Please click on this link to read about one of the most controversial experiments of our time: The Stanford prison experiment. Read meticulously, as some of the most fascinating (and disturbing) elements of this experiment are in the little details.
When you have finished reading, I'd like you to use the blog to respond to what you have read. I'm not going to give you guiding questions this time; instead, I'd like you to ask your own questions and offer your own, authentic responses. Tomorrow in class we will be connecting this experiment to The Crucible.
Remember that the blog is space to have a conversation, so read others' comments, respond to others' questions, and react to others' reactions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I think that this connects to the Crucible in the sense that everyone within Salem really "took on" and became too absorbed in thier "roles". Though those like Abigail's followers seem to genuinly seeemed to believe that all of town was taunted with witches and enchantment, Abby became and evolved into a position like that of the guards in the experiment. She actually was under the impression she had superiority and the right to persecute others. Those accused of witchcraft resembled the prisoners who were perscuted for nothing. They were given the inferior position in society without reason, just because.
My question to you guys is: Who stopped the man who ran the experiment at Stanford? It said that he became too absorbed in it, so you is responsible for stopping his experiment? Why did it stop only after six days? Why didn't they let it continue to see how far they can push human morality and reason?
I was shocked and appalled by the experiment. It really did tie into the Crucible though because everyone started to believe this as the truth. My main questions is why didn't they just study those that were already in prison and already guards? It seems like that would have been easier and less of a risk.
First off, I I think it's insane the prisoners were supposed to be in the experiment for two weeks, and they could only handle six days, but even then, they already showed severe disturbances! Seriously, I don't think I'll ever even run a red light after reading that.
As an experiment, however, it was a runaway success. All morality aside (I'm gonna sound like a psycho here, so bear with me), the experiment had clear, observable results, it was highly described, and it can be done on anyone.
Most people don't realize that this is one situation where the details are the killer touch. Lack of eye contact (with the shades) is used in the animal kingdom to denote that one person has superiority. In this case, it's the guards with the clubs that hold the upper hand. The closet as solitary confinement provided a stern warning to any opposition. Just like The Crucible, it's the details that provide terror from which people can rule. For the girls, it was their flawless acting.
To answer Erin's question, the experiment stopped after only six days because the prisoners were basically messed up by then. Go any further, and you've got The Holocaust. No need to experiment when you know what will happen. Besides, if you want to marry someone, you should do what they say; it was his fiance that made him stop the experiment.
erin- his girl friend at the time pointed out that it was immoral and asked for it to stop so he ended it early. I think that if they would've pushed it any farther people would come aways with sever phycological damage and could be scarred for life. In those situations it hard to tell what is crossing the line and what is not.
allison- I think that they didn't use real prisoners and guards because they wanted to start the experiment with emotionally stable people who start with good morals and with the prisoners they would have no idea if they have changed or it they have always been like that. Also they wanted to see how long it would take to push them over the edge.
I saw a lot of connections to The Crucible, like Erin said, Abigail really took on her role in the town and became more and more immoral the power she got much like the gaurds. My question is under less extreme circumstances than a jail or a puritain society would someone still succumb to thier role as much as Abigail or the students?
This experiment can connect to a multiple number of things. One thing that it made me think of was and experiment called the wave where a high school history teacher wanted to teach his students about Hitler and WWII. He began by telling the students to sit a certain way and then the students started getting into. Soon they had formed a group called the wave and they were recruiting people and had certain rules. The students began to take it too far and things got out of hand. They didn’t realize that they had become like the Nazis. This just goes to show that something or some experiment that might seem harmless may turn out in an unexpected way due to how people react and begin to believe that the experiment is real. This also relates to The Crucible because the town began to believe something that wasn't true and it got way out of hand and innocent people were hanged and killed.
Another thing that this experiment made me think of was the book by Ann Rand's novel Anthem. In the novel none of the characters had names they were known by a number like in the experiment. By not having names it dehumanizes them and makes the people in control feel better about themselves because if they don't have a name then it doesn't matter if I hurt them because they are less human. I think that our society does this sometimes and thinks people are lower than them so they don't really care about what happens to them.
I think that this experiment was inhuman but I think that it was also an eye-opener to a lot of society because it showed what could happen if people, good people are put into a situation or scenario like the prison experiment. It showed how just a small thing like authority or power could change a person. It also showed how a person would react when they were completely hopeless and could do nothing about the abuse that they were receiving. They begin to believe that what was happening to them was real and that was how they were supposed to act.
Do you think that society has helped contribute to the idea that some things are real and we need to believe them, when they aren't?
Do you think that some of the guards ever felt or knew that what they were doing was wrong but didn't do anything out of fear? (Like Mary Warren) What if there had been a guard who had stuck up to everyone? (John Proctor-ish)
What if roles had been reversed halfway through the experiment and the prisoners became guards and vice-versa? Would the new guards be more cruel out of spite and revenge?
I thought it was so interesting that people are so willing and able to turn a blind eye to things even when we know that we should think that it is immoral and unethical. While reading this, I thought of the whole Guantanemo Bay issue and how the guards there treated the prisoners, showing that this is not just something that happened in the 70s. I also thought of The Wave experiment and Brown/Blue Eyes experiment that I learned about in History last year.
Kelseyl - I also made the connection to "the wave". Although the purposes of both experiments were a little different, the results were really similar. People who took part in the experiments internalized their roles by personifying the characters they think they're meant to represent, or abused their newly-given authority. The shocking actions of both the guards and the prisoners could be explained by the nature of humans to embrace and live a new reality and their place in it, even when they know it's not real. It was interesting to read that none of the prisoners chose to drop out of the experiment, even when their monetary compensation was taken away. This is a pretty strong example of the fact that the participators were living the experiment, and no longer saw getting out of their new reality as an option.
I thought this tied into The Crucible because of the manner in which those accused of witchcraft were persecuted. The magistrates of the courts played a similar role to the guards in the prison experiment. They became so involved in the cases that they unquestionably believed the girls' theatrics, and signed dozens of death warrants. They might have believed that was their duty to Salem, just like the guards believed it was their role and duty to mistreat the prisoners (to further the results of the experiment, or maybe to further dominate over other people that otherwise would be their equals). If they weren't so caught up in the trials and the possibility of the Devil in Salem, I don't think they would have believed the girls so readily. In what other ways do you think this relates to The Crucible?
nicole~ I think that extreme senarios bring out human nature on a more extreme scale, but in a different environment, I think that the results would not be as severe, but they would still have similarities to the results of this experiment.
kelsie~This isn't answering your question, but I have a question for you (or anyone else who wants to answer). What do you think it is about names that makes people feel more human? Also, in Anthem, don't you think after a while the numbers would be seen as names are seen today, which would defeat the purpose?
I think although this experiment was extreme and rather cruel that it showed how it is human tendency to play the roles they are assigned, whether they want them or not. As Erin said, this is reflected in the Crucible when the girls take advantage of their power, and the "witches" confess to a crime they didn't do. My question for everyone would have to be why do we accept these roles, especially when we don't want them? Along with that how can you make someone truely believe something that isn't true?
kelser-
Ya i think society does make people believe certain things, although I would say that it is getting harder for them to do it.
It sort of reminds me on 1984, where the Government tells everyone what is right.
ALthough I'm not saying our Government is at fault for soceity being like that, I think that it has a part to do with it.
cate- I believe that only the people in the roles of power embrace them. The rest of the people who are less powerful only sub-consciously embrace them until they want to break free of it (like John in the Crucible).
Here's a question:
Do you guys agree with what i just said to cate?
I wasn't necessarily surprised by the statistics of this experiment. I did have a few questions though.
1. Why do you think the police department refused to help Zimbardo when he tried to move the prisoners to a different location? Could they have seen the results of the experiment showing weakness in themselves?
2. When all but one of the prisoners refused to give up their blankets, in order to release Prisoner 416 from solitary confinement, what does that say about humanity? Does that show that we are very selfish?
3. Of 50 outside people who saw the experiment, only Zimbardo's girlfriend spoke up and said that the experiment was immoral. Why did no one else say anything? Did they not see it, or were they nervous to speak out against Zimbardo?
Along with Maddie, this experiment reinded me of "The Wave" experiment we learned about in History last year. It also reminded me of a type of actor called a method actor, who encompasses the role they are playing, and "become" that character. It seemed that all of the people in this experiment were like medthod actors and became the type of person they were assigned.
Wow, when reading this article I made so many connections to The Crucible, it all tied together. One sentence that really stood out to me was “Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations.” That sentence to me is a main tie back to The Crucible. Just like in the experiment, the members of The Crucible “adapted to their roles.” The outcome of everyone just ‘playing a role’ has deviating results and as it was said, “psychologically damaging situations.” Just like the prisoners and guards were scared for life, everyone in the Salem society ware most likely scared for life.
Also, I highly agree with what Kelseyl said about how the effect of power or authority can change a person and how different a person reacts when they are completely hopeless. That is a really good point!
Overall I cannot believe what they did to those people, but then again it was their choice to get involved in the situation. Just like some of the characters in The Crucible (i.e. John Proctor), they chose to get involved in the situation. Then again, the people of the experiment did not know what they were getting into, just like in The Crucible, I am sure a majority of the characters did not know what they were getting in to.
Who do you associate as being a guard, a prisoner, or an ‘outside viewer’ in The Crucible? What is the outcome or lasting effect with these three positions?
erino-
I agree with you completely. The main similarity between The Crucible and the experiment is that both involved taking on certain roles. And in both cases, people really did become the people they were pretending to be.
nicolek-
I think it is probably pretty easy to fit into a roll, even without such extreme circumstances. It seems like the pretenders think it's fun to take on these rolls. The prison guards in the experiment, for example, seemed to actually have a lot of fun becoming different people and abusing the prisoners.
I think that another similarity between the girls in Salem and the fake prison guards is that they may have eventually even lost control over what they were doing, which kind of a scary thought. At the beginning neither group of people wanted it to go as far as it did.
Why do you think the prison guards of the experiment enjoyed abusing the prisoners so much. Are they letting out some repressed emotions because they they feel like the experiment is the place to do it?
Wow, this is crazy. I thought it was intense that they had to end the experiment after only six days because people got too obsorbed in their roles. I agree with what everyone has said about it connecting with the Crusible because everyone just got too obsorbed in their roles. This also reminded me of "1984" when it said "they will be controlled by us, by the system, you, me, they will have no privacy." So I connected that and my question is even though I donot like this experiment, it made me wonder, would the lower class have responded differently because they are used to different conditions, I dont know, I was just wondering. Clarao- I think it was just because that is what they have seen the prison guards do "stereotypically" it is what they know to do as a prison guard, they were following their role.
From my understanding of The Crucible and the Stanford experiment, the two have many similarities. My interpretation of message in The Crucible is that hysteria results in mass patriotism. Once someone is convicted upon hazy evidence, everyone’s fate suddenly becomes equivocal and everyone rushes to conform to “good, honest, patriotic citizens” whose sole ambition is to root out all “ungodly” recusants. Basically, people in the play overreacted in their attempts. They became so absorbed in their goals that complying with them was the only option. This scenario is paralleled exactly in the experiment; prison guards and criminals alike simply took the experiment too seriously. They were given instructions which they soon became too found of. To me, it’s as simple as that. An alternative interpretation: Just as the townspeople described in The Crucible, the prison guards may have become driven solely by their unyielding power to persecute (for the townspeople, persecution can be seen as conviction of “witches”). Power simply corrupts.
I do have a couple of questions though:
1) Why was “Maslach was the only one who questioned its [the experiment] morality,” why not others? Was the experiment hidden from the world?
2) Here’s an excerpt: “The experiment's result has been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support.” Is it our first instinct to obey? Is power gained through the susseptibility of the human race?
I like other's found this experiment to be appalling and shocking. I think what shocked me the most was that it happened in 6 days. It was originally suppose to last 2 weeks that is less than half the time for the people in this experiment to absorb there roles.
I think Erin O had a really good connection to The Crucible and I agree with her. Her comment also brought a question to mind: Is it human nature to absorb your given "role" in a society? Or is it human nature to want to be the most powerful?
I learned about this experiment last year in history and again, it apalls me to read about it and the torture that went on. Questions that did arise while I was reading were:
1) What do the results of the experiment show us about the nature of the human race?
2) Do you think that all the prisoner gaurds saw the horrible thing they had done later in their life? How do you think this would affect the rest of their lives?
I honestly can't even imagine that something would pass like this under the nose of a highly regarded school. Even though these students volunteered, I doubt they had an idea in what they were getting into. Although, at first, it seemed as though this experiment had good intentions, it fell way too out of hand.
clarao- personally I don't think that the guards "enjoyed" torturing their prisoners. I bet they just thought that they were carrying out their job correctly.
alyssas- Your second question kind of relates to the cliche "fight or flight". In natural instinct, if we do not know them in a very personal way, we tend to save ourselves.
My question: Because this was a psychological experiment, did the guards id overpower their ego? Is the prisoners superego related to humanities natural instinct to be selfish?
I really did see many connections to the crucible through this. One of the things I noticed was that they got too involved in their roles, just like the people in Salem got too involved with their "roles" in society. I think that this might have been one of the main reasons that led to the witch hunts. My main question is what led to them taking their (both the expiriment and Salem) role so seriously?
Just as it was in the Crucible, the people were quickly caught up in what they were doing. They lost the ability to distinguish between reality and the created situation. It is really scary to realize that people can so easily change their perceptions and lose their ideals. In the Crucible though, some of the villagers did not lose their sense and kept to their beliefs through it all. What is the difference between those who lost themselves and those who didn't? Are all people doomed to become like the people in the prison experiment, under the right circumstances (or the wrong ones)? Does something in our human nature make us suceptable to these sort of confused realities?
Post a Comment