The Stanford Prison Experiment revolutionized how society views the relationship between prison guards and prisoners as well as how to conduct social experiments. The college students used by Philip Zimbardo adhered to their roles as the prison guards and gave a more authoritarian response to the students that played the role of the prisoners than Zimbardo hypothesized. These roles shaped the personalities of the prison guards as well as the prisoners.
Social Structure and Personality studies the connections between society and the individual. Social Psychologists study this perspective through statuses, roles, and social networks (Rohall, Mikie, and Lucas 2014). These statuses or roles can also be understood through Symbolic Interactionism …show more content…
The experiment originally sought out to find a common personality trait among prisoners or prison guards that would lead to the severe conflict typically seen in such environments as prisons. David Bornus discussed in his article, aptly called “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” for the periodical Corrections Today to discuss and illustrate the importance of a “secure residential environment,” meaning people who imprisoned there are not allowed to leave. However, Bornus calls for improved facilities and true correctional programs that would help to prevent inmates, especially ones with mental illnesses, from reoffending. This would include trained professionals from prison guards to mental health therapists there to assist the inmates and correct their behavior rather than just punishing them. Bornus concludes by stating that having untrained individuals and poor living conditions allows for people with power to abuse those who do not have …show more content…
The experiment allows for a hierarchy between the students, creating the social classes within the experiment. These classes and roles changed the personalities of the participants, albeit every one of them returned to their state of mind that they had before the experiment. Michael Mechanic discusses in his article “The Slippery Slope of Evil” that people will follow the orders of an authority figure to a fault, as shown by the Milgram Experiment performed years prior to the Stanford Prison Experiment. In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo played the role of the authority figure as he was the “superintendent.” With an authority figure present, participants shift the responsibility of their actions onto that person and believe they are not at fault for the consequences of their actions. This illustrates how the social structure of the experiment changed the personalities of the participants and conductors of the
Social Structure and Personality studies the connections between society and the individual. Social Psychologists study this perspective through statuses, roles, and social networks (Rohall, Mikie, and Lucas 2014). These statuses or roles can also be understood through Symbolic Interactionism …show more content…
The experiment originally sought out to find a common personality trait among prisoners or prison guards that would lead to the severe conflict typically seen in such environments as prisons. David Bornus discussed in his article, aptly called “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” for the periodical Corrections Today to discuss and illustrate the importance of a “secure residential environment,” meaning people who imprisoned there are not allowed to leave. However, Bornus calls for improved facilities and true correctional programs that would help to prevent inmates, especially ones with mental illnesses, from reoffending. This would include trained professionals from prison guards to mental health therapists there to assist the inmates and correct their behavior rather than just punishing them. Bornus concludes by stating that having untrained individuals and poor living conditions allows for people with power to abuse those who do not have …show more content…
The experiment allows for a hierarchy between the students, creating the social classes within the experiment. These classes and roles changed the personalities of the participants, albeit every one of them returned to their state of mind that they had before the experiment. Michael Mechanic discusses in his article “The Slippery Slope of Evil” that people will follow the orders of an authority figure to a fault, as shown by the Milgram Experiment performed years prior to the Stanford Prison Experiment. In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo played the role of the authority figure as he was the “superintendent.” With an authority figure present, participants shift the responsibility of their actions onto that person and believe they are not at fault for the consequences of their actions. This illustrates how the social structure of the experiment changed the personalities of the participants and conductors of the