Philip Zimbardo of Stanford is best known for what experiment conducted in 1971 that highlighted the behavior of people when assigned roles?
"gruesomely fastidious detail, while audacious and admirable in theory, begins to pay dwindling returns in a picture that feels rather longer than its 122-minute running time."" The Stanford Prison Experiment (film) The Stanford Prison Experiment is a 2015 American thriller film directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, written by Tim Talbott, and starring Billy Crudup, Michael Angarano, Ezra Miller, Tye Sheridan, Keir Gilchrist, Olivia Thirlby, and Nelsan Ellis. The plot concerns the 1971 Stanford prison experiment, conducted at Stanford University under the supervision of psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, in which students play the role of either a prisoner or prison guard."
"such as monitoring and lab work, may be managed by an outsourced partner, such as a contract research organization or a central laboratory. A study conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 examined the effect of social roles on college students at Stanford University. Twenty-four male students were assigned to a random role of a prisoner or guard to simulate a mock prison in one of Stanford's basements. After only six days, the abusive behavior of the guards and the psychological suffering of prisoners proved significant enough to halt the two-week-long experiment. Human subjects play a role in this experiment. This"
"experiment is that ""situations can have a more powerful influence over our behaviour than most people appreciate, and few people recognise."" At the end of the experiment, after all the prisoners had been released and the guards let go, everyone was brought back into the same room for evaluation and to be able to get their feelings out in the open towards one another. Ethical concerns surrounding the famous study often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former high school friend. Zimbardo reflects on the dramatic visual similarities"
"by Philip Zimbardo, a simulated exercise between student prisoners and guards showed how far people would follow an adopted role. In just a few days, the ""guards"" became brutal and cruel, and the prisoners became miserable and compliant. This was initially argued to be an important demonstration of the power of the immediate social situation and its capacity to overwhelm normal personality traits. However, to this day, it remains a matter of contention what conclusions may be drawn from this study. For example, it has been pointed out that participant self-selection may have affected the participants' behaviour, and that the"
"experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University on August 14–20, 1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo using college students. It was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. The experiment is a classic study on the psychology of imprisonment and is a topic covered in most introductory psychology textbooks. Sherif was a founder"
"and control station mock-ups. Role playing may also refer to the technique commonly used by researchers studying interpersonal behavior by assigning research participants to particular roles and instructing the participants to act as if a specific set of conditions were true. This technique of assigning and taking roles in psychological research has a long history. It has been used in the early classic social psychological experiments by Kurt Lewin (1939/1997), Stanley Milgram (1963), and Phillip Zimbardo (1971). Herbert Kelman suggested that role-playing might be ""the most promising source"" of research methods alternative to methods using deception (Kelman 1965). Role-playing Role-playing"
"them in situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as enemies or objects,"" Zimbardo told the Toronto symposium in the summer of 1996. Zimbardo himself took part in the experiment, playing the role of ""prison superintendent"" who could mediate disputes between guards and prisoners. He instructed guards to find ways to dominate the prisoners, not with physical violence, but with other tactics such as sleep deprivation and punishment with solitary confinement. Later in the experiment, as some guards became more aggressive, taking away prisoners cots (so that they"
"features of the situations in which people find themselves. In a typical experiment, seminary students agreed to give a talk on the importance of helping those in need. On the way to the building where their talks were to be given, they encountered a confederate slumped over and groaning. Ironically, those who were told they were already late were much less likely to help than those who were told they had time to spare. Perhaps most damning to the traditional view of character are the results of the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s and Philip G. Zimbardo"
"the experiment often draw comparisons to a similar experiment, conducted ten years earlier in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram. Because of the nature of the experiment, Zimbardo found it impossible to keep traditional scientific controls in place. He was unable to remain a neutral observer, since he influenced the direction of the experiment as the prison's superintendent. Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment is practically impossible for other researchers to accurately reproduce. Erich Fromm claimed to see generalizations in the experiment's results and argued that the personality of an"
"of traits, but suggest that situations have a greater impact on behavior than those traits. Situationism is also influenced by culture, such that the extent to which people believe that situations impact behaviors varies between cultures. Situationism has been perceived as arising in response to trait theories, and correcting the notion that everything we do is because of our traits. However, situationism has also been criticized for ignoring individuals' inherent influences on behavior. Many studies have found evidence supporting situationism. One notable situationist study is Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. Two groups of men participated in this simulated prison study. One"
"experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority. Participants' behavior may have been shaped by knowing that they were watched (Hawthorne effect). Instead of being restrained by fear of an observer, guards may have behaved more aggressively when supervisors observing them did not step in to restrain them. Zimbardo instructed the guards before the experiment to disrespect the prisoners in various ways. For example, they had to refer to prisoners by number rather than by name. This, according to Zimbardo, was intended to diminish the prisoners' individuality. With no control, prisoners learned they"
"conformed to a group and who would conform. Confounding initial criticism, findings of the BBC study were reported in scientific papers that were published in leading peer-reviewed journals. These papers addressed the dynamics of tyranny, resistance, stress and leadership. Indeed, it is possible that the study has formed the basis for more academic papers than any other single field experiment in psychology. These papers challenged the role-based analysis forwarded by Zimbardo and served to elaborate ideas associated with a social identity approach to social, clinical and organizational psychology. One of their central arguments is that individuals only move towards tyranny"
"task, therefore no dissonance. One of the most notable experiments in social psychology was the Milgram experiment, which studied how far people would go to obey an authority figure. Following the events of The Holocaust in World War II, the experiment showed that (most) normal American citizens were capable of following orders from an authority even when they believed they were causing an innocent person to suffer. Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment demonstrated how aggression is learned by imitation. This set of studies fueled debates regarding media violence which continue to be waged among scholars. In the Stanford prison study,"
"and Zimbardo study had similar levels of obedience compared to the Milgram and Utrecht studies. They also found that participants would either stop the experiment at the first sign of the learner's pleas or would continue until the end of the experiment (called ""the foot in the door scenario""). In addition to the above studies, additional research using participants from different cultures (including Spain, Australia, and Jordan) also found participants to be obedient. One of the major assumptions of obedience research is that the effect is caused only by the experimental conditions, and Thomas Blass' research contests this point, as"
"2.7 m), contained only a cot for the prisoners. In contrast, the guards lived in a very different environment, separated from the prisoners. They were given rest and relaxation areas, and other comforts. Twelve of the 24 participants were assigned the role of prisoner (9 plus 3 potential substitutes), while the other 12 were assigned the role of guard (also 9 plus 3 potential substitutes). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent and an undergraduate research assistant took on the role of the warden. Zimbardo designed the experiment in order to induce disorientation, depersonalization, and deindividuation in the participants."
"a normal setting. Additionally, this is a classic example of diffusion of responsibility in that participants looked to an authority figure (the experimenter) instead of being self-aware of the pain they were causing or engaging in self-evaluation which may have caused them to adhere to societal norms. This study prompted Zimbardo to write his initial theory and model of deindividuation based on the results of his research. In one study, participants in the experimental condition were made to be anonymous by being issued large coats and hoods which largely concealed their identity. These New York University women were dressed up"
"and the study incorporated manipulations designed to test some of its core hypotheses. Haslam and Reicher also argue that Zimbardo's own findings in the Stanford study arose from the leadership role that he had assumed as prison superintendent: explicitly encouraging the guards to demean the prisoners (see Banyard, 2007). Accordingly, in their study, Haslam and Reicher had no formal role within the prison. They also took non-reactive psychometric and physiological measures to back up and triangulate their behavioural observations and address concerns that the processes observed in the study were somehow ""unreal"". Zimbardo's (2006) final criticism is that the findings"
"underestimate the extent to which the power of social roles and external pressures can influence our actions. Some of the guards' behavior allegedly led to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. According to Zimbardo's report, one third of the guards were judged to have exhibited ""genuine sadistic tendencies"", while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized, and five of them had to be removed from the experiment early. Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become deeply absorbed in their roles and realized that he had likewise become as deeply absorbed in his own, and he terminated the experiment. Ethical concerns surrounding"
"would repulse ordinary individuals. ""I had been conducting research for some years on deindividuation, vandalism and dehumanization that illustrated the ease with which ordinary people could be led to engage in anti-social acts by putting them in situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as enemies or objects,"" Zimbardo told the Toronto symposium in the summer of 1996. Male participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. The team selected the 24 applicants whose test results predicted they would be the most psychologically"
"of the guards had a hard time believing they had been acting in such ways. This evidence concludes this to be positional behavior, meaning the behavior was due to the hostile environment of the prison. In 1961, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram led a series of experiments to determine to what extent an individual would obey instructions given by an experimenter. Placed in a room with the experimenter, subjects played the role of a ""teacher"" to a ""learner"" situated in a separate room. The subjects were instructed to administer an electric shock to the learner when the learner answered incorrectly"
"the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971). In that experiment the participants were placed in a jail, where half played guards and the other half prisoners. In six days the experiment derailed. The guards became aggressive, repressive and sadistic. They transformed into personalities outside their normal selves. ""From the Stanford-experiment may be concluded that human behavior is largely summoned by the local circumstances"", added his colleague J. van der Pligt, professor at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. ""People get carried away,"" said A. Bergsma of Psychologie Magazine. ""Isolation becomes reality. They lose themselves in the experiment. There are no checks and balances. If"
"ordinary people were capable of performing potentially lethal acts against other human beings by suggesting that participants may have entered into an agentic state, where they allowed the authority figure to take responsibility for their own actions. Zimbardo obtained similar results as the guards in the study obeyed orders and turned aggressive. Prisoners likewise were hostile to and resented their guards. The cruelty of the ""guards"" and the consequent stress of the ""prisoners,"" forced Zimbardo to terminate the experiment prematurely, after 6 days. The previous two studies greatly influenced how modern psychologists think about obedience. Milgram's study in particular generated"
"factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency and validity tests demonstrated that SIS was a reliable and valid construct of measuring military socialization. After the prison experiment, Zimbardo decided to look for ways he could use psychology to help people; this led to the founding of The Shyness Clinic in Menlo Park, California, which treats shy behavior in adults and children. Zimbardo's research on shyness resulted in several bestselling books on the topic. Other subjects he has researched include mind control and cultic behavior. Zimbardo is the co-author of an introductory Psychology textbook entitled ""Psychology and Life"", which is used"
"experiment, where college students participated in a study that simulated a prison setting with some students acting as guards and others as prisoners. The study was terminated when the guards became even more abusive than anticipated. While Philip Zimbardo concluded that the study shows evidence of the effect of the situation transcending personality traits, more recent studies show that these students were drawn to participate in a study of ""prison life"" because of their personality characteristics. Recently, personality psychologists William Fleeson and Erik Noftle have suggested that the person-situation debate ended in a synthesis. According to them, there is more"
"which he randomly assigned 24 men to undertake the role of either guard or prisoner. These men were specifically chosen because they had no abnormal personality traits (e.g.: narcissistic, authoritarian, antisocial, etc.) The experiment, originally planned to span over two weeks, ended after only six days because of the sadistic treatment of the prisoners by the guards. Zimbardo attributed this behavior to deindividuation due to immersion within the group and creation of a strong group dynamic. Several elements added to the deindividuation of both guards and prisoners. Prisoners were made to dress alike, wearing stocking caps and hospital dressing gowns,"
"modeling may be used to promote the learning of simple skills such as self-feeding for a profoundly intellectually disabled child, or more complex skills such as being more effective in social situations for a shy withdrawn adolescent. The concept of behavioral modeling was most memorably introduced by Albert Bandura in his famous 1961 Bobo Doll Experiment. In this study, 72 children from ages three to five were divided into groups to watch an adult confederate interact with an assortment of toys in the experiment room, including an inflated Bobo doll. For children assigned the non-aggressive condition, the confederate ignored the"
"and disorder. Ranasinghe explains that the common framework of both set of authors is to narrate the problem facing urban public places. Jacobs, according to Ranasinghe, maintains that ""Civility functions as a means of informal social control, subject little to institutionalized norms and processes, such as the law"" 'but rather maintained through an' ""intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among people... and enforced by the people themselves."" Before the introduction of this theory by Wilson and Kelling, Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, arranged an experiment testing the broken-window theory in 1969. Zimbardo arranged for an automobile with"
"his original experiment did not need repeating. He also claimed that ""The Experiment"" was simply reality television and that it had no scientific base or value, as participants would be playing for the cameras and not acting ""normally"" (Zimbardo, 2006). In turn, Haslam and Reicher have responded that their goal was not to replicate the Stanford study, but rather to expose limitations in Zimbardo's own theorizing and method. In particular, they sought to demonstrate that internalized group membership could be a basis for ""resistance"" as well as tyranny. This prediction was derived from social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)"
"found that participants' tendency to obey authorities was not as important to public opinion polling numbers as religious and moral beliefs. Although prior research has demonstrated that the tendency to obey persists across settings, this finding suggests that at personal factors like religion and morality can limit how much people obey authority. Both the Milgram and Stanford experiments were conducted in research settings. In 1966, psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling published the results of a field experiment on obedience in the nurse–physician relationship in its natural hospital setting. Nurses, unaware they were taking part in an experiment, were ordered by unknown"
"than 50 people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the experiment was discontinued. On August 20, 1971, Zimbardo announced the end of the experiment to the participants. According to Zimbardo's interpretation of the SPE, it demonstrated that the simulated-prison situation, rather than individual personality traits, caused the participants' behavior. Using this situational attribution, the results are compatible with those of the Milgram experiment, where random participants complied with orders to administer seemingly dangerous and potentially lethal electric shocks to a shill. The"
"in many American undergraduate psychology courses. He also hosted a PBS TV series titled ""Discovering Psychology"" which is used in many college telecourses. In 2004, Zimbardo testified for the defense in the court martial of Sgt. Ivan ""Chip"" Frederick, a guard at Abu Ghraib prison. He argued that Frederick's sentence should be lessened due to mitigating circumstances, explaining that few individuals can resist the powerful situational pressures of a prison, particularly without proper training and supervision. The judge apparently disregarded Zimbardo's testimony, and gave Frederick the maximum 8-year sentence. Zimbardo drew on the knowledge he gained from his participation in"
"those who are knowledgeable and trustworthy, so if you can be those two things, then you are already on your way to getting people to believe and listen to you. In the Milgram study, a series of experiments begun in 1961, a ""teacher"" and a ""learner"" were placed in two different rooms. The ""learner"" was attached to an electric harness that could administer shock. The ""teacher"" was told by a supervisor, dressed in a white scientist's coat, to ask the learner questions and punish him when he got a question wrong. The teacher was instructed by the study supervisor to"
"into account in such instances. A larger criticism is that our conception of the antinormative behaviors which deindividuation causes is based on social norms, which is problematic because norms by nature are variable and situation specific. For instance, Johnson and Downing (1979) demonstrated that group behaviors vary greatly depending on the situation. Participants who dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes shocked a research confederate more, but participants dressed as nurses actually shocked less regardless of whether they were identifiable or anonymous. They explained these results as a product of contextual cues, namely the costumes. This explanation runs counter to Zimbardo’s"