Video homework with questions. I have answered most of questions, but still need help

Hello,

First-off, cool documentary. It's been a while since I learned about this case in ethics class. Here are some answers just off the top of my head:


Through an ad placed in the city newspaper asking for participants, they paid $15 a day.


24 healthy, normal, intelligent, middle class males from college throughout the U.S. All had the same mental composition when the experiment began.


They were deemed as a prisoner or guard by the flip of a coin. They were given instructions the day before the experiment and were told that they absolutely cannot hit the prisoners but could mentally torture them.


The prisoners went from being people who did not conform to being pushed around to true prisoners who formed groups and obeyed orders and identified as the number assigned to them.

Hope someone can verify and add to the answers too

How were subjects recruited for this study? What was the incentive for participation?

A:  The research team placed newspaper advertisements in the Palo Alto Times and The Stanford Daily offering $15/day to male college students for a study on the psychology of imprisonment.

4. How did the researchers allocate the participants to each condition?

A:  The assignment was done randomly, as with the toss of a coin, to make sure that the prisoners and guards were comparable to each other at the beginning of the experiment.

5. How were guards trained?

A:  The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards. Instead, the guards were given only a brief orientation telling them to maintain law and order, avoid physical violence, and prevent prisoner escapes.  The guards made up their own set of rules, which they then carried into effect under the supervision of Warden David Jaffe, an undergraduate from Stanford University.

6. Initial procedure for arresting and imprisoning the prisoners? What were sociated risks? What do you think about the ethical nature of this process?

A: Blindfolded and in a state of mild shock over their surprise arrest by the city police, the prisoners were put into a car and driven to the "Stanford County Jail" for further processing. The prisoners were then brought into the jail one at a time and greeted by the warden, who conveyed the seriousness of their offense and their new status as prisoners. The prisoner was then issued a uniform. The main part of this uniform was a dress, or smock, which each prisoner wore at all times with no underclothes. On the smock, in front and in back, was his prison ID number. On each prisoner's right ankle was a heavy chain, bolted on and worn at all times. Rubber sandals were the footwear, and each prisoner covered his hair with a stocking cap made from a woman's nylon stocking.

Thank you so much for your help! I compared those answers with mine and I was able to add additional information to my answers. I still am struggling with these questions related to same topic.

What did the researchers screen for at the beginning of the experiment? Who was excluded from participating and why?

What were some of the fist reactions from the prisoners

Im sorry and also,

How did Zimbardo, one running the research study react to the situation? How did he generalize the results of his study?

@bolbol and @duddy

It started with an ad in the Palo Alto Times: “Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life.” The pay: $15 a day. Zimbardo screened more than 70 applicants to make sure they were stable. The final group of 18 -- plus several alternates -- was randomly split into prisoners and guards. Those with psychological problems, disabilities, prior records and a history of drug use were excluded.


At first, the prisoners were not completely into their roles and did not take the counts too seriously. They were still trying to assert their independence. The guards, too, were feeling out their new roles and were not yet sure how to assert authority over their prisoners. This was the beginning of a series of direct confrontations between the guards and prisoners.

Zimbardo observed the behaviour of the prisoners and guards (as a researcher), and also acted as a prison warden.

Despite the fact that participants were told they had the right to leave at any time, Zimbardo did not allow this.

Conclusions:

According to Zimbardo's interpretation of the SPE, it demonstrated that the simulated-prison situation, rather than individual personality traits, caused the participants' behavior. Using this situational attribution, the results are compatible with those of the Milgram experiment, where random participants complied with orders to administer seemingly dangerous and potentially lethal electric shocks to a shill.

The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

Participants' behavior may have been shaped by knowing that they were watched (Hawthorne effect). Instead of being restrained by fear of an observer, guards may have behaved more aggressively when supervisors observing them did not step in to restrain them.

Zimbardo instructed the guards before the experiment to disrespect the prisoners in various ways. For example, they had to refer to prisoners by number rather than by name. This, according to Zimbardo, was intended to diminish the prisoners' individuality. With no control, prisoners learned they had little effect on what happened to them, ultimately causing them to stop responding, and give up. Quick to realize that the guards were the highest in the hierarchy, prisoners began to accept their roles as less important human beings.

One positive result of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners, due to the risk of violence against them.

Shortly after the study was completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.