Prison Experiment

In 1971, psychologist created one of the most important experiments in the history of psychology.

The experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, look at the impact of situations on human behavior.

The researchers, led by Philip Zimbardo, wanted to know how situations could affect how people behave.

In particular, they wanted to know if good people would change their personalities and lose their values.

In the experiment, participants were divided into two groups.

One group became prison guards, and the other group became prison inmates.

The experiment was set up in Stanford University’s psychology building.

A group of 24 students was chosen to play the roles, 12 guards, and 12 prisoners.

The students came from a large group of volunteers who wanted to participate in a psychology experiment.

Those who were chosen had no criminal background and had no significant medical or psychological problems.

They agreed to participate in the experiment for a one to two-week period.

The prisoners had to remain in prison 24hours a day during the experiment.

Guards worked in teams of three and were assigned to work in eight-hour shifts.

Unlike the prisoners, they were free to return to their homes between shifts.

Hidden cameras and microphones were used to observe the behaviors of both prisoners and guards.

The simulated prison included three small prison cells, 6 feet by 9 feet.

Each cell had three small beds and held three prisoners.

There was a closet that served as a solitary confinement room.

This was used to isolate prisoners who needed to be punished for bad behavior.

Guards were instructed not to physically harm the prisoners in any way.

Prisoners were to be addressed by their assigned numbers and never by name.

To prevent eye contact with the prisoners, guards wore mirrored sunglasses.

This was done to dehumanize the relationship between guards and prisoners.

The prisoners had to remain in the prison for the duration of the experiment.

Though the experiment was designed to last for 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six days.

It had to be stopped because of what was happening to the participants.

The interactions between the prisoners and guards had become hostile and degrading.

The guards had become aggressive and brutal, and the prisoners were passive and depressed.

As a result, five of prisoners had to be released early because of severe negative emotions.

Even the researchers were affected, and they began to overlook what was happening.

Instead of halting the experiment, they led it to continue.

They themselves had become dehumanized by the situation they had designed.

Finally, they realized that the experiment had to be stopped.

What this experiment demonstrates is the powerful effect that situations can have on human behavior.

Given a position of power, people can begin to behave differently than they normally would.

They can begin to behave in an aggressive manner, while those with no power can become passive and depressed.

In other words, the experiment shows that situations can cause abuse of behavior.

There are some important criticisms of this experiment.

One criticism is that it is an example of unethical research.

It went on longer than it should have.

It is also unrepresentative since the participants were mostly white, middle-class, males.

Despite the criticism, the experiment remains an important study of human behavior.

Recent examples of the Stanford Effect may include the treatment of prisoners of war by American soldiers in the Iraq War.

Other possible examples include bullying at school and gang behavior.

According to the head researcher, Philip Zimbardo, it helps to explain how ordinary people sometimes turn evil.

If situations do influence people behavior, then managing situations can be a way of controlling people.

A Test of Character

Hi, what’s so urgent? When you messaged me, you seemed really upset.

Yes, I was. I was confused, and I still am. I need your advice. You’ve known me for a long time.

You are my best friend. So what does it?

I’ve been offered another job.

Oh, that’s usually a nice thing. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that they are as stronger as a competitor.

Oh, you mean Beta Crop.

Right. They’ve made me a great offer, more than double my present salary.

Ah, I see. So the dilemma you’re facing is whether to take it or not. 

Yes, that’s it exactly. It will be a betrayal of everyone I’ve been working with for more than 10 years. It makes me sick to even think about it. But I’m really tempted. It’s a LOT of money.

Look, I’ve known you since our student days. If you took that job, you would be betraying yourself.

Yes, I know that. I wish they hadn’t made me such an offer.

So why are you asking for my advice? If I were to say it’s okay to take the job, would that give you an excuse to take it? You otherwise have to live with yourself.

Honestly, what would you do?

If I were in your situation, I’d probably feel the same way. And to be honest, I hope I would be able to stay true to myself. I suppose if my family were really poor and in trouble, I’d be tempted. But even then, to betray my friends and colleagues, who would I be? It’s a real test of character. 

Yes, those are my thoughts. And I’m not sure what my wife will think.

Look, I know your wife. I think she will be proud of you if you do the right thing.

Yes, she probably will. And in the end, I’m not sure I could ever trust Beta Corp. They are a branch of cutthroats. They have no ???.

So I think the answer is clear. And one more thing, I hope you do the right thing, even for me. We need people to stand up and do the right thing. If you were to betray yourself, it would discourage everyone who knows you. You have a lot of influence and people look up to you. I don’t want to lose faith in humanity.

Thanks. That’s what I thought you would say.

I would be disappointed if you thought Isay anything different.

I’ll do the right thing, whatever the consequences. I know there will be people who will think I am being a fool for turning it down.

Yes, but there are the ones who matter.

Cheers! To you, and saving the world! HaHa..

Some people will think he's a fool for turning down the offer.

What Happened to Films

Media and technologies are reprogramming the human brain, changing how we think and live in significant ways. Nobody really knows how this will affect the future, and few seem to care. The tendency is to let it happen and go with the flow, despite warnings from some that all is not well. Nobody can stop progress. Still, it’s fun to reflect on changes to see what might be lost.

Looking back to classic movies and comparing them with what we have today, we see many similarities. However, there are major differences. In particular, classic movies succeeded with few if any special effects. The camera focused more on faces and expressions, like in the movie Casablanca. Violent actions were seldom shown in gruesome detail but were inferred from the situation. Storylines focus on character and personal; dilemmas. Much was left to the imagination. And of course, sex was hinted at, but never shown, except in seedy theaters.

Some of the best movies to place in a single location, such as on a lifeboat or in a jury room. Would such movies draw an audience today? Those movies depended on writers who could build drama into the interactions between characters who had psychology. It also required audiences to have a similar interest, who could empathize and be moved. Do those audiences exist today?

Flash forward to the present. So many movies are filled with fast-moving special effects, explicit violence, and lots of sex. We have become voyeurs, addicted to getting thrills through the experiences of others. Subtle emotions? Psychological dilemmas? Or just plainescape! Of course, there have always been escape movies - Bollywood movies with stars dancing in the streets. It’s just the balance which has shifted.

Classical music and jazz players for more than a few minutes. People concentrated and took time to enjoy and savor it. But now, immersed in media, there is no time. Experiences are quick and shallow, measured by the number of likes. We flee into the noise, perhaps to escape from ourselves.

What do you think? Or has it always been this way?

To be explicit means to say or show clearly and in detail.

If you have a tendency to do something, you are likely to do it.

The camera focused more on faces and expressions, like in the movie Casablanca.

Classical music and jazz played for more than a few minutes.

Some of the best movies took place in a single location, such as on a lifeboat or in a jury room.

The tendency is to let it happen and go with the flow, despite warnings from some that all is not well.

Digital Intelligence

The impact of technology is widespread and accelerating. Experts predict that 90% of the world’s population will connect to the internet within 10 years or less. Evolving technology has become an unstoppable force, reshaping our societies, ignoring national borders, and interconnecting economics. There doesn’t seem to be any way to control it. However, one fact is certain: our kids are at the center of it.

Today’s children are born into a digital world.They use technologies and media from the time they begin to walk. Sometimes they have difficulty distinguishing between the virtual and the real worlds. In fact, children spend more time immersed in technology than they do with people, including their parents. It is estimated that they spend an average of 7 hours a day in front of some sort of digital device.

With the ever increasing amount and flow of information, digital proficiency may be the next survival skill. Therefore, it is essential that children learn how to develop that skill without losing themselves in the process. Guiding them is a challenge we need to face.

First, we need to realize that with so much exposure to content, there are both opportunities and dangers. What and when is something appropriate for children, and at what age? Who decides? Media is so pervasive and accessible, yet there is no consensus about what is suitable. People have different perspectives, not only about content, but also about how to govern access.

Governments must also decide what controls are necessary. Policies must be put into place and standards set. Whatever the decisions, the consequences will be enormous.

It seems naive to sit back and let children make their own decisions and explore whatever captures their fancy. So technology has presented us with a huge dilemma that will shape the future. Without a doubt, it’s an issue that parents and governments will need to address. Not only children need to develop a digital intelligence, but so do each and every one of us.

When something is appropriate for someone, it is suitable.

To distinguish between two things means to tell them apart.