Tuesday, December 18, 2018
'Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment Essay\r'
'This is a critique of an article make in news report of Higher Education, (v53 n30 pB6 Mar. 30, 2007) on Ã¢â¬Å"Revisiting the Stanford prison Experiment: a Lesson in the Power of bitÃ¢â¬Â by Philip G. Zimbardo. This article discusses issues related to how near(a) population can turn bad.\r\nSUMMARY\r\nIn this article, Zimbardo looks at his previous kind investigate on natural do by in prison and discusses the issues related to the mental effects of becoming a prisoner or prison refuge, the social power of groups, and how the great unwashed would act if they were brought into direct oppositeness; whether it would turn good people bad. The fountain discusses his past social audition on physical abuse in prison that was conducted in the basement of the Stanford Psychology department.\r\nPROBLEM SPECIFIED IN THE ARTICLE\r\nOne of many of studies in psychology, the Stanford prison house Experiment reveals from its usual set point, the extent to which kind-hearted beha vior can be transformed and ar readily accepting a dehumanised initiation of others. Ã¢â¬Å"Even to readily accepting a dehumanized conception of others, as Ã¢â¬Ëanimals,Ã¢â¬â¢ and to accepting spurious rationales for why pain will be good for them,Ã¢â¬Â (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 4). The Stanford prison Experiment is compared to the Abu Ghraib situation, and also discussed are the implications of this research to the deplorable justice carcass. The problems specified in the article addresses the social power of groups and as to whether a person could be influenced to exert power over someone else.\r\nThe experiment called for twenty-four school-age child participants to act as e very a prisoner or a guard in the Ã¢â¬Å"prisonÃ¢â¬Â basement,Ã¢â¬Â (Zimbardo, 2007, para 5). After the startle day, the guards exercised their powers with increasing authority, forcing the prisoners to do things same making them study abusive things to each other and forcing them to participat e in sexual perversion. The experiment was getting out of bridge player; Zimbardo himself was engrossed in his role. The problem with this experiment was that Zimbardo should live with appointed someone with oversight over the full-length project, in which could be terminated immediately if things were to go bad. This did not happen. Zimbardo was not only over the experiment, precisely he played the role of prison superint abateent, only when nobody to watch over him.\r\nSTANFORD PRISON essay COMPARED TO THE ABU GHRAIB SITUATION\r\nIn the Abu Ghraib situation, U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners, in which were stripped, and forced to wear bags over their heads, and were sexually humiliated. The guards would put-on and mock the prisoners while taking pictures of them in degrade positions. This abuse is similar to what took place in the Stanford prison Experiment but in Stanford, the experiment was finish when it became known that the student guards were starting to do this to the student prisoners, unlike that of Abu Ghraib.\r\nANALYSIS OF THE DATA\r\nThe experiment was to live on fourteen days but it was an outsider that make Zimbardo realize that he had gone too far. Ã¢â¬Å"That sinewy jolt of reality snapped back into my senses. I agree that we had gone too far, that whatever was to be erudite about situational power was already indelibly sculpted on our videos, data logs, and minds,Ã¢â¬Â (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 3). A colleague and fop psychologist, Christina Maslach came to visit the mock prison and became very broken at what she witnessed.\r\nShe seen the emotional breakdown of the prisoners, who were Ã¢â¬Å"lined up with bags over their heads, their legs chained, and guards shouting abuses at them while herding them to the toilet, Ã¢â¬Â (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 3). Christina became very upset, and yelled, Ã¢â¬Å"It is terrible what YOU are doing to those boys,Ã¢â¬Â (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 4). Zimbardo realized what he had give-up the ghost in h is newfound role and put an end to the experiment early on day 6. The criminal-justice dust largely ignores situational forces and focuses primarily on individual defendants and their read of mind. Other factors should be considered by the criminal-justice establishment, such as what made them want to apply physical, psychological, and emotional abuse to the prisoners.\r\nAUTHORÃ¢â¬â¢S CONCLUSIONS\r\nThe author claims that people solely are incapable of criminal culpability. After reviewing the videotapes, Zimbardo argues Ã¢â¬Å"like the horrible behavior brought out by my experiment in good, normal young men, the situation and the system creating it also must share in the obligation for illegal and immoral behavior,Ã¢â¬Â (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 4). I am in agreement with the author in that the situation and the system creating it must also share in right for illegal and immoral behavior because of the pressures of groupthink.\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nThe Stanford prison house Experim ent came about because at that time, social-science research did not have any studies with the direct confrontation of good versus evil against the forces inherent in bad situations. Psychologist Philip Zimbardo valued to create a situation in a controlled experimental setting with Ã¢â¬Å"a host of variables, such as role-playing, coercive rules, power differentials, anonymity, group dynamics, and dehumanization, (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 1). The author wanted to know who would win if brought into direct confrontation; good people or an evil situation.\r\nReferences\r\nZimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison Experiment: a Lesson in the Power of Situation. _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, 53(30). Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA161992127& vitamin A;v=2.1&u=oran95108&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w.\r\n'