Zimbardo) led the research team, in the basement of the Stanford University Department of Psychology building, the famous "Stanford Prison Experiment". The research team recruited volunteers for the experiment by posting job advertisements in newspapers, and those selected would be paid $15 a day. Candidates need to be interviewed to confirm that they are not weird, have no experience of being arrested, and have no psychological and physical problems, "all dimensions of the psychological side are around the average." In the end, more than 20 normal and healthy young people were selected and randomly assigned, 9 became "prison guards" (divided into three classes), 9 became "prisoners", and the rest were candidates. The design duration of the experiment is two weeks. According to Zimbardo, the purpose of the experiment is to observe whether the personalities of these originally highly similar young people will change after two weeks of prison life as "prison guards" and "prisoners" together, that is, specific What would a prison situation in the , divide them into two roles of "prison guard" and "prisoner", but in fact these people can not only be compared, but also can exchange roles at any time. "Prisoners" are not necessarily more ferocious and hostile than "prison guards," nor are "prison guards" necessarily powerful authorities who seek power. …Two weeks later, are these young people still hard to discern? Will their roles change their personalities? ① The experiment started when 9 "prisoners" were suddenly arrested at home by real police officers who participated in the cooperation. They were blindfolded and sent to the mock prison by police cars. The "prison guards" who had been waiting there ordered them to take off their clothes and stretch their arms. , standing with their feet open and facing the wall, dusting them with powder to disinfest them, "some 'prisoners' began to laugh at the size of the 'prisoners' genitals, commenting on the smallest size, or laughing at their testicles being asymmetrical". The "prisoners" were then thrown into three cells, allowed to wear prison uniforms (no underwear allowed), hooded with stockings (instead of shaving their heads), put on plastic slippers (chains on their ankles), and given a Number code (erase individual colors). The "prison guards" and "prisoners" began to play their respective roles in the simulated prison and conduct various interactions. But the experiment didn't go as expected for two weeks, and was called off on the sixth day. The reason is that the "prison guards" are becoming more and more extreme, and they begin to manipulate the "prisoners" to do whatever they want - one of the "prison guards" ordered half of the "prisoners" to play male camels on the fifth day, and the other half of the "prisoners". "Playing as a female camel, collectively simulating show sex for. Zimbardo later sighed in his book "The Lucifer Effect" that the original intention of the experiment was to evaluate the degree to which external institutional factors could oppress a person's inner nature, "that is, to observe good people and bad people. environment"—in other words, the "prisoners" were the focus of the entire experiment. But the direction of the experiment exceeded estimates. Compared with the performance of the "prisoners", the changes in the "prison guards" were even more surprising: some volunteers were randomly assigned to play the role of "prison guards" and soon began to abuse the newly obtained prisoners. Power, they are cruel, day and night to degrade, despise, and hurt "prisoners". ... Although the other "prison guards" did not tend to be abusive, they were cold and demanding, and showed little sympathy for the plight of their compatriots. There are only a few "guards" who can be classified as "good guards" who resist the temptation of power and sometimes do something for the "prisoners" for the sake of their situation, such as giving them an apple or a cigarette give people and so on. ② Zimbardo believes that the experiment has strongly confirmed that "the poison produced by the bad system and the environment can make good people perform pathological behaviors that go against their nature." The boundary between good and evil is not unbreakable, but rather fragile. The words, deeds and self-analysis recorded by "prison guard" Burdan during the experiment can vividly illustrate this point: (1) Before the experiment began, Burdan said that he was "a peace-loving, non-violent advocator". individual, I can't imagine how I could be a rude 'prisoner'". (2) When the experiment started, Burden wondered whether most of the participants could really "take this experiment seriously." (3) On the first day, Burden felt that he was "most afraid that the 'prisoners' would treat me as a bad guy", and felt that he was a fool when he put on a posturing speech. (4) The next day, when Burden stepped out of the car, he "suddenly wanted people to notice my uniform", and became accustomed to using batons to "hit walls, chairs and iron gates to show my power". (5) On the third day, Burden exercised the power to allow or forbid the parents of the 'prisoner' to enter and visit, "This is the first time I have the opportunity to manipulate the power as I wish", almost complete control of this paragraph. The experience became "the most enjoyable part of the experiment". (6) On the fourth day, Burden was criticized for using handcuffs and blindfolds to deal with the 'prisoners', but he strongly responded that "this is a necessary safety measure". (7) On the fifth day, Burden humiliated and embarrassed a 'prisoner' because "I just didn't like him"; the new 'prisoner' protested by refusing to eat dinner, Burden resorted to force-feeding," I let the food slide off his face, dare not Jaffee) served as the "guardian", etc., which are all factors that caused criticism of the experiment. Some of the original audio recordings and video materials that Zimbardo has publicly disclosed in recent years have also caused a lot of controversy. For example, Jeff, who played the "guardian", once asked an "inactive" "prison guard" to "actively participate" "" Be tougher”——Doubters believe that it is not the power that makes the “prison guards” cruel, but that the organizers of the experiment require the “prison guards” to be cruel, and then think that the “Stanford Prison Experiment” is a hoax . In response to this question, Zimbardo responded that on the first day of the experiment, the "prison guards" did not really enter the role, "the video shows that they snickered to make the 'prisoners' obey the rules more", so "Code Warden" Jeff found a guard who couldn't get into the role and said something like this: "We really want you to be more proactive and involved because the 'guards' have to be aware of every" A guard' has to be a 'tough guard'. By 'tough', I mean you have to be tougher, firmer, and you have to act. It's very important for this experiment because whether we can Making this thing really feel like a prison, which is the purpose of our experiment, depends a lot on the behavior of the 'prison guards'." Zimbardo emphasized, "We have never been more specific (teach them) how to To become more 'tough', and there were explicit warnings against the use of any force." The experiment did not allow force against "prisoners," but allowed the creation of emotions such as boredom, frustration, fear, and a sense of powerlessness. These responses were actually mentioned in his book The Lucifer Effect. What this response says is actually the inherent deficiencies of the "Stanford Prison Experiment" - no matter how designed, the power system in this mock prison cannot be equal to the real prison. Even though Zimbardo tried to use real police officers to arrest the "prisoners" by surprise, the volunteers who were selected to serve as "prisoners" still immediately responded that "this is just an experiment". This is true of "prisoners", and so is the "prison guard". The designer of the experiment asked the prison guards who could not enter the role to "be tougher", which became a must. When the goal of the experiment is to "observe the struggle between good people and bad environment", that is, the main observation object is the reaction of prisoners, this requirement of "getting tougher" against "prison guards" has little effect on the experiment. hinder. But when the changes in the "guardian" overwhelm the "prisoner"'s response and become the main observation object, this requirement becomes a distraction to the experiment. Other evidence accusing the "Stanford Prison Experiment" of a hoax, too broadly similar situation. For example, a "prison guard" who participated in the experiment said that his excessive behavior was to comply with the requirements of the experiment designer, in order to allow the experiment to continue; a "prisoner" who quit due to a mental breakdown in the middle said that the real reason for his withdrawal was to worry about the experiment Affecting the exam, so he deliberately performed a mental breakdown to seek withdrawal (he originally thought that playing a "prisoner" could not only study his homework with peace of mind, but also earn some money) - these are unavoidable problems of "mock prison", and it is a kind of problem that cannot be reconciled with The "congenital insufficiency" of real prisons is not an intentional hoax. Despite its controversies, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains one of the most closely watched experiments in the history of psychology. Because of its high popularity, it has even been adapted into a movie many times. References ①②③Fizimbardo. The Lucifer Effect [M]. Shanghai: Sanlian Publishing House, 2008.
View more about The Stanford Prison Experiment reviews
