The Main Objective of the Stanford Prison Experiment - Essay Example

The Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is a 1971 experiment that was conducted by Phillip Zimbardo at the Stanford University facility. The experiment involved twenty four (24) participants who had been selected out of a total of 70 participants. The roles that the selected participants were to play in the experiment were that of either being a prisoner or a prison guard in the Stanford University simulated prison facility. As such, part and parcel of the simulated experiment was that the participants had to undergo the optimal prison treatment so as to achieve the expected results of the experiment. While the experiment was in its initial stages, a majority of the participants seemed to adopt well into that simulated prison setting. In fact, it was also noted that the prison guards had also taken their roles quite well since they seemed to also harass the “prisoners” as expected. However, as days passed on, there were notable changes with regard to behaviour in the participants. Some of the participants had already adopted well into the prison settings, but some did not. This led to two (2) of the participants quitting the experiment after a period of six (6) days only. Based on that, the main objective of the Stanford Prison Experiment was to determine the psychological effects of being a prisoner or a prison guard at a prison. That is, the participants were collected from their homes unannounced by the police and they were taken in to the “Stanford County Jail”. They were searched and stripped naked just like normal prisoners would. Moreover, they were humiliated by the prison guards by being sprayed with a germ and lice spray on their bodies to impact the idea that they were contaminated and they had to be cleaned before they got into the prison settings. After that, the prisoners were given uniforms which looked like a dress and they had an ID number on them together with a pair of sandals. The aim of the dress like uniform was to expedite the psychological effect of being in the simulated prison setting since in a real world prison setting, male prisoners do not wear dress like uniforms. The psychological effect of this was that the male participants began to feel more “open” since they were not used to wearing dress like uniform with no underclothes. More to that was the fact that the prisoners also had a chain tied to one of their feet. The aim of that was to be a constant reminder that they were under a strict prison setting and they could not run away. The use of ID numbers instead of real names also had a psychological effect on the participants. This is due to the reason that these participants were used to the ordeal of being referred to their names in the outside environment. However, in this instance they were unknown to anybody and hence, each prisoner had to know their prison ID’s since this would be their new “names”. In addition to those acts, authority was also enforced to the prisoners. That is, they were woken up at odd hours by the prison guards so as to undertake counting checks. Apparently, this act was done a number of times in the night. The form of punishment that was common in the simulated prison setting was that of doing push ups. At first, this was something that was new to each and every person – the prison guards included. However since the experiment required this form of action, with time, this trend of punishment became widely common in the prison. As such, in the event that the prisoner was in the wrong, they were ordered to undertake push ups until the prison guard was satisfied with the action. It is important to note that these acts highly affected the prisoners due to the fact that they were not used to being woken up early in the night for random checks. Moreover, some were not used to punishments which were not justifiable. These acts led to rebellions in the simulated prison setting. For example, the prisoners refused to wear their uniforms and they blocked the prison doors using their beds. In addition to that, they verbally abused the prison guards. Based on these actions, the prison guards were faced with the psychological dilemma and effect of how they were going to deal with the prisoners in that state. Moreover, how to handle the verbal abuses that they were receiving as this was something that was new to them. The outcome of this scenario was that the prisoners were handled with force. For example, the prison guards used fire extinguishers which contained carbon dioxide to spray onto the prisoners so that they could remain in their cells. More to that was the fact that the prison guards enforced solitude to the prisoners who had bad behaviour and those who had good behaviour were treated well. A good example is that of Prisoner Number 5401. He was the ring leader of the riots and he also had extremely bad behaviour. As such, he was imposed on solitude and also since he was a heavy smoker, his right to smoke was also diminished. This promoted a behavioural change in him. As such, the scenarios described above noted that there were a number of cases of abusive behaviour from the prison guards to the prisoners. This tended to psychologically affect the prisoners and that is why Prisoner Number 8612 was released in the early stages of the experiment due to the reason that he had began to go “crazy” and acted in a ragging manner while he was in his cell. In addition to that, the prisoners started to show signs of post traumatic stress as well as anxiety with regard to the environment that they had been placed in as well as the treatment that they were getting from the prison guards. This led to the termination of the experiment. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal and torture was more of a human rights violation experience that happened in around 2003 to 2004 in Iraq. The prisoners captured were held in the Abu Ghraib prison and all manner of things were done to them. For example, the prisoners were physically beaten up, tortured, sexually abused and raped by their prison guards (Benjamin, 2009; Hersh, 2004; Hersh, 2007). The report about these undertakings came to public notice in 2004 and it evidenced the fact that the prisoners were indeed abused as stated. Based on that, the soldiers who undertook these acts to the prisoners were eliminated from the force and charged with assault, torture and dereliction of duty in accordance to the International law. According to the ICRC report (2004), it was noted that the prisoners underwent psychological trauma and stress related to the following: brutality which at times led to death and/ or serious injuries to the prisoner; longer periods of solitude which lacked light; psychological and/or physical coercion during interrogations so as to make the prisoner reveal important information; use of too much force which could cause death and/ or injuries and arrests without notice. A) Compare and contrast the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) to the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. How are the two (2) events similar to each other? How are they different from each other? Similarities a) Both scenarios (events) revealed the use of torture. For the case of SPE the prisoners were tortured through minimal solitude. A good example is Prisoner Number 5401 who was the ring leader. He was tortured to psychologically scare him and punished minimally through solitude and denial of smoking rights. In the end he was released from the solitude confinement. b) Some form of punishment was enforced to the prisoners. For example, in the case of SPE, the prisoners were told to undertake in push ups as a form of their punishment. In the case of the Abu Ghraib Prison, the prisoners were also punished by being stripped naked and psychologically scared through the use of dogs. c) In both instances, the prison guards dressed the same. The aim of this was to constantly remind the prisoners that they were in a confined environment and they could not go anywhere unless released. d) More to that was the fact that the prison guards undertook observational learning of the prisoners. This enabled them to determine what action they would used to react to the prisoners in case they were disorderly. e) Occurrence of in group and out groups: In both events there was the occurrence of in groups and out groups. This means that there was a majority (people who felt mightier as compared to others) and a minority (people who felt out of place) group respectively. In that, the in group was basically the prison guards who occasionally observed the prisoners in the case of the SPE experiment and the soldiers in the case of the Abu Ghraib prison. Differences The differences noted in both events were as follows: a) Norms: In this instance, norms can be related to the way the prisoners were treated – that is, what norms were used to treat the prisoners. In the case of SPE, the norms projected by the prison guards were quite humane when compare to the norms that were projected by the soldiers in the Abu Ghraib prison. There was minimal psychological trauma, stress and torture in SPE as compared to the Abu Ghraib prison. b) Roles: There were a number of roles that were projected in the two events. The role of prisoners in SPE was to stay enclosed in a given simulated prison environment and their behaviour was monitored. In addition, the role of the prison guards was to observe the prisoners behaviours. More to that was the fact that their behaviour was also monitored as to how they would handle the prisoners. For the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, the prisoners were also monitored by the soldiers. However, the soldiers were not monitored as to how they behaved while handling the prisoners. As such, their role was to physically and psychologically assault the prisoners in all manner and forms such as: sexual assault, extreme punishments and extreme torture (Benjamin, 2009; Hersh, 2004; Hersh, 2007). c) Cross cultural difference and perspective: The SPE experiment did not demonstrate any cross cultural differences in the way that the prisoners were treated by the prison guards. However, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal revealed a lot of racial discrimination due to differences in cultures. That is, the soldiers were American while the prisoners were Iraqis. B: Discuss why there may have been individual differences in the ways the guards responded to power Different people have different personalities (behaviours, thoughts, needs and wants) when subjected to different environments as well as different variables such as power. For the case of the above events, it was noted that different prison guards and/ or soldiers responded differently when they were subjected to the variable of power in their environment. Based on that, the following two (2) theories shall seek to explain these personality trait differences. The Ego Defence Mechanism theory by Sigmund Feud demonstrates that humans have two (2) drives. These include sex and aggression drives. The sex drive causes people to have the urge to have an offspring, to live and prosper while the aggression drive causes people to have the need to survive, to enforce power and prosperity (AllPsych, 2011). When these variables are related to the two (2) prison scenarios, it describes why different prison guards and/ or soldiers responded differently when they were in power. For example, the prison guards in the SPE can be said that they fully suppressed their sexual drives when compared to the soldiers who were in the Abu Ghraib prison. This is due to the reason that there were no cases of sexual assault in the SPE scenario. More to that, it can also be detailed that despite there being aggression in the SPE prison guards it cannot be compared to the aggressive trait that the soldiers in the Abu Ghraib prison had towards their prisoners since they did a number of inhumane things to the prisoners. It can be concluded that this theory illustrates and supports the fact that different people have different behaviours while subjected to different environment and variables. Another theory that can be used to explain the differences in individual responses to power is related to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (AllPsych, 2011). The stages defined in Kohlberg’s theory include: a) The pre-conventional level: This level defines an individual’s good moral behaviour as well as the avoidance of behaviours that are not positive. b) The conventional level: This level defines how people behave so as to achieve their moral expectations. c) The post-conventional level: This level describes that people have differences with regard to opinions, moral trends and culture. Based on the above definition, when related to the two (2) prison scenarios, it can be established that different prison guards and/ or soldiers demonstrated a difference in behaviour when subjected to power due to the fact that the aspect of morals do exist. As such, the prison guards who did not mistreat the prisoners were guided by their morals not to do so where as those who mistreated the prisoners like for the case of Abu Ghraib were not guided by any morals but aggression and anger. References AllPsych. Chapter 3: Personality Development. 2011. Web. Retrieved from: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html Benjamin, M. Taguba denies he’s seen abuse photos suppressed by Obama. 2009. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.salon.com/2009/05/30/taguba_2/ Hersh, S. M. Annals of National Security: Chain of Command- How the Department of Defense mishandled the disaster at Abu Ghraib. 2004. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/17/040517fa_fact2?currentPage=all Hersh, S. M. Annals of National Security: The General’s Report - How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties. 2007. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all ICRC Report. Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the treatment by the coalition forces of prisoners of war and other protected persons by the Geneva conventions in Iraq during arrest, internment and interrogation. 2004. Web. Retrieved from: http://cryptome.org/icrc-report.htm Prison Exp. Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University. N.d. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.prisonexp.org/ Read More