OT: Stanford Prison Experiment

[Degen]

Good read (http://www.prisonexp.org/)

One interesting finding was the different roles people take on when given power (the ability to dictate the lives of prisoners in this case).

Some guards helped the prisoners, others were neutral or fair...and still others took on a mean personality that drew some kind of sick pleasure manipulating the inmates and the power they had over them.

These guards would lock threads like nazi's...i mean, uh. yeah.

[ChrisV]

There's also a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Prison_Experiment).

To me it's questionable whether the Stanford experiment shows the things that some people claim it shows, e.g. that the capacity to mistreat people under our power is in all of us. Sadistic tendencies were only displayed by one third of the guards in the Stanford experiment.

Since none of the guards really stood up to the sadism, however, a better conclusion is that people are willing to follow evil orders if issued by someone perceived as an authority figure. This is also the conclusion of the possibly even more disturbing Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). They sure did some unethical experiments back in the day.

On the same subject, less disturbing and more just amusing are the Asch Conformity Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments).

[bawcerelli]

there's another experiment that's based on the stanford prison experiment in the current issue of scientific american mind. there also happens to be an article on the thrill of danger, which goes on a bit about poker and gambling.

[axeshigh]

There's a german movie inspired by the experiment, 'Das Experiment'. Great movie, worth watching.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

This is also the conclusion of the possibly even more disturbing Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). They sure did some unethical experiments back in the day.


[/ QUOTE ]

These experiments may have been unethical (although personally I think they were not), but at least they were also memorable, influential, an useful. Sorry, one of my keys isn't working.

yeah, that has got to be my vote for one of the most eye opening studies ever done.

Its almost all I remember from psych 101.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is also the conclusion of the possibly even more disturbing Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). They sure did some unethical experiments back in the day.


[/ QUOTE ]

These experiments may have been unethical (although personally I think they were not), but at least they were also memorable, influential, an useful. Sorry, one of my keys isn't working.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think one of the best parts of this study is that a bunch of psychologists were surveyed and asked what % of subjects would deliver the max shock. they guessed something very small, like 1 in 1000. the real number was like 45%. i'm sure i have every detail wrong, but i'm too lazy to fix it.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
Since none of the guards really stood up to the sadism, however, a better conclusion is that people are willing to follow evil orders if issued by someone perceived as an authority figure. This is also the conclusion of the possibly even more disturbing Milgram Experiment. They sure did some unethical experiments back in the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just saw the original film created during the Milgram Experiment (my instructor said that you can no longer obtain the film, just a recreation of it) in my Sociology class. It is unbelievable.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, that has got to be my vote for one of the most eye opening studies ever done.

Its almost all I remember from psych 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol! me2...and it was my major. (maybe we covered it in Social psych too though)

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah, that has got to be my vote for one of the most eye opening studies ever done.

Its almost all I remember from psych 101.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol! me2...and it was my major. (maybe we covered it in Social psych too though)

[/ QUOTE ]

That experiment was seriously f-ed.

I went to a talk by Zimbardo, who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, and he looked like satan. Creepy goatee (or is it a Van Dyke?) and everything.

[axeshigh]

The Stanford experiment was stopped when they thought some bad things were going to happen, and since they didn't foresee such things, it wasn't unethical in the first place, and all the participants gave informed consent. The Milgram Experiment wasn't unethical either, just had shocking results. In fact, it was replicated many times in many different countries and passes every ethical committee.

[Degen]

are you sure?

i seem to remember that Milgram was one of those examples they used in the ethics portion of all my Social Psych (my degree is in Comm, a branch of Social Psych) pre-req courses.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
are you sure?

i seem to remember that Milgram was one of those examples they used in the ethics portion of all my Social Psych (my degree is in Comm, a branch of Social Psych) pre-req courses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that Milgram had ethical problems too because of the distress the subjects experienced when they thought they hurt or killed someone.

Absolutely, but it wasnt because of that, it was because they were mislead as to the fact that the person was an actor. It all came down to lying beforehand.

Way off subject, but does anyone else remember the experiment where they had some guy dress up as a cat in front of a baby, and then make loud noises? Dude grew up scared shitless of furry animals.

Ah well, all in the pursuit of science, I guess..

[Rduke55]

You're referring to the Little Albert experiment by Watson.
Really sick stuff there, but it was the 20's.
Little Albert eventually got rid of that furry phobia.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
are you sure?

i seem to remember that Milgram was one of those examples they used in the ethics portion of all my Social Psych (my degree is in Comm, a branch of Social Psych) pre-req courses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do use that example because it's become some kind of myth. I've debated this subject at large (I'm a psychology student) and have read articles from Milgram and from his detractors from back then.

To address the distress caused to the subjects argument, Milgram offered them psychological assistance right after the experiment. Also, months later to shut up his critics he mailed all of his subjects a questionnaire asking if they regretted participating to the study or if they liked it, etc. and only something like an absurdly low % like 0,3 reported negative feelings.

I work on some experiments in that field and I am certain that more than that amount of subjects hate participating to our experiments (of course they're paid...)

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
You're referring to the Little Albert experiment by Watson.
Really sick stuff there, but it was the 20's.
Little Albert eventually got rid of that furry phobia.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, that was textbook unethical... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
, just had shocking results

[/ QUOTE ]

I just caught this (I'm kinda slow).

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
months later to shut up his critics he mailed all of his subjects a questionnaire asking if they regretted participating to the study or if they liked it, etc. and only something like an absurdly low % like 0,3 reported negative feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the original film? Do you know if the participants saw the film prior to being asked their feelings about participating?

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]

Have you seen the original film? Do you know if the participants saw the film prior to being asked their feelings about participating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen 2-3 films on it, some were recreations and some had some original footage, I'm not sure if I have seen the original film you are mentioning though. I can't say for sure, but I would assume that the subjects didn't see any film before assessing their feelings about the experiment since the results of the first experiment came out in 1963, and I doubt the experiment was so overhyped immediately back then.

Exact quote: 'When the experimental series was complete, subjects received a written report which presented details of the experimental procedure and results. (...) All subjects received a follow-up questionnaire (...) which again allowed expression of thoughts and feelings about their behavior. The replies to the questionnaire confirmed my impression that participants felt positively towards the experiment. In its quantitative aspect, 84% of the subjects stated they were glad to have participated in the experiment, 15% indicated neutral feelings and 1,3% indicated negative feelings.'

Excerpt typed by yours truly and sourced from 'Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind' by Milgram which dates back from 1964 or 65.

So yeah, he doesn't say when exactly he mailed the q's but I guess he did soon after the results of the experiment were published, which is most probably before any films or negative publicity was spread around about the experiment.

[Irieguy]

Just a thought.

Irieguy

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
So yeah, he doesn't say when exactly he mailed the q's but I guess he did soon after the results of the experiment were published, which is most probably before any films or negative publicity was spread around about the experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that they would have replied differently if they had been questioned after seeing the film. I felt badly for the poor bastards myself even though I believe the experiment surely offered much value to society.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]

My guess is that they would have replied differently if they had been questioned after seeing the film. I felt badly for the poor bastards myself even though I believe the experiment surely offered much value to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they're poor bastards, just normal people. I would have liked to participate in that experiment to know how I would have reacted, and I think I could have learned a lot about myself.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think they're poor bastards, just normal people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to imply that I felt that the participants were somehow subhuman. I guess poor bastards was a poor choice of words.

You are brave for wanting to know how you would have responded. I'm hoping I would have refused to continue with the experiment, but then again I was born into a different era than the participants so it's not really fair to compare.