The Influence On Behavior In The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment designed and carried out by Philip Zimbardo and a team of psychologists that used a mock prison setting with college students acting as prisoners and prison guards to prove that even without an external pressure of an authority figure, a normal person could also act pathologically. In the experiment, the power of roles, rules, and expectations were observed and recorded. It remains to be one of psychology’s most notorious and controversial studies ever devised. Undoubtedly, it has delved its way into the culture, motivating a realization within the industry that deploys social science research that embrace an oversimplified assertion of the humanity, the law and order and personal ties (Cohem, 2019). Despite it being widely denounced, the vast majority of textbook authors have disregarded these condemnation and critiques as they talk about the study. Hence, both pupils and the public have been deluded about the study’s uncertain yet dubious scientific validity.
Le Texier, a doctor in Economics, is also a researcher in social sciences at CESSP (European Center for Sociology and Political Science) at the Sorbonne and CSE (Center for European Sociology) (Le Texier, 2006). In 2018, prior to the publication of analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the author has published a book ‘Histoire d’un Mensonge’ which was written about the experiment and has identified that there were no actual, provable results for the Stanford Prison Experiment to speak of. Zimbardo then wrote a detailed refutation in response to Le Texier’s criticism that once again accentuated that the Stanford Prison Experiment fulfils the function as a forewarning to us if we undervalue the degree to which our behavior could be swayed and affected by the influence of an external authority and the power of public roles. As shown above, the author has done profound research in the field of Social Sciences. Hence, Le Texier’s academic ethos in this research is assured.
In return to Zimbardo’s response, the author has published this peer-reviewed article ‘Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment’ to prove Zimbardo wrong which has encompassed the procedures that were used to debunk the infamous experiment which were followed by the results of his findings and the discussion. This study was carried out for the public to ascertain if the archives of the Stanford Prison Experiment uncovered any prominent information regarding the experiment that has not been taken into account or conflicted with Zimbardo’s released accounts of study. To confute Zimbardo’s experiment, Le Texier has perused all the publications authored and co-authored by Zimbardo that discussed the Stanford Prison Experiment. Along with that, the author has also put through a content review of the Stanford Prison Experiment archival material kept at the Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University (16 boxes) and at the Archives of the History of American Psychology, the University of Akron in Ohio (1 box) which entailed analyzing hundreds of paper documents, 6 hours of film recordings and 48 hours of audio recordings (Texier, 2019). Apart from analyzing documents after documents, the author has had semi-structured phone interviews with 15 partakers that took part in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Lastly, the archival content discoveries were then compared with academic publications, textbooks, word searches on search engines et cetera of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The author’s methodology in his research proves the logos that a thorough research has been done to debunk Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. With this piece of information, it shows that the veracity of this research is well assured.
