Reference no: EM133310006
Stanford Prison Experiment
This research study sought to explain how people respond to authority roles. During this study, the researcher, Philip Zimbardo, enlisted students to play the role of either an inmate or a prison guard. This study was planned to take place for two weeks and is referred to as the "Stanford Prison Experiment." Zimbardo's goals were to "see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard." In the study, Zimbardo played the role of the prison superintendent. The "guards" were given no training and made up whatever rules they deemed necessary to maintain control of their "prisoners." The guards used humiliation tactics to control the prisoners by stripping them, delousing them, and subjecting them to repeated rounds of push-ups and "counts" where the prisoners had to call out their prisoner number, as well as solitary confinement and physical confrontations.
The prisoners eventually rebelled, but this rebellion was quickly squashed when the guards called in reinforcements and order was restored. Eventually, the guards decided to use the prisoners against each other to help maintain order, and they created a "privilege cell" where the most compliant prisoners were allowed to have additional privileges such as clothing, beds, and special food, all of which the other prisoners were allowed to watch. Then, the guards decided to randomly shift the prisoners around and placed the "good" prisoners back in with the "bad" prisoners, and some of the bad prisoners were selected to enjoy the privileges of the good cell. The purpose of this tactic was to get the prisoners to direct their aggression toward each other and away from the guards. These authoritarian tactics and the psychological abuse sustained by the prisoners had a profound effect, and the prisoners became convinced that they were not free to leave. Zimbardo himself even began to feel as though his role and the situation were real when a fellow researcher questioned what his independent variable was and his response was anger at the question, because he "had a prison break on his hands." In the end, the experiment was called off after only six days.
Reference
Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Stanford prison experiment.
"Gender Is Learned" Research Study
A research study done by Dr. John Money introduced the concept that gender is learned. In this study, unnecessary sexual reassignment surgery was performed on a male infant who had experienced a severely botched circumcision. The psychologist, Dr. Money, told the family that gender identity is primarily learned, and was a proponent of the theory of gender neutrality, in which gender identity is developed as a result of social learning and could be changed. A factor in this experiment was that the baby had a male twin, making it possible for Money to have a control. Eventually, after years of psychological struggle and emotional angst, the boy was informed of what had happened. The child decided to resume life as a male, but he committed suicide at age 38.
Reference
BBC Science & Nature. (2014, September 17). Dr. Money and the boy with no penis.
"Behavioral Study of Obedience" Research Study
Another research study was conducted by Stanley Milgram. His study sought to understand how and why individuals are willing to obey individuals in an authoritative role. Participants and actors were recruited to participate in this experiment, with the actors playing the role of the learner and the volunteers playing the role of the teacher. The teachers thought they were participating in a study looking to examine the effect of physical punishment on learning. The teacher would tell the learner a series of paired words, and when the learner got any of the paired words incorrect, the teacher was supposed to administer an electrical shock. Neither participant could see one another, but they could hear one another.
No actual shock was delivered, but the teacher did not know this, and they would hear screams, stomping, banging, and other sounds of pain each time a "shock" was delivered. The learner would intentionally get the word pair incorrect from time to time, and each time the electrical shock was supposedly increased. The highest shock, 450 volts, would have been lethal if actually administered. The teachers would occasionally stop to question whether they should continue, and the researchers would response with four prods to try and get them to continue. Those prods were: "Please continue," "The experiment requires that you continue," "It is absolutely essential that you continue," and "You have no other choice; you must go on." In the first round of the experiment, 65% of the teachers administered the lethal shock. Subsequent rounds produced ranges from 28% to 91%.
Reference
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience.
Specifically, the following rubric criteria must be addressed:
- Describe what went wrong in the Stanford Prison Experiment and what could have been done to avoid this situation in the first place. Use references to support your recommendation.
- Describe what went wrong in the "Gender Is Learned" research study and what could have been done to avoid this situation in the first place. Use references to support your recommendation.
- Describe what went wrong in the "Behavioral Study of Obedience" research study and what could have been done to avoid this situation in the first place. Use references to support your recommendation.