The Stanford Prison
Experiment was conducted by Philip Zimbardo.
Zimbardo asserts that the study was a continuation of the
deindividuation study counducted by Stanley Milgram (Drury, Hutchens,
Shuttlesworth, & White, 2012, p. 168). Zimbardo states that the experiment,
referred to by Zimbardo as the SPE, was developed in an atmosphere of
"situational revolution" in the field of psychology (Haney &
Zimbardo, 1998, p. 709). Zimbardo
further describes the purpose of the
Stanford Prison Experiment as demonstrating that institutional
environments influence, although Zimbardo's terminology is to "bend and
twist", individuals that pass through the institution (Haney &
Zimbardo, 1998, p. 710). However, DeJong
contends that the researchers did not have a clear hypothesis when beginning
the Stanford Prison Experiment (1975, p.
1014). Banuazizi and Movahedi describe
the methodology of the Stanford Prison
Experiment as taking a random selection of "qualified" samples from a
voluntary pool, then randomly dividing the selectees into two equal sets of
roles; "prisoner" and "guard" (1975, p. 153). It should be noted that Haney et al
nominally told the guards that preservation of order was their main role
(Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973, p. 74), however, a deeper look at the
experiment tells a different story.
Haslam and Reicher claim that Zimbardo did not give the
"guards" specific orders, but that he did give them a sense of how to
behave (2012, p. 2). Gross quotes
Zimbardo's instructions to the "guards" as to the creation of
boredom, fear and arbitrariness within the "prisoner" population
(2008, p. 22). A research assistant took on the role of warden, while Zimbardo
himself took the role of superintendant (Gross, 2008, p. 22). Banuazizi and Movahedi explain that this was
to explore the interpersonal dynamics of a prison, however, a prison in which
there was no dispositional difference between "prisoners" and
"guards" (1975, p. 153). This
lack of a dispositional difference is a point that will be returned to shortly.
Considering that Zimbardo had a predetermined purpose in mind
for the experiment (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998, p. 709), and that there was no
set hypothesis for the Stanford Prison Experiment, a closer look at Zimbardo's
motivation must be examined. Zimbardo's bias can clearly be seen in Zimbardo's
interview with Drury et al with his characterization of the death of Black
Panther George Jackson during an armed escape attempt as "murder"
(Drury, Hutchens, Shuttlesworth, & White, 2012, p. 161); six guards were taken hostage and three of
those six guards lost their lives during the escape, a fact lost upon Zimbardo. Zimbardo did state that he "knew"
of the "demonization" that took place in the prison system, however
(Drury, Hutchens, Shuttlesworth, & White, 2012, p. 162)...even when he had
to create that environment himself.
Finally, Zimbardo's study criticized those "prisoners" that
"took" the "guards'" side instead of "supporting"
"rebellion" (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973, p. 95).
It is unlikely that experiments similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment would be allowed
today. In today's "sue happy"
society, an institution whose IRB process sanctified a like experiment would be
litigated to death by a student body horrified by
"microaggressions".
If I were to proceed with such an experiment, I would do
several things differently. To begin
with, I would actually have a testable hypothesis. Secondly, I would not use the experiment as a
vehicle for propaganda. Third, I would
simulate a prison environment accurately, where the goal of the guards would be
to maintain order, not to engender fear and boredom. The point in having the guards and prisoners
share the same disposition would have to be modifed. In real life, people go to prison becuase
they have been convicted for being unreasonable and unable to follow laws. I would have to design two sets of surveys,
one for the prisoners and another for the guards, in which their
attitudes. could be measured (as
distinct groups) pre-experiment and post-experiment to see if the institution
did create a change in personality. I
may have even conducted the experiment by having a control group (either
prisoner or guard) whose behavior was strictly controlled to represent real
life, while measuring those attitudinal reponses changed in the experimental
group.
Participant safety in the
Stanford Prison Experiment was adequate.
Food and shelter were provided and physical contact was prohibited. On a personal note, it seems that the
"prisoners'" experience was much less stressful than Marine Corps
boot camp, and I went through that before the Crucible was instituted. However, the Belmont standards arguably
prohibit the intent to cause bordeom, fear, and a sense of arbitrariness through the
"beneficence" standard (The Belmont Report, 1979, para. 14).
The researchers did not learn anything. They had a preconcieved notion of what they
intended to do with the Stanford Prison
Experiment. They set the standards for
the "guard's" actions to ensure that result, and they did not
simulate an actual prison environment.
There was a major ethical problem with the study in the
method the research was conducted to arrive at a preordained result. There may have been an additional issue with
the study under the Belmont guidelines (which came later), but that is a matter
of debate. The primary reason I
personally do not feel that there was a humanitarian violation of ethics in the
study in regards to the participants was that informed consent was given by the
participants (The Belmont Report, 1979, para. 22). In my own opinion, this standard takes
priority over the other Belmont principles as long as we are discussing legal
and capable adults.
Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). Interpersonal
dynamics in a simulated prison: A methodological analysis. American Psychologist, 30(2),
152–160.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1037/h0076835
DeJong, W. (1975). Another look at Banuazizi and Movahedi’s
analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment. American
Psychologist, 30(10), 1013–1015.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.1013
Drury, S., Hutchens, S. A., Shuttlesworth, D. E., &
White, C. L. (2012). Philip G. Zimbardo on his career and the Stanford Prison
Experiment’s 40th anniversary. History of
Psychology, 15(2), 161–170.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1037/a0025884
Gross, B. (2008). Prison violence: Does brutality come with
the badge? Forensic Examiner, 17(4), 21–27.
Haney, C., Banks, C., and Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1. 69-97. Retrieved August 12, 2015 from
http://www.ffst.unist.hr/_download/repository/Stanford_Prison_Experiment.pdf
Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of
U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53(7), 709–727.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.53.7.709
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the
“nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
National
Commission for the
Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioral Research.(1979). The
Belmont report. Retrieved August 12, 2012 from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
................................................................................................................
Excellent point, [withheld].
I seem to have read about situational attribution in a couple of the
above cites, but I can't seem to locate the reference(s) now. Gross discusses four relevant concepts that
relate to the idea of situational
attribution; groupthink, mob mentality, herd behavior, and emulation (2008, p.
25). I'd like to add the concept of
pluralistic ignorance, which contends that people go along with ideas they
don't accept personally, but because they think that everyone else accepts it,
they themselves don't object. This can
lead to a situation in which the majority of a group accept a situation they
may personally be opposed to. I don't
remember where I encountered this idea, but the Wiki entry can provide some
introductory explanation (see comment for use of Wikipedia).
All of these concepts return to a central concept of
conformity. Arendt introduces us to the
idea of the "banality of evil" (Haslam & Reicher,2012, p.
2). Zimbardo also has introduced
"The Lucifer Effect" which expands on his earlier idea. And yet, I don't think that either conformity
or "the system" is a primary source of wrong behavior.
I always return to a central point in the way that I look at
human behavior: Human behavior,
including crime and sadism, is caused by the interaction of several factors, including
distinct sub-categories of the old "nature vs nurture" argument. One of these factors is individual reaction
to external factors (socialization, etc). In fact, I would say that
"individual reaction" is a result of internal factors (self-control,
resilience, etc). For example, what makes some youth resilient to criminal
behavior in high risk environments?
Conformity is just one of several factors that can can affect decision
making. My own opinion is that behavior
can be affected by situational attribution (an external factor) when the
internal factors align with the external factors (such as the example of the
one "guard" in the SPE mentioned in the bulk of the cites above who
displayed "extreme" sadistic behavior), or when a culmination of external
factors overwhelm internal factors...maybe an example of this would be
Stockholm Syndrome.
In my own experience. I could see one example in which
situational attribution could be used to describe my behavior, and one in which
it did not. In the four years I spent in
the Marine Corps, I emulated the behavior of those Marines I considered
professional, and in four years of undergraduate study, I either ignored the
academic environment or challenged those ideas I felt were wrong. The concept of situational attribution
applied in one circumstance, and not in the other.
Gross, B. (2008). Prison violence: Does brutality come with
the badge? Forensic Examiner, 17(4), 21–27.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the
“nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
Pluralistic ignorance. (n.d.) in Wikipedia. Retrieved August
13, 2015 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
.................................................................................................................................
The use of Wikipedia as an academic source is
discouraged. However, as long as one is
aware of possible bias, Wiki can be used an an overview of a subject for
someone that hasn't encountered that subject before. Wiki can also be used to gather citations,
again keeping in mind that the citations may be cherry picked to support a particular
point of view. Finally, I have found the
Talk/Discussion tabs of Wiki useful
(often, more useful than the subject page) in that as users of the site
engage in "edit wars" over a page's contents, they often justify
their edits with supporting documentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment