# data[].attributes.body
I am taking this class in order to learn something new and that I haven't been exposed to yet. I've only ever taken World History or Human Geography classes and I feel like they aren't as broad and don't quite cover as much as this class might.

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing I bought was a Polly Pocket. It might not the the exact first thing I ever bought, but it is the most prominent memory that comes to mind when I think of what I bought for myself when I was younger. Nowadays I'm buying necessities that I don't already have or that I can't make (ie jeans and my food to cook meals).

# data[].attributes.headline
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 1 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.subject
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 1 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.body
Sociological Imagination gives us a sense of understanding when it comes to common topics like blue jeans. In order to delve into the reasoning behind why jeans are so popular and widespread, one must tap into their own imagination and think of the possibilities. Jeans are durable, they're fashionable, and they're diverse. What more could one want from an article of clothing?

# data[].attributes.headline
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 2 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.subject
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 2 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.body
Consumer Culture is nearly as addictive as drugs if you think about it; however, it is not done as consciously as drugs are. We buy what we think we need and what we think we will use later on, but we wouldn't dare to buy things that are super outdated or out of style. We reject these things at first but years down the road if they become popular again, the mass pressure of consumer culture urges us to buy the things we wouldn't have.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 3 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.subject
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 3 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.body
The unfortunate aspect of consumption in society is that it is usually done with disregard for the laborers working to make the products. It is not nearly as bad as it once was, but even to this day it still occurs. What is there to do about it? Maybe if we used the same energy towards the acknowledgement and help to the laborers as we do our trends and impulse buys, then maybe the circumstances would change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 4 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.subject
Intro/What is Sociology Entry 4 - 1/27/22

# data[].attributes.body
Putting myself into the shoes of a sociologist, I am not here to impose on others ideologies or beliefs. I am just trying to look at things from a different perspective and find the reasonings behind it all if I can. With that in mind, I would definitely not consider myself one who takes the world for granted and only wishes to look through one lens instead of the kaleidoscope of scenes that the world has to offer.

# data[].attributes.body
~Contrasting Marxist and Durkheimian Perspectives~
Marx:
-Believed in commodity fetishism, in which the outside buyers are completely clueless and blind to what's really happening behind the scenes of how commodities are made, collected, and sold. However, are they truly oblivious to the interactions happening between laborers, employers, and buyers, or are they just selectively turning a blind eye? (I think it's a mix of both).
-Believed that the limited connection and understanding we have of our food sources are a result of global capitalism
Durkheimian:
-Did not focus so much on the disassociation between buyer and laborers, but more so paid attention to how everything would come together as a whole
-Believed in the togetherness food had/has and its positive reactions that it brought on instead of focusing on the negative aspects behind the food and product industry

# data[].attributes.body
Food is more than what it seems on the surface. Food has been a way of connecting and showing different personalities and traditions for years. Since not everyone eats the same thing, not everyone will have the same views on the different foods that are eaten. It just that proves our diversity in the world runs deep and goes as far as what we are consuming for survival.

# data[].attributes.body
Aside from food but not far off is the traditions and practices of people around the globe. Everyone has different beliefs as to how to live a good life and adhere to their religion at the same time. For Catholics, it's doing your confessions and praying to the Rosary and going to church whenever you can. For other cultures, it focuses less on the mind and faith and more on the body- like the Nacirema. They believe the body needs constant influences and help in order to not succumb to the deterioration that comes with old age. They go through different rituals and have different techniques for preserving themselves that might seem unconventional to many, but it works for them.

# data[].attributes.body
Our culture and the way we are raised also affects our communication. Just like food, everyone's way of speaking is different. The tones we use and expressions we make while talking mean one thing to those within our culture; however, for those outside of our cultural circle the way we speak may look foreign (and not just because it's a different language). Many of the ways we communicate are not by words at all, but by actions. In our actions it is easy to assume immediately what one person thinks of another, hence the phrase "actions speak louder than words."

# data[].attributes.body
In a classroom for instance, it is easy to tell whether or not the teacher has grasped the attention of their class. The children will either be waiting with bated breath for the next lesson and have continuous eye contact, or they will be bored and twiddling their thumbs and looking at the clock every few minutes. Nothing is said in the classroom between the students and teacher other than the lesson that's being taught, but with the body language that is being given off by the students without a word, it is easy to tell what the room is feeling/thinking.

# data[].attributes.body
Most of everything we do is because of the underlying practices we have been taught since childhood and we hardly know we are still using them even as we are grown. Our beliefs and actions are based off of what we learned and "Right" and "Wrong" when we were little and we have carried them with us all this time. Our communication skills rely on what we learned as children and as we mimicked our parents movements and expressions when they were talking, they seem to have stuck with us as we do some of the same things now. It just proves that our communication and social skills are heavily developed from our parents as they have/had a huge sway in how we act and acted as we grew up.

# data[].attributes.body
Advertising definitely has a hold on us all when we really think about it. As the book states multiple times, advertising is literally ~everywhere.~ In the comfort of our own homes, in the car, in the theater, even in the shower if you happen to be listening to music. It is simply inescapable. It begs the question of WHY we need so much advertisement. We all know what we need to survive. What we need to buy from the grocery store, what we like to buy for ourselves occasionally. However, it's the unknown that gets us. It's the "What if this item they're selling really does make my life in the kitchen easier?" or the "I could use a new pair of shoes and those Nike's on that billboard look nice, so why not?". All factors contribute to the fact that advertisement is so important in everyday life and why it has continued to be so prominent for so long. In regards to research methods, advertisement uses consumer data and purchases in order to formulate their plan to gain as much money as possible. They use known ways of reigning in customers and making them think of their products in order to make money.

# data[].attributes.body
In order for projects to go smoothly and cater to the consumers, research methods need to be assessed and decided upon to see which types work best for which situation. If a company wanted to sell items such as candy and sweets, their target audience would probably be a younger crowd. Therefore the research method needs to be appropriate and addressed to a younger group of people using most likely qualitative evidence to prove why their product should be bought.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to understand why people do things and their reasoning behind it all, sociologists must also look at the thought process behind it as well. If we can see or get a rough idea of what people were thinking when they did something, then it is easier and one step closer to finding out why they did it. I know that when I do something (or even before I do it) I am constantly thinking of how I will do it and the most efficient way to do it. When I order a coffee from Starbucks, I recite the order a few times in my head. When I'm saying the order to the cashier I just start thinking that they think my drink order is ridiculous or I mispronounced something. In other words, my brain is always going and thinking even while I am doing something. This is the idea of having a self in each of us.

# data[].attributes.body
It really isn't a question of whether or not being an ex-convict has an effect on employment because ultimately it always will. There will be the wariness upon a first interview after discovering the record and there will be an issue of trust and wondering if the employer can actually risk having an ex-convict work for them. What if it comes back and backfires on whoever hired them? Or what if something even worse happened as a result of their new employment? Nobody wants to take on that responsibility. In studying human behavior and seeing how everyone reacts to their surroundings it can be seen that peer pressure and the actions of others has a huge effect on the end result. I know that when I hear on the news of someone who was convicted or captured and put into prison and (especially if it is something heinous) I immediately have an internal reaction to it. I think "How awful" when in reality that shouldn't be the case. What if they're innocent? What if they're mentally ill? You just never know, but because I have been conditioned to think this way, and others have only encouraged it and thought the same, it's hard to prevent the thoughts from occurring.

# data[].attributes.headline
Research Methods Required Entry - 3/3/22

# data[].attributes.subject
Research Methods Required Entry - 3/3/22

# data[].attributes.body
Coffee Shop Ethnography
Going into a coffee shop as with any place you never really know what to expect. Sure you expect to get a drink or food item or maybe you're just there for the free Wi-Fi. Whatever the reason, it will never be the same group of people in the shop and there will be different conversations and actions happening. Strangers talk to each other sometimes. Maybe someone dropped money or forgot their bagel or maybe they just are really friendly and sociable and feel the need to make small talk to pass the time waiting in line. I am more of an introvert and will definitely not spark a conversation out of the blue. A perfect day for me would be spitting my order out correctly, grabbing my drink and leaving with as minimal interaction as possible. When I am in there I can see many different faces and ages. Some are young and struggling to stay awake and some are older just out hanging around with friends. Some people inside are children with their mom's getting a hot chocolate.

# data[].attributes.body
Individualism in a mass consumption culture is something that can be hard to attain. For some of us, we want to be seen. We want recognition and for our actions to have meaning to someone. We want to stand out. For others, they like the veil that this culture provides. In such a vast society of tons of people trying to achieve their goals, it is easy to be drowned out and pushed to the back unseen, and for some this may be the ultimate goal. I myself am the latter option for sure. I see teenagers every day who do everything in their power to try to be seen. Eccentric clothes, different inflections in their voice to be noticed more, obviously loud laughs to draw more attention- you name it. I'm sure many of them don't even realize they are doing it; they just subconsciously want to be recognized in this world and so they're doing it by whatever means necessary. These are the steps that must be taken to be taken note of in this world and as crazy as it sometimes may be, it gets the point across, doesn't it?

# data[].attributes.body
Who am I? Who are we all? That is the question- isn't it? I know for a fact that I would not be "me" without the influence of others. Not just friends and family, but celebrities, artists, TV hosts, and many more. This is my socialized self that I have learned to be. I am very much a reflection of who I hang out with and listen to. I aim to please and therefore I am always thinking of what others' perception of me is. I try not to be overbearing or annoying, and I try to make sure they're enjoying themselves in my company and aren't praying that they can make a break for it to get out of a conversation with me. This is where the "looking-glass self" comes into play. I think that has a lot to say about myself because it shows that while I may be my own person, most things that I do will be a mirror of what I think other people want me to be doing. I'm not saying that this is a good thing; I'm just stating the facts of my character and what I've observed from living with myself in my 18 years.

# data[].attributes.body
With the idea that we all may be actors playing a role in the huge play of "Life", I think it's safe to say that we are all thinking of what parts we may play. That is the hard part. Nobody is the star. No one person is the understudy. Everyone will play an extra at one point. Popularity is not present in this play for everyone will get their turn to play a role in someone's life and some "scene" sooner or later. If we are in a play, who is the audience? God? What about those of us that don't believe in a man upstairs? Who is the audience then? It's all relatively subjective. We all have different parts and we won't meet every "actor" or "actress" out there. How are we able to act and live our lives if we go on thinking we are playing roles we are meant to? Knowing our every movement is being watched? It would be extremely difficult to live thinking you are constantly  being observed. When you eat, when you sleep, when you walk down the street- but it's an abrupt reality. We are watched every day. We play roles in others' lives that we don't even realize. If I spilled some coffee on my shirt in a store, I may think that no one saw and go about my day. For someone who did, in fact, see my clumsiness, I might be the comical topic of their next conversation. They might laugh about my misfortune and I would go on about my day without a lick of knowledge of what was said about me. This is the play. That was the role I was given in that segment of someone's life. I will from then on be "coffee-spill-girl." That's that. We cannot change our roles are do anything to get a different role. We live and the play continues without pause or care. And that is the scary part of living a life; knowing the show will go on with or without you.

# data[].attributes.body
When talking about one's self, as mentioned, we usually talk about what we do and how we spend our time from our day to day. Mentioning that you are a mortician brings about a plethora of questions and concerns to the other individual. They may find themselves uncomfortable and resort to anxious internal questioning. "Why would they choose that job?" "Do they enjoy looking at dead people?" "Is it a fetish?" All viable questions, however, for the mortician in question it's uncomfortable as well. They probably have a very good reason for their job, if only they were able to get to the explanation before the judgement began. This is what society consists of and how it will continue to be for a while. we have gotten better collectively of being slower to jump to conclusions and hear people out but it still remains a struggle.

# data[].attributes.body
Shopping has been made important and so popular I think because of these groups and relationships we form with the people we do it with. Things are usually much more fun when done in pairs or with groups of people. There are more people to converse with and laugh with and have as a part pf the experience as a whole. For some people, the only company they need is themselves and they are content with that. Groups can make or break a situation. That is why they are neither good nor bad. In mass raids and protests are groups good or bad? It depends what side you support. In a festival, large groups are great for the artist performing because it shows a big turnout, but for parking and trying to walk from one place to another, it's absolutely awful.

# data[].attributes.body
There are countless studies of social pressure having a significant effect on a participant or multiple participants. Authority figures, it seems, shouldn't have so much power over us, but subconsciously, they really do. When you are driving your car and a cop pulls up behind you, even if you have done nothing wrong, doesn't a small amount of panic set into your bones? Dou you put both hands on the wheel at 10 and 2 instead of the one on top of the wheel that you usually drive with? In doing absolutely nothing other than being a cop, that authority has swallowed you up and taken your control just like that. In a psychology article I read, there was an experiment at Stanford University in which a psychologist turned part of the school into a prison. Clothes were taken, guards wore reflective glasses so "inmates" wouldn't be able to see their eyes and would therefore feel more disconnected as a person with their own sense of individuality. It was insane. The psychologist himself got so caught up in the roles that he couldn't even call it quits because he couldn't see past the control he had over everything. It shows that in these groups and in having so much power, it can be detrimental and cause us to do thins we would have never even considered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For example, prisoners and guards may have personalities that make conflict inevitable, with prisoners lacking respect for law and order and guards being domineering and aggressive.

Alternatively, prisoners and guards may behave in a hostile manner due to the rigid power structure of the social environment in prisons.

Zimbardo predicted the situation made people act the way they do rather than their disposition (personality).

To study people's roles in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison.

He advertised asking for volunteers to participate in a study of the psychological effects of prison life.

The 75 applicants who answered the ad were given diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse.

24 men judged to be the most physically & mentally stable, the most mature, & the least involved in antisocial behaviors were chosen to participate.

The participants did not know each other prior to the study and were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison environment. There were two reserves, and one dropped out, finally leaving ten prisoners and 11 guards.

Prisoners were treated like every other criminal, being arrested at their own homes, without warning, and taken to the local police station. They were fingerprinted, photographed and 'booked.'

Then they were blindfolded and driven to the psychology department of Stanford University, where Zimbardo had had the basement set out as a prison, with barred doors and windows, bare walls and small cells. Here the deindividuation process began.

When the prisoners arrived at the prison they were stripped naked, deloused, had all their personal possessions removed and locked away, and were given prison clothes and bedding. They were issued a uniform, and referred to by their number only.

The use of ID numbers was a way to make prisoners feel anonymous. Each prisoner had to be called only by his ID number and could only refer to himself and the other prisoners by number.

Their clothes comprised a smock with their number written on it, but no underclothes. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.

All guards were dressed in identical uniforms of khaki, and they carried a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police. Guards also wore special sunglasses, to make eye contact with prisoners impossible.

Three guards worked shifts of eight hours each (the other guards remained on call). Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners. No physical violence was permitted.

Zimbardo observed the behavior of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.

Within a very short time both guards and prisoners were settling into their new roles, with the guards adopting theirs quickly and easily.

Asserting Authority

Within hours of beginning the experiment, some guards began to harass prisoners. At 2:30 A.M. prisoners were awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for the first of many "counts."

The counts served as a way to familiarize the prisoners with their numbers. More importantly, they provided a regular occasion for the guards to exercise control over the prisoners.

The prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behavior too. They talked about prison issues a great deal of the time. They 'told tales' on each other to the guards.

They started taking the prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners' benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.

Physical Punishment

The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders, they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, and they were generally dehumanized.

Push-ups were a common form of physical punishment imposed by the guards. One of the guards stepped on the prisoners" backs while they did push-ups, or made other prisoners sit on the backs of fellow prisoners doing their push-ups.

Asserting Independence

Because the first day passed without incident, the guards were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion which broke out on the morning of the second day.

During the second day of the experiment, the prisoners removed their stocking caps, ripped off their numbers, and barricaded themselves inside the cells by putting their beds against the door.

The guards called in reinforcements. The three guards who were waiting on stand-by duty came in and the night shift guards voluntarily remained on duty.

Putting Down the Rebellion

The guards retaliated by using a fire extinguisher which shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide, and they forced the prisoners away from the doors. Next, the guards broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out.

The ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion were placed into solitary confinement. After this, the guards generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.

Special Privileges

One of the three cells was designated as a "privilege cell." The three prisoners least involved in the rebellion were given special privileges. The guards gave them back their uniforms and beds and allowed them to wash their hair and brush their
teeth.

Privileged prisoners also got to eat special food in the presence of the other prisoners who had temporarily lost the privilege of eating. The effect was to break the solidarity among prisoners.

Consequences of the Rebellion

Over the next few days, the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Remember that the guards were firmly in control and the prisoners were totally dependent on them.

As the prisoners became more dependent, the guards became more derisive towards them. They held the prisoners in contempt and let the prisoners know it. As the guards' contempt for them grew, the prisoners became more submissive.

As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. They demanded ever greater obedience from the prisoners. The prisoners were dependent on the guards for everything, so tried to find ways to please the guards, such as telling tales on fellow prisoners.

Prisoner #8612

Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage.

After a meeting with the guards where they told him he was weak, but offered him "informant" status, #8612 returned to the other prisoners and said "You can"t leave. You can't quit."

Soon #8612 "began to act 'crazy,' to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control." It wasn't until this point that the psychologists realized they had to let him out.

A Visit from Parents

The next day, the guards held a visiting hour for parents and friends. They were worried that when the parents saw the state of the jail, they might insist on taking their sons home. Guards washed the prisoners, had them clean and polish their cells, fed them a big dinner and played music on the intercom.

After the visit, rumors spread of a mass escape plan. Afraid that they would lose the prisoners, the guards and experimenters tried to enlist help and facilities of the Palo Alto police department.

The guards again escalated the level of harassment, forcing them to do menial, repetitive work such as cleaning toilets with their bare hands.

Catholic Priest

Zimbardo invited a Catholic priest who had been a prison chaplain to evaluate how realistic our prison situation was. Half of the prisoners introduced themselves by their number rather than name.

The chaplain interviewed each prisoner individually. The priest told them the only way they would get out was with the help of a lawyer.

Prisoner #819

Eventually, while talking to the priest, #819 broke down and began to cry hysterically, just like two previously released prisoners had.

The psychologists removed the chain from his foot, the cap off his head, and told him to go and rest in a room that was adjacent to the prison yard. They told him they would get him some food and then take him to see a doctor.

While this was going on, one of the guards lined up the other prisoners and had them chant aloud:

"Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what Prisoner #819 did, my cell is a mess, Mr. Correctional Officer."

The psychologists realized #819 could hear the chanting and went back into the room where they found him sobbing uncontrollably. The psychologists tried to get him to agree to leave the experiment, but he said he could not leave because the others had labeled him a bad prisoner.

Back to Reality

At that point, Zimbardo said, "Listen, you are not #819. You are [his name], and my name is Dr. Zimbardo. I am a psychologist, not a prison superintendent, and this is not a real prison. This is just an experiment, and those are students, not prisoners, just like you. Let's go."

He stopped crying suddenly, looked up and replied, "Okay, let's go," as if nothing had been wrong.

An End to the Experiment

Zimbardo (1973) had intended that the experiment should run for two weeks, but on the sixth day, it was terminated, due to the emotional breakdowns of prisoners, and excessive aggression of the guards.

Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw the prisoners being abused by the guards.

Filled with outrage, she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!" Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality.

Zimbardo (2008) later noted, "It wasn't until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point - that I was thinking like a prison superintendent rather than a research psychologist."

This led him to prioritize maintaining the experiment's structure over the well-being and ethics involved, thereby highlighting the blurring of roles and the profound impact of the situation on human behavior.

Here's a quote that illustrates how Philip Zimbardo, initially the principal investigator, became deeply immersed in his role as the "Stanford Prison Superintendent (April 19, 2011):

"By the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of "Stanford Prison Superintendent." And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics.

When a prisoner broke down, what was my job? It was to replace him with somebody on our standby list. And that's what I did. There was a weakness in the study in not separating those two roles. I should only have been the principal investigator, in charge of two graduate students and one undergraduate."

Conclusion

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards.

Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal lives.

The "prison" environment was an important factor in creating the guards' brutal behavior (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study).

Therefore, the findings support the situational explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional one.

Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner's "final submission."

Deindividuation may explain the behavior of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.

The guards may have been so sadistic because they did not feel what happened was down to them personally - it was a group norm. They also may have lost their sense of personal identity because of the uniform they wore.

Also, learned helplessness could explain the prisoner's submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.

After the prison experiment was terminated, Zimbardo interviewed the participants. Here's an excerpt:

'Most of the participants said they had felt involved and committed. The research had felt "real" to them. One guard said, "I was surprised at myself.

I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something."

Another guard said "Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure." And another: "... during the inspection I went to Cell Two to mess up a bed which a prisoner had just made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it and that he was not going to let me mess it up.

He grabbed me by the throat and although he was laughing I was pretty scared. I lashed out with my stick and hit him on the chin although not very hard, and when I freed myself I became angry."'

Most of the guards found it difficult to believe that they had behaved in the brutal ways that they had. Many said they hadn't known this side of them existed or that they were capable of such things.

The prisoners, too, couldn't believe that they had responded in the submissive, cowering, dependent way they had. Several claimed to be assertive types normally.

When asked about the guards, they described the usual three stereotypes that can be found in any prison: some guards were good, some were tough but fair, and some were cruel.

A further explanation for the behavior of the participants can be described in terms of reinforcement. The escalation of aggression and abuse by the guards could be seen as being due to the positive reinforcement they received both from fellow guards and intrinsically in terms of how good it made them feel to have so much power.

Similarly, the prisoners could have learned through negative reinforcement that if they kept their heads down and did as they were told they could avoid further unpleasant experiences.

Critical Evaluation

The Stanford Prison Experiment is criticized for lacking ecological validity in its attempt to simulate a real prison environment. Specifically, the "prison" was merely a setup in the basement of Stanford University's psychology department.

The student "guards" lacked professional training, and the experiment's duration was much shorter than real prison sentences. Furthermore, the participants, who were college students, didn't reflect the diverse backgrounds typically found in actual prisons in terms of ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status.

None had prior prison experience, and they were chosen due to their mental stability and low antisocial tendencies. Additionally, the mock prison lacked spaces for exercise or rehabilitative activities.

Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting.

Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behavior may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behavior in real life.

This means the study's findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. I.e, the study has low ecological validity.

However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. For example, 90% of the prisoners' private conversations, which were monitored by the researchers, were on the prison conditions, and only 10% of the time were their conversations about life outside of the prison.

The guards, too, rarely exchanged personal information during their relaxation breaks - they either talked about 'problem prisoners,' other prison topics, or did not talk at all. The guards were always on time and even worked overtime for no extra pay.

When the prisoners were introduced to a priest, they referred to themselves by their prison number, rather than their first name. Some even asked him to get a lawyer to help get them out.

Fourteen years after his experience as prisoner 8612 in the Stanford Prison Experiment, Douglas Korpi, now a prison psychologist, reflected on his time and stated (Musen and Zimbardo 1992):

"The Stanford Prison Experiment was a very benign prison situation and it promotes everything a normal prison promotes - the guard role promotes sadism, the prisoner role promotes confusion and shame".

The study may also lack population validity as the sample comprised US male students. The study's findings cannot be applied to female prisons or those from other countries. For example, America is an individualist culture (where people are generally less conforming) and the results may be different in collectivist cultures (such as Asian countries).

A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).

Another strength of the study is that the harmful treatment of participants led to the formal recognition of ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented.

A review of research plans by a panel is required by most institutions such as universities, hospitals, and government agencies. These boards review whether the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in the light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These boards may request researchers make changes to the study's design or procedure, or in extreme cases deny approval of the study altogether.

Ethical Issues

The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable).

Also, the prisoners did not consent to being "arrested" at home. The prisoners were not told partly because final approval from the police wasn't given until minutes before the participants decided to participate, and partly because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise.

However, this was a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo's own contract that all of the participants had signed.

Protection of Participants

Participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying, and anger.

Here's a quote from Philip G. Zimbardo, taken from an interview on the Stanford Prison Experiment's 40th anniversary (April 19, 2011):

"In the Stanford prison study, people were stressed, day and night, for 5 days, 24 hours a day. There's no question that it was a high level of stress because five of the boys had emotional breakdowns, the first within 36 hours. Other boys that didn't have emotional breakdowns were blindly obedient to corrupt authority by
the guards and did terrible things to each other. And so it is no question that that was unethical. You can't do research where you allow people to suffer at that level."

"After the first one broke down, we didn't believe it. We thought he was faking. There was actually a rumor he was faking to get out. He was going to bring his friends in to liberate the prison. And/or we believed our screening procedure was inadequate, [we believed] that he had some mental defect that we did not pick up. At that point, by the third day, when the second prisoner broke down, I had already slipped into or been transformed into the role of "Stanford Prison Superintendent." And in that role, I was no longer the principal investigator, worried about ethics."

However, in Zimbardo's defense, the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners could not have been predicted from the outset. Approval for the study was given by the Office of Naval Research, the Psychology Department, and the University Committee of Human Experimentation.

This Committee also did not anticipate the prisoners' extreme reactions that were to follow. Alternative methodologies were looked at that would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.

Withdrawal

Although guards were explicitly instructed not to physically harm prisoners at the beginning of the Stanford Prison Experiment, they were allowed to induce feelings of boredom, frustration, arbitrariness, and powerlessness among the inmates.

This created a pervasive atmosphere where prisoners genuinely believed and even reinforced among each other, that they couldn't leave the experiment until their "sentence" was completed, mirroring the inescapability of a real prison.

Even though two participants (8612 and 819) were released early, the impact of the environment was so profound that prisoner 416, reflecting on the experience two months later, described it as a "prison run by psychologists rather than by the state."

Debrief

Extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held, and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, and then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects.

Zimbardo also strongly argues that the benefits gained from our understanding of human behavior and how we can improve society should outbalance the distress caused by the study.

However, it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were, in fact, more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the effects of living in an environment with no clocks, no view of the outside world, and minimal sensory stimulation?

2. Consider the psychological consequences of stripping, delousing, and shaving the heads of prisoners or members of the military. Whattransformations take place when people go through an experience like this?

3. The prisoners could have left at any time, and yet, they didn't. Why?

4. After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt?

5. If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you have conducted a follow-up study?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo's Famous Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, guards or prisoners. after a few days, the prisoners staged a failed revolt and were consequently punished and humiliated by the guards.