Stanford Prison Experiment

Stanford prison house sampleThe Stanford prison house Experiment is 1 of the most notorious and interesting experiments in recent affable psychological science history. regular though the goals of this experiment were to tuition the psychological effects of prison house on people, it shed some light on how our behaviors mint be interchanged through the constituents we classifyicipate in. Current enquiry, and role speculation, has suggested that roles play a part in our identities and behavior. Par anyels between the Stanford Prison Experiment and incumbent research willing be studied.A Study on Societal RolesAn Examination of the Stanford Prison ExperimentWe play umpteen roles in our twenty-four hour period to day smell wife, mother, sister, fri shoemakers last, and coworker. all(prenominal) role has implied duties that we may or may not be so aw argon of. We work diligently at balancing all of our responsibilities, which if balance is not attained, could lead to d ysfunction in a persons life. In order to lead a healthy life, unrivalled must test individually role he or she plays. A Stanford social psychological science professor, Phillip Zimbardo, was one of the pioneers in exploring social roles, behaviors, and how they are affected by indisputable situations. His radical research experiment opened up the eyes of the participants and many an(prenominal) others as to what we will do in order to fulfill our roles.Zimbardo exhausted most of his early career conducting behavioral studies that tensioned on biologic processes much(prenominal) as hunger and thirst. It wasnt until the 1960s that he real numberly began to focus on social psychology issues, such as conformity. Philip Zimbardos experiment on prison life demonstrated how quickly a person faecal matter dissolve their own identity to fit into the social roles expected of them. The matter and aftermath of this experiment is still important in current day psychology. First, Zi mbardo chose the participants of the experiment to reflect the common or average individuals in the current society. According to Zimbardo, most were college aged, white males, who were from a middle class socioeconomic background (Haney, Banks, Zimbardo, 1973). After random assignment, the captive participants were arrested, booked, and then taken to the prison (Zimbardo, Haney, Banks, Jaffe, 1973). In an attempt to make the prison relatively realistic, Zimbardo spent a great deal of time with the details such as the mien of the prison and the cells, the uniforms of the guards, and the entry process for the prisoners on the first day. All of these components were be after in an suit to dehumanize, demoralize, and emasculate the prisoners (Zimbardo et al, 1973). The uniforms, weapons, and instructions that the guards received were in an effort to deindividualize them, which effectively displaced their identity, and supported their new authoritative roles (Zimbardo et al, 1973) . By day two, the roles were securely in place in both(prenominal) the prisoners and the guards. After a truncated rebellion by the prisoners, the guards felt even more justified in their actions and aggression towards them (Zimbardo et al, 1973). The guards became sadistic, grossly exerting their control to the point of not allowing the prisoners to use the bathroom, sooner forcing them to relieve themselves in a bucket that was not removed from the cells (Zimbardo et al, 1973). As time went on, the prisoners showed signs of acute stress, changes in their mood and behaviors, and started to act in be intimate obedience to the guards (Zimbardo et al, 1973). The purlieu in the prison experiment became so terrible that it was ended before the expected time period of completion.There are many reasons why this experiment was ethically un conquestful yet blue in information ab fall out behaviors and roles. I believe that there were many influences which caused the participants to delve so deeply into their assigned roles. One factor that may piss helped to change the participants behaviors was the fact that there was a power hierarchy. Even though this hierarchy was a farce and only part of an experiment, both the guards and the prisoners integrated this perceived imbalance into their identity. The actions, behaviors and attitudes of all involved changed drastically in the six days that the experiment was active. The male participants started off psychologically and physically healthy, as tested before the experiment by Zimbardo (Zimbardo et al, 1973). They soon changed into both sadistic, aggressive guards or anxious, compliant prisoners (Zimbardo et al, 1973). Outside people, who were loosely involved in the experiment, besides performed trusted roles. Both a priest and lawyer were contacted rough the end of the experiment and both acted as though the prisoners were incarcerated in a real jail (Zimbardo et al, 1973). Zimbardo also admitted that his ro le as Superintendent became in truth realistic to him (1973). I believe other factors may energize also affected the participants the environment, the presence of the Warden and Superintendent, and the emotional environment within the experiment. Almost each person who came into contact with this experiment changed their point of view to yield to the success of the experiment all becoming actors in a pretend, simulated situation. It took the experiments immature ending to remind everyone of their own identities, and that this was sup comprise to be a scientific study. This experiment, piece of music only intending to study a small microcosm of human behavior, exposed truths that may explain our behaviors in a much broader sense.The Stanford Prison Experiment has far reaching implications. Even though his study focused on a prison environment, the change in behaviors and attitudes due to our social roles basin be seen in everyday life. In order to fully generalise how our role s affect our behavior, we must first examine what comprises a role. A role is a set of norms that define how people should behave (Myers, 2008, p. 128). Role theory is concerned with studying patterned and characteristic social behaviors, split or identities that are assumed by social participants, and scripts or expectations for behavior that are understood by all and adhered to by performers (Biddle, 1986, p.68). According to role theory, social attitudes can affect how we behave and even how we define ourselves. An interesting instruction to view the interactions of our various roles is to organize them into a classification system, alike to what is seen in Biology. What starts as a broad classification, such as our culture and gender, can then be reduced into smaller classifications such as topical anesthetic affiliations. All of these roles interact with each other and affect our perfunctory lives. For example, I am a female in an individualistic culture. for each one of those categories comes with original expectations. Life would be vastly different for me if I were to be a female in a collectivistic society. Just one change in the hierarchy could change the subsequent roles that appear in my life. The study of roles and behaviors has been applied to many subjects. Many studies have been completed on how gender roles can have a negative effect on womens lives. Texas A M students Wood, Christensen, Hebl, and Rothgerber conducted a study on self concepts and role congruency (1997). Roles of males were define by dominance and females were defined as intimate and communal (Wood et al, 1997). The research results showed signs that men had a more positive self concept when presented with situations similar to that of the normative sex role, i.e. dominance (Wood et al, 1997). Women had the similar tendency to have a positive self concept when presented with situations congruent with female roles (Wood et al, 1997). But what if a woman expressed more dominance? What if a womans lifestyle called for situations that inevitable a more dominant, incongruent role norm? Eagly and Kassau postulated that women have a distinct disadvantage in leadership roles in the work environment due to expectations of their gender roles (2002). Women were perceived as less capable of macrocosm in a leadership role and evaluated negatively (Eagly and Kassau, 2002). This role unison theory may explain many hardships experienced by females, such as the glass ceiling effect. Women may very well be hindered in their careers due to gender stereotypes. Men may also be judged for choosing career paths that are perceived as having more feminine qualities, such as nursing. Furthermore, men face criticism for staying at home with their children while their wives work, also considered incongruent with current gender roles. With more and more women working, the standards for certain roles will inevitably have to change. Gender roles are just one small example of how social standards can affect our attitudes, behaviors, and how we live. As verbalize before, we have a multitude of roles that we live by throughout our lives. Each role comes with a unique set of social implications and prescribed behaviors. Each role becomes subtly stamped into our identity, integrated into who we are. I believe this quote is a wonderful summation and parallel analysis to the Stanford Prison Experiment and real world issues of roles and behaviors. Zimbardo statesIn some ways, everyone will be a prisoner or a guard at some point in their life, because a guard is simply someone who limits the freedom of another person. Parents, spouses, and bosses do this all the time. And the recipients of this behavior? Well, they are the prisoners. (Slavich, 2009).Even though this statement may seem somewhat pessimistic, there may be a corpuscle of truth in regards to the commitment to our roles and the consequences. We make little concessions to our freedoms every day. F or example, we have obligations to work X amount of hours per week. Maybe we limit some of our behaviors out of respect for our spouses. Overall, I dont believe that most people can vocalize that they get to do what they want to one hundred percent of the time. Our daily lives are dominated by rules and restrictions and that is not always a mischievous thing. But I believe it is important to examine closely the restrictions posed by the roles present in ones life.Zimbardo dared to ask the question where does ones identity end and ones role begin? (1973). The two seem to be invariably intertwined, each having an effect on the other. The heavy weighing expectations of our roles seem to form parts of our identity. Are we, as people, greater than the sum of our roles? Or are we sincerely defined by our roles, and our roles alone? Does being a parent, or a spouse, or an employee of a certain company truly define you as a person? After reading Zimbardos The Lucifer Effect and ceremoni al many of his public speeches, I believe he would say that we have the power to use our roles for good. Also, that we are capable of transcending and breaking free from the negative, offensive roles in our lives. Philip G. Zimbardo conducted one of the most important experiments in Social Psychology. The Stanford Prison Experiment gave us amazing insight into how extreme we will go in our actions and behaviors to fulfill our roles.