left with a sample of 24 students universaitarios
U.S. and Canada who were
in the Stanford area and wanted to earn $ 15 day
participate in the study. In all dimensions we were able to examine and observe,
reacted normally. "
The group of 24 men was divided in half by a random drawing. Thus, two groups were comprised of the "prisoners" and "guards". The prisoners later claimed to have believed that the guards were chosen because of their greater physical size, but they were chosen by simple flight of a coin and there was no objective difference in height between the two groups.
The same prison was installed in the basement of the Psychology Department at Stanford. A wizard of the experiment was appointed "mayor" and Zimbardo assumed the role of "superintendent."
Zimbardo set up a series of specific conditions of the experiment, with the aim of creating confusion and depersonalization in the participants.
The guards were given cardboard clubs and a uniform of khaki military style, they had chosen themselves in a local military supplement. They were also given sunglasses in order to prevent eye contact. Unlike the prisoners, the guards had to work in shifts and go home during the relay. Despite this, many would later to assist, even without extra pay.
The prisoners were dressed in robes of muslin (no underwear) and rubber sandals, which, according to Zimbardo, force them to take "physical postures unfamiliar" and will create discomfort, thus helping to create disorientation. Were assigned by a number instead of by name. These numbers were recorded in their uniforms, and the prisoners were forced to wear women's nylon stockings on his head, to simulate being shaved in the style of military basic training. Additionally, they used a small chain around their ankles as a "constant reminder" of his imprisonment and oppression.
"Even when prisoners were asleep,
not be able to escape the oppressive atmosphere. When a prisoner
flips the other side of the bed, the chain would hit his other ankle, and I wake up, reminding
still in prison, and was only able to escape from there
their dreams. "
The day before the experiment began, the guards attended a brief orientation meeting, but were not provided a formal pattern of behavior, except the indication of not using physical violence. They said it was his responsibility to the conduct of the prison, and could perform the way they wanted. Zimbardo
the guards gave them the following recommendations at the meeting:
"prisoners can create feelings of boredom and a feeling of fear
to some degree. Can create the notion of arbitrariness that their
lives are completely controlled by you, by the system, and not
have no privacy ... We will take away their individuality in various ways
. In general, what all this is leading to a feeling of helplessness. This is the result
that in this situation, we have all the power and
they have none. "
Participants who were selected to assume the role of prisoners, were simply told to wait in their homes to" receive the call " the day the experiment began. Without any other warning, they "raised objections" for armed robbery and were arrested by real police in Palo Alto, which cooperated in this part of the experiment.
the prisoners were subjected complete a police interrogation, which included taking fingerprints and photo signing and reading of their rights. After that, were transported to the mock prison where they were stripped naked for a review. They were also given their new identities. All the way to the prison, prisoners were kept blindfolded.
The experiment quickly got out of control. The prisoners suffered-and accepted-a sadistic and humiliating treatment by the guards, and by the end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.
After a first day passed without major incident, a riot broke out on day two. The guards were voluntary overtime and worked together to suppress the revolt, without supervision research staff. After this point, the guards tried to divide the prisoners and put them against each other, placing a cell for the "good" and another "bad", in order to make them believe that there were "informers" between their ranks. This tactic proved very effective, and from that point, there were no more large-scale rebellions. According to ex-offenders interviewed by Zimbardo, a similar tactic was used successfully in the United States prisons.
"ex-convicts Our consultants told us later that
a similar tactic is used by prison guards actual breaking partnerships
prisoners. Racism, for example, is used to make blacks, Chicanos and Anglos
, one against the other. The fact is that in a real prison,
the greatest threat to any prisoner's life comes from his own
peers. "
The" counts "of prisoners, who had initially been implemented to help them become familiar with their numbers identity, degenerated into traumatic experiences of hours, in which the guards tormented the prisoners and punishment applied including long sessions of physical exertion.
Conditions hygiene of the prison very soon made it uninhabitable. The right to use the toilet became a privilege that could, and very often was denied. Some prisoners were forced to clean toilets using nothing but their own hands. The mattresses were removed from the cell for the "bad", and the prisoners were forced to sleep on the concrete floor without clothing. Food was also frequently denied as a method of punishment. Prisoners endured forced nudity and even homosexual acts of humiliation.
Zimbardo himself has cited his growing absorption of the experiment, in which participated actively. In the fourth day, and the guards responded to the rumor of an escape plan, trying to move the experiment to a real cell the local Police Department, under the pretext that this was more "secure." The Police Department refused and withdrew Zimbardo furious at the lack of cooperation.
As the experiment progressed, several of the guards were showing increasingly sadistic behavior, particularly at night, when they thought they were off camera. The researchers said that about a third of the guards showed "genuine" sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset by the fact that the experiment was terminated prematurely.
prisoners for their part, began to show severe emotional disorders. One of the prisoners developed a psychosomatic rash all over his body when he learned that his "parole" had been rejected (Zimbardo rejected the belief that the prisoner was just trying to get out of prison by faking an illness). Were common among the prisoners, uncontrollable crying and disorganized thinking. Two of the prisoners suffered such severe trauma that the experiment was quickly removed and replaced by new entrants.
"within 36 hours after onset the experiment, Prisoner # 8612
began to suffer severe emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying and rage
. Despite all this, we initially thought that the prisoner
was faking his condition in order to be released.
During the next count, Prisoner # 8612 told other prisoners
"We can not leave, we can not renounce." That statement gave a chilling message
and increased the feeling of captivity among the prisoners.
After that, the prisoner # 8612 began acting strangely, yelling, cursing
and angry in a seemingly out of control. It took us a while to convince
was really suffering and that we should release him. "
replaced one of the prisoners, prisoner # 416, was horrified by the treatment of the guards and decided to start a hunger strike in protest. As a result, was confined to an isolation cell for three hours. During this time, was forced to hold food that had been refusing food. The other prisoners saw him as a troublemaker. To exploit this feeling, the guards gave the prisoners a choice: Prisoners could give up their blankets and free the prisoner 416, or leave the confinement cell. All the prisoners decided keep their blankets. Later, Zimbardo speaking for the # 416 back to his cell. Some time later, the subject was known within the experiment with the nickname of "prisoner # 416" said:
"I started to feel I was losing my identity. Do not think there was
an experiment or a simulation, because it was a real prison
conducted by psychologists rather than by the state. I started to feel my
identity, the person who had volunteered as a participant noted
the experiment was far from me. I was 416.
I was really my number. "
Zimbardo decided to end his experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student who had been hired by the staff conductor of the experiment for interviews, complained of the inhumane conditions of "jail." Zimbardo has noted that the 50 people outside the experiment that had access to the "prison", she was the only one who questioned the morality of the experiment. After only six days after the originally scheduled two weeks, the experiment was terminated.
has been stated that experiment results demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of the people when they are provided social and institutional support. It has also been used to illustrate the theory of cognitive dissonance and the power of authority.
In psychology, it is said that the experiment results support the theory that in certain situations, situational attributions of behavior over the attributions. In other words, it seems, the more influential position in the participants' behavior than any inherent aspect of their individual personalities. Thus, it is consistent with the findings of the also famous Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people ordered the implementation of what they thought were electric shocks fatal, an actor hired by the investigators to impersonate the victim role.
By coincidence, shortly after the study was completed, bloody riots took place both in San Quentin prison like Attica prison. Zimbardo then reported the findings of their experiment in the Judicial Committee of the United States.
The experiment was widely criticized as unethical and scientifically. The criticisms included the questioning of Erich Fromm, who said the results of the experiment could not be generalized to the rest of the population.
Because the study was entering a experimental field was impossible to keep traditional scientific controls. Zimbardo was not merely a neutral observer, but influenced the direction of the experiment by assuming the role of "superintendent." The findings and observations from the experiment were rather anecdotal and subjective, and the experiment would be very difficult to replicate by other researchers.
Some critics of the experiment, participants claim that their behavior based on what they thought was expected of them, or modeled on the stereotypes they already had about how prisoners should behave and guards inside a prison. In other words, participants were only playing a role. In response, Zimbardo said that even if participants had played a role at the beginning, they internalized this role while the experiment development.
The experiment was also criticized on the basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed on the experiment were arbitrary and could not be correlated with the actual conditions of a prison, including blindfolding the newly arrived prisoners, forced to wear women's clothing, inability to wear underwear or peek through the windows as well as not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo said that the prison is confusing and dehumanizing, and it was necessary to implement these procedures for placing prisoners in a state of mind to the objects of study. Either way, it is difficult to establish how similar were the conditions of the experiment to a real prison. The methods of the experiment would be difficult to replicate so that others might try.
Some have said that the study was too deterministic: the reports show significant differences in the cruelty of the guards. The worst displays of violence and cruelty came from one of the guards, known by the nickname "John Wayne", but other guards were docile and did favors for the prisoners. Zimbardo made no attempt to explain these differences.
Finally, the sample was too small, with only 24 participants interacting by a short period of time.
Haslam and Reicher (2003), psychologists at the University of Exeter and the University of Saint Andrew, conducted a partial replica of the experiment in collaboration with the BBC, which broadcast scenes from the study as part of a TV show called "The Experiment." Their findings and conclusions were very different from those of Zimbardo. Even though its procedures were not an exact replica of the procedures used by Zimbardo, their study can raise questions about the generalizability of the findings of Experiment Stanford Prison.
Despite all this, Zimbardo Experiment has an official website, describing it as "a classic study on the psychology of imprisonment."
0 comments:
Post a Comment