Zimbardo's Experiment Analysis

In 1971, Zimbardo does an experiment to see how the subjects’ attitude gets effected, once they get into their designated roles. The group of 24, who were both mentally and emotionally stable, was going to be split into 2 groups, one group being the guards and the others being the prisoners. Factors like clothing (which could have highly-likely) effected their attitudes. The prisoners were treated like prisoners. The prisoners had poor clothing in contrast to the guards. The guards were regarded like real guards. The guard got to wear a military-style uniform, equipped with batons and shades. During the experiment, the 2 groups quickly adapted, into their roles, therefore altering their previous attitudes to what is considered “the real thing”, playing their actual roles. Due to …show more content…
If those who found validity, said they found that the subject can chose to either be in or out of experiment, is it also not up to Zimbardo to also decide, but whether this was an experiment or not? I say that this was not an experiment, because that was Zimbardo’s intention was to see attitudes. In order for an experiment to be validly done, one must have a control group, and Zimbardo did not have any, although it may be unnecessary. And since Zimbardo is writing how they act, it is not an experiment but a natural observation, with no real independent variable to manipulate. Though I agree with those who found validity, I also agree with those who said this experiment was unethical, therefore making this case study a dangerous territory, an experiment which cannot be used today. The effects may be the same, but we may not know that until the “experiment” is replicated. Replication is what makes the experiment, an experiment, not just any experiment, but a reliable experiment, a justified theory and hypotheses. In this case I don’t consider this case study an “experiment”, due to the lack of elements in a usual