The doctor in charge of the Stanford Prison experiment was Philip G. Zimbardo. While doing the study he attempted to find out what would happen when you put good people in an awful place. Basically what will win, the good of humanity, or evil. It was the basis for the Group-think mentality. The way the experiment played out I would say it was a success, because each person adapted to the roles that they were given, some of them even to the extreme.
The symptoms of Group-think that were evident were:
Collective Rationalization: The “prisoners” felt like they couldn't escape after a while because they were repeatedly told they could not, thus they began to believe the “wardens” and didn’t reconsider their options.
Belief in Inherent Morality: The “wardens” started to believe that what they were doing to the prisoners was the right thing to do because the prisoners who had done bad had to be punished for it.
Stereotypes of Outsiders: Prisoners are the outsiders in this experiment, thus there is conflict and that leads to more issues
Self Appointed Mind guards: There was one “warden” that was the instigator of the whole experiment, and in the video he even states that he knew it was an experiment, and that he was posing one experiment of his own. He wanted to know how far he could push the “prisoners.”
Illusion of Unanimity: Some people in the video state that they didn't want to do what they were doing to the prisoners, but for fear of backlash from those who did they went along with the punishments. On the other hand the other hand the prisoners formed a rebel group under the control of one so that they could try their best to get on the wardens nerves.
Self Censorship: The prisoners learned to be quiet, and watch what they say in order to protect the collective group.
I think the prison experiment was very unethical, because it forced those involved to the extreme. It even drove one prisoner to the point of madness
No comments:
Post a Comment