Create general response to each of the posts below.

Create general response to each of the posts below. must be 300 wrds or more.Post 1

For this weeks forum we have to answer some questions in regards to the Standford Prison Experiment. In high school we went over this experiment for the same reasons we are. In this experiment Dr. Zimbardo nd his colleagues gathered a group students and conducted an experiment. In this experiment, students were given the choice of whether they want to be a prisoner or a guard. Once everything was in place and ready to go, it began. I find this experiment so interesting for the fact that they are all students, but given a certain role of authority made them change the way they perceived the “student prisoners”. Time starts to pass and the “student” guards started to really take on the role and the “student” prisoners became scared, scared at the fact the “student” guards were becoming more and more aggressive with them, violent and careless.

I think the way Dr. Zimbardo conducted this experiment was unethical but also had a little bit of ethical reasoning. It was unethical given that it is an experiment and let it get too far. For example, at the beginning they tell the “student” guards to not hit the “student” prisoners, but the longer they stayed in a position of authority they started to think it was serious that in fact they were prisoners. They started to abuse the prisoner, both mentally and physically. To me another unethical thing is that they continued the experiment even though the “student” prisoners were starting to be live they were incarcerated, the experiment was playing mind games with them. I think the ethical part is 1. they gave the students a choice and didn’t just tell him what part they were going to be playing and 2. they were told what the experiment consisted of.

When it comes to conformity its pretty much people falling into the decision of everyone else, as compared to having your own thoughts and coming up with your own conclusion. In The Standford Prison Experiment, after a while the “student” guards started to get very aggressive towards the “student” prisoners. Conformity is almost like a trend, once one “student” guard hit the prisoner, others followed and they all came together to keep that going. The “student” prisoners were questioning each other wondering if this had actually became a real prison. In my opinion, its all follow the leader for lack of a better term. If one “student” prisoner would of hit a guard, then another “student” prisoner would of done the same and it would of continued. It was evident that conformity and social situations were unfolded when the “student” guards became “real” guards in their minds and together they followed that thought process.

Post 2

Surprisingly, I can recall seeing the story on TV, years ago. Being very young, I recall very little, but with parental reinforcement I learned the adage about the corruption of power: ‘Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.’ (source unknown).

Question 1 asks if the experiment was ethical. In short, I do think it was somewhat ethical, but not necessarily morally responsible. In the time period that it was conducted, because there weren’t the constraining protocols that we have in present-day.

Stanford has long been a model for liberal studies, so one could make a case that the experiment was in keeping with revolutionary (not stated as admirable) conduct of school activities, and acceptably judged by its designed intent. In the late 60s and early 70s, America and its higher education system was a different animal than that of today. Many things of that period could be deemed as flakey. Sometimes, flakey is a good thing.

That said, I would agree that the experiment was reasonable by intentions and behavioral studies, and served to be historically valuable in several aspects. The value is in societal and psychological studies of human behaviors, as well setting an example for others to observe and avoid. By making some mistakes, the brain-child of the experiment, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, served to establish future boundaries and to establish better controls and protocols for experimental studies. Its design and execution are what I strongly disagree with; however, this is more than ~46 years later and our culture learned from Dr. Zimbardo’s lack of effective planning and coordination. He admitted that he was too close to the experiment, and had become emotionally involved and thereby corrupted by it rather than staying outside the falsehoods created.

According to an article posted on The Guardian website, the British Broadcasting Corp. revealed its intention to replicate the Stanford Prison Experiment in 2002 (Wells, 2002). Modern science and sound protocols/controls were exercised when scientists overseeing the experiment expressed concern for the mental well-being of the potential participants/subjects. This demonstrates that lessons were learned, and sound judgment intervened when there was real or perceived danger that the experiment posed.

The Stanford Prison Study followed Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority, ~seven years later. Milgram’s focus was more targeted to understand testimonies of Nazi Death Camp personnel; however, there is a correlation or two in the way people demonstrated authority when the individual perceives their actions are directed or otherwise authorized. Had Dr. Zimbardo or his associates intervened to enact some levels of control and restraint of the rules of engagement, the experiment would have likely been more successful, and lasted for the intended two-week period.

Question 2 asks how concepts of [socio-cultural] conformity and the social situation being studied relate to the Stanford Prison Study. In that period – the late-60s/early-70s, social conformity and social ethics were much, much different than they are today; however, I don’t believe that there would be much difference in overall findings, if the study was conducted in present-day America.

Solomon Asch did well to test obedient and altruistic behavior, and how it can be overcome by the power of majority influence (Wade, Tavris, 2012). When the majority chose the wrong answer (the lines), the subjects eventually began to believe that their decisions were wrong…when they were clearly correct. That behavior aligned with textbook’s groupthink symptom of self-censorship (p 346).

As steps (progressive acts/actions left uncorrected) were taken by both the Prison Study guards and inmates, the conditions advanced – or you might say they deteriorated. Referring back to remarks responding to Question 1, controls and rules of engagement (experiment constraints, parameters) were not in-place to prevent extremes or off-course results.

These regretful findings are still referenced without understanding in my profession (those unfamiliar with the ‘why’ or ‘by whom’) will implement lessons learned from past studies/experiments in exercise design. If we fail to learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it…or find ourselves more stupid than those that went before us.

Post 3

This week’s journal is by far the best one because of the Zimbardo prison experiment in Stanford. During this experiment, Zimbardo tried to make it as real as possible to see how a human would react with so much power over another person without limits. This experiment was supposed to simulate what really happens in prison due to the roles of guards having power over the prisoners. This experiment at first it was supposed to be 2 weeks but only lasted 6 days due to someone questioning the morals of the experiment because of the physical and mental abuse being done to prisoners by the guards.

Was the experiment ethical? At that time it was ethical due to their not being stricter standards for such experiments that involved physical abuse or emotional distress without their knowledge prior to beginning the experiment. According to the American Psychology Association, there are principles now that protect participants’ rights to know what will happen in the experiment that they will be participating. The rule giving that such right to test subjects is Ethical Standard Code “8.07 Deception in research”. With that being said, even if such standard were in place, Zimbardo didn’t know how far would the guards go with such power, but he should have stopped the experiment sooner than when he did — when he finally realized such brutality being used by the guards.

During the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, the concept of conformity used a lot was deindividuation. According to our book, deindividuation is the loss of awareness of one’s own individuality. This was used in the experiment by the guards to show they are in charge by taking away their social identity — not referring them by their name but a number.

The social situation I believe that is covered the most during the experiment is related to the attribution theory. The attribution theory focuses on how personality is affected depending on the attribution of the situation, whether it’s situational or dispositional. During the experiment, the social attribution that was under control was the situational attribute. The attribute states that being in a group affects our behavior. During the experiment, behavior was affected by the situational attribute due to the pressure given to the guards because of the role with a positional power they needed to fill. At first, the inmates didn’t take the experiment serious until the guards showed they are in control and have the power too due anything they wanted to do.

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"