Stanford Prison Experiment film

[kaleidoscope1]

Have you guys seen this trailer? I think Zimbardo's work is total crap and the acting doesn't look very good, but I'll still go see it!

http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...stanford-prison-experiment-unshackles-trailer

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Cigolon]

I'm curious what you mean you think his work is crap.

As a side note, he's a really great speaker and a nice dude. Can't speak for his acting, but he has always been some of my favorite talks to attend.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm curious what you mean you think his work is crap.

Poorly designed experiments, with improper lab controls and over interpretation of data. He's more of a media figure than a scientist.

 

[erg923]

I'm curious what you mean you think his work is crap.

As a side note, he's a really great speaker and a nice dude. Can't speak for his acting, but he has always been some of my favorite talks to attend.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I imagine replication would be a tough sell to any irb

 

[Justanothergrad]

Sure, the experimental design is junk and causal inferences he tries to make are a reach by any indication, but evidence supporting the development of biases, etc as a result of social exposure, restriction, developed roles are far from junky. He's a salesman, no doubt about that. I was curious if @kaleidoscope1 was talking about his studies in particularly on the broader implications (that I think Zimbardo stumbled on and described poorly) of social influence.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I imagine replication would be a tough sell to any irb

They did a partial replication of Milgram's work a while back so it could be possible. Regardless of methodological criticisms I still think it is an important part of psychological science.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, but it's how they talk about and how these experiments are perceived. Most people think that most of the people in these studies acted in accordance to "dastardly deeds" when quite the opposite was true. Most in Milgram's experiments failed, and in Zimbardo's study, some only went to those lengths after he himself changed the parameters of the "study" several times.

Important, sure, generalizable, not nearly as much.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Yes, but it's how they talk about and how these experiments are perceived. Most people think that most of the people in these studies acted in accordance to "dastardly deeds" when quite the opposite was true. Most in Milgram's experiments failed, and in Zimbardo's study, some only went to those lengths after he himself changed the parameters of the "study" several times.

Important, sure, generalizable, not nearly as much.

I don't know too much of the details about the Zimbardo experiment other than it demonstrated that perceived power differentials can lead to abuse, which isn't that surprising a finding since we have a wealth of history to show that, but I thought that it was about 60% of the subjects in Milgram's initial experiment that went all the way to "lethal shock"?

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't know too much of the details about the Zimbardo experiment other than it demonstrated that perceived power differentials can lead to abuse, which isn't that surprising a finding since we have a wealth of history to show that, but I thought that it was about 60% of the subjects in Milgram's initial experiment that went all the way to "lethal shock"?

In one condition of a n=40, 26 went to "XXX." I urge people t0 look into the results of the 23 other conditions that he tested and read about the experimental procedures of those conditions to see how generalizable they believe things are. Also, there was no "lethal" shock label.

 

[cara susanna]

How many darn movies are they going to make about this study?