Jump to content

Talk:Philip Zimbardo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Prison study

[edit]

The material here needs to be included:

https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-lifespan-of-a-lie-d869212b1f62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D840:3430:9882:E0BA:57B5:8D8E (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slight factual clarification. The students that role-played as guards and prisoners in the SPE were not all Stanford students. In fact, I'm not sure (but may easily be mistaken) if any student participants went to Stanford. Therefore, I changed "Stanford University students" to "21 college students", and added a reference at the end of the sentence to the experiment's location (in order to preserve the original explanation's Stanford reference). - Walkiped 01:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to the official website of the experiment, 70 people responded to the advertisement asking for subjects. Of those they selected "24 college students from the U.S. and Canada who happened to be in the Stanford area." I corrected the 21 to 24. I also removed the reference to role-playing because there is dispute as to whether the subjects acted as they did because they were role-playing or because they had internalized the roles (see Stanford prison experiment's criticism section). atrophic 5:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although 24 students were selected for the experiment, only 21 students actually participated (the other 3 were stand-by's, and were never used) according to Zimbardo's original report on the experiment (pdf file). "The 21 subjects who participated in the experiment were selected from an initial pool of 75 respondents...." (page 73) - Walkiped 06:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Death

[edit]

Died October 31, 2009 Olsztyn, Poland

Where's the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.139.146 (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porn actor

[edit]

I removed all the things about him being a porn actor and all that... (the "18-inch penis" part was funny though :)). Seigneur 20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porn actor (bis)

[edit]

I had to remove the same sections again, within less than 12 hours. Perhaps this article should be protected?? Seigneur 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Show

[edit]

I recently I added a line about Zimbardo being on The Daily Show under→Recent career, and someone removed it. Any reason why? ElizaBarrington 05:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary, there's no need to document every media appearance he makes when he's on a national book tour to promote his new book. Cgingold 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but it's a pretty major pop culture coup,....it's not the same as speaking at a local library or book store. Also he said something in the show about how being on the Daily Show is the apex of his career. May have been tongue in cheek, but maybe not. ElizaBarrington 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was... LOL! - I'm sure he enjoyed himself immensely, but I still don't see how it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article, unless he said something truly noteworthy that he hasn't said anywhere else. Of course, if they ever do a whole ZIMBARDO category on Jeopardy, I will have to reconsider. :) (Btw, if you check the website for the book, it lists all of his appearances; he's doing all sorts of media venues, not merely bookstores, etc.) Cgingold 02:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C in Psych

[edit]

He gave a talk to some schools in the Vancouver area today, and mentioned how boring psych was when he started out. He said he got a C and then switched to Sociology for a couple years before going back.

Cult ?

[edit]

Why is the cult table on the bottom of this page?

I don't see it there now, but I see no reason it shouldn't be, as cults conduce behavior in their followers in ways similar to what the Stanford Experiment showed. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digg Effect

[edit]

This guy popped up in a negative article on Digg. http://www.neatorama.com/2007/06/26/3-famous-psychology-studies-that-would-be-illegal-today/ It would be a good idea to protect this page and all others linked to in that blog.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.116.9 (talk • contribs) 17:54, June 26, 2007

Broken link?

[edit]

Is the link to http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/francozimbardo.html broken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.133.189 (talk) 16:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that link there in the main article anymore, but I guess we can find it here now that you mentioned it. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I corrected the subtitle to the picture being used in Other Endeavors. It used to display "Warsaw, Poland, 2009", but the correct info is "Berling, Germany, 2008", as I was the one that took the picture and uploaded it. Luke poa (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional Voice

[edit]

The voice of this article is not entirely passive, and one part in particular strikes me as improperly phrased and perhaps deserves omission:

"When looking at the Stanford Prison Experiment, one may find that it has a great value to the field of psychology. This is true, but what are the costs. This gave us great understanding of the values of roles that one may take when put in a certain situation. There are some ethical issues that one may find when further researching this study performed by Zimbardo and his colleagues. With some time passing by there was another study that looked at the power of roles when put in certain situations. [2]."

In addition, this article has only one citation in the section on the study itself. I think it is in need of serious attention and double-checking.

24.143.55.47 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this sounds like it was written for some high school research paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.141.138 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that quoted section deserved removal, nor care whether it was written by high school students or not. And I wish the other studies mentioned in the removed section were specifically included rather than just maybe referenced. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Deafness and paranoia" experiment

[edit]

In 1979/80, Zimbardo ran an experiment to verify the hypothesis that paranoid ideation associated with senility can be attributed to hearing loss, and thus can be treated with hearing aids rather than antipsychotics.

This involved the posthypnotic induction of hearing loss in volunteers -- the volunteers had been told that the hypnosis would involve facilitating concentration, the ability to ignore pain, to increase concentration, etc -- and confederates who had been instructed as to how to confuse the volunteers. The research was published in Science, June 26, 1981. It also was the basis for "Research Through Deception", by Morton Hunt -- an article that was originally commissioned for the New Yorker, but instead appeared in the New York Times Magazine in 1982, and won the American Society of Journalists and Authors Outstanding Article Award (not sure of the exact bibliographic data, but it was subsequently reprinted in Best Science Writing: Readings and Insights, ed. Robert Gannon; Oryx Press, 1991 (a book I have in front of me right now)).

Is this worth mentioning in the Zimbardo article itself? DS (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was published in "Science", it would seem germane. Student7 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: American psychologist already in by including "Stanford psych dept faculty" category

[edit]

The WP guideline WP:CAT#Categorizing pages is to include the most specific category and not any categories containing it. The category "Stanford University Department of Psychology faculty" is contained within "American Psychologists" and hence we should not explicitly include, per the guideline: "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." (emphasis in original) Churn and change (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not. He could be a green card citizen of India and still be a Stanford psychologist.
I don't mind a little assumption in categories but with the categories so specific, there is really little room for guesswork, and no need to make reader "guess" that he is a psychologist with American citizenship. Specifics can be useful. And why go out of our way to omit him from that list anyway? It's the one for which he is most notable. Student7 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category "American psychologists" is not for US citizens only. See the definition for Category:American Academics:
"This page lists both academics who are American citizens and academics of any nationality who have been based in the United States." And the very first subcat there is "Faculty by university or college in the United States."
That has been in from day one. And, no, we are not omitting him from the list of American psychologists. He is still on the list via inclusion in "Stanford University Department of Psychology faculty." Churn and change (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly written

[edit]

Who the hell wrote this? Every single statement is made into a full sentence so that the whole article reads like a list. Haven't any of you people ever heard of blending two sentences together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.193.82 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they need to contain the same idea. One plus of simple sentences is to render the material easily understood. I've noticed that no one finds fault with scattered ideas collected into a single sentence. Once organized separately, people find all sorts of legitimate errors that they had overlooked before. I like simplicity. K.I.S.S. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philip Zimbardo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Philip Zimbardo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Stanford Prison Experiment

[edit]

Someone who GAF should see whether this information can be integrated into the article. Qemist (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to find reliable sources taking an interest in this matter, and avoid scandal-click outlets which don't GAF about balance. We should proactively cover this in a balanced way, or the article will be targeted by people who have read the unbalanced coverage and are outraged that the article ignores the issue. This happened today, with many edits added based on one French tabloid article. I suggest starting from Inside Higher Ed's article.[1] Even better source is New Yorker article.[2]There is also extensive coverage of criticism of the Stanford Prison Experiment in that Wikipedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve the SPE section (removing unnecessary duplication of SPE article) in order to integrate recent criticism in an appropriate way. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material in need of citations

[edit]

I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. [ This diff] shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

The volunteers knew they were being used in a study but they did not know when the study would be taking place. Nine students assigned to be "prisoners" were "arrested" at their homes and taken to the "prison" by Palo Alto police. On arrival, the "prisoners" were stripped, searched, shaved and deloused. They were then issued uniforms, ID numbers, and escorted by volunteer prison guards to their "cells" (three prisoners per cell.) The guards had been instructed not to use corporal punishment or food deprivation, but otherwise to exert domination over the prisoners to keep order in the prison. Guards were dressed in identical khaki uniforms with reflective sunglasses to prevent eye contact with prisoners.

Experiment

[edit]

At the beginning of the experiment, Zimbardo started off with nine guards and nine prisoners. All the original volunteers were kept as backups. The experiments called for guards to work "shifts" in the prison, in three groups of three, but the nine prisoners were expected to live in the "prison" throughout the experiment.

On the third day, the study allowed visiting hours for friends and family. The visitation was closely monitored and timed with many rules and restrictions. The next event that added to the prison experiment "drama" was a rumored escape plan that the prisoners were planning on carrying out directly after visiting hours. The prisoner was going to have some of his friends round up, break into the prison and free all of the prisoners. After one of the guards overheard this plan, an informant was placed in among the prisoners and the escape never happened. The prisoners who had been thought to have organized the escape were disciplined and harassed with more pushups and toilet cleaning.[citation needed]

At some point, even the prisoners who were thought of as role models and obeyed all of the guards' commands were being punished. Going to the bathroom was considered a privilege rather than a necessity, and those who acted out against the guards were made to urinate and defecate in a bucket in their cell.[citation needed]

The Lucifer Effect

[edit]
Main article: The Lucifer Effect

Zimbardo's book, The Lucifer Effect,[1] gets its title from the metamorphosis of Lucifer into Satan. Though the Christian Scriptures do not make this claim, according to the Biblical account, Lucifer was once God's favorite angel until he challenged God's authority and was cast into Hell with all the other fallen angels. Thus, Zimbardo derives this title to explain how good people turn evil. Zimbardo's main assumption on why good people do terrible things is due to situational influences and power given from authority.[citation needed]

He also notes that we as humans wish to believe in unchanging goodness of people and our power to resist situational and external pressures and temptations. In chapter 12, "Investigating Social Dynamics: Power, Conformity, and Obedience," Zimbardo discusses that peer pressure, the desire to be 'cool,' the fear of rejection, and simply being a part of a group are the focal points to acting preposterous to your character.[citation needed]

Zimbardo's situational perspective received support from other social situational experiments that demonstrated the same idea and concept. Almost ten years prior to the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), Stanley Milgram conducted research on obedient behavior in 1965 that embraced situational forces. Milgram had "teachers" that delivered mock electric shocks to the "learner" for every wrong answer that was given in a multiple choice test. The teachers, however, did not know that the electric shocks were not real, and still delivered them to the learners. At the end of the experiment, 65% of men ages 20–50 complied fully up to the very last voltage. In the same room as the teacher, there was a "confederate" that kept tabs on the teacher and if they were delivering the shocks to each wrong answer. In the beginning of the study, participants signed a waiver that clearly explained the ability to opt out of the experiment and not deliver the shocks. But with the surprising result rate of teachers who did continue to shock the learners, there was a situational force. The situational force that influenced the teachers to continue was the voice of the confederate egging them on by phrases such as, "I advise you to continue with this experiment" or "I am telling you to continue delivering the shocks" and the one that caught most teachers was "You must continue with the shocks." Although the teachers knew that they could leave the experiment at any point in time, they still continued when they felt uncomfortable because of the confederate's voice demanding they proceed.[citation needed]

Both Milgram and Zimbardo's experiment tested situational forces on an individual. Both results concluded that irrational behavior compared to one's character is plausible for any human because we have both tendencies in our nature. Both studies are frequently cited as examples of psychological experiments that were conducted in the mid-20th century that have serious ethical problems involving the treatment of human experimental participants and not clearly explained informed consent. Both studies probably could not receive approval today from any university board of ethics.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Zimbardo, Philip (2007). The Lucifer Effect. New York: The Random House. ISBN 978-1-4000-6411-3.

Time

[edit]

The same year he presided over the first Time Perspective Conference at Coimbra University, Portugal.

Social intensity syndrome (SIS)

[edit]

Fifty-eight items were deemed viable and six factors were identified; military friends (16 items), family (11 items), gender social preference (7 items), social bonding (11 items), nostalgia (9 items) and drug use (4 items). Identifying and standardizing SIS was the first step, further research has identified that 4 demographic categories within the military; active and have been deployed (AD), active and never been deployed (AND), inactive and have been deployed (ID) and inactive and never been deployed (IND). These are important categories to better understand how service members are affected leaving the military.

Other endeavors

[edit]

In 2002, Zimbardo was elected president of the American Psychological Association. Under his direction, the organization developed the website PsychologyMatters.org, a compendium of psychological research that has applications for everyday life. Also that year, he appeared in the British reality television show, The Human Zoo. Participants were observed inside a controlled setting while Zimbardo and a British psychologist analyzed their behavior.

In September 2006, Zimbardo joined the faculty at Palo Alto University as Professor of Psychology, where he teaches social psychology to doctoral students in the clinical psychology program. Zimbardo officially retired from teaching after 57 years, completing his last course at Palo Alto University in March 2014.

Recognition

[edit]

In 2016, Zimbardo received an honorary doctorate degree from Charles University in Prague.[citation needed]

In 2005, he received the Dagmar and Václav Havel Foundation Vision 97 Award in Prague.

pilot study

[edit]

i heard that he conducted a 4 year pilot study beforehand, is that in the article?

Getting the photo right - not just removed

[edit]

I've been trying to help Dr Zimbardo upload the photos he owns and wants to be able to have us use for this article. Not sure how we still havent' gotten through the OTRS process, but need help. Removing the photo and not putting anything in its place seems backward. Help? What does he specifically need to submit to whom in order to resolve this finally? DrMel (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Temple

[edit]

Who has the Washington Post article about Shirley Temple being his mother? -John Potti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.217.214 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to improve the opening paragraph and remove the “Citations needed” tag?

[edit]

I have a Conflict of Interest that means i wont edit this article (I know Zimbardo personally) - but I would like to help improve it via he Talk Page, maintaining NPOV and collaborating with anyone else here.

Its his 90th birthday tomorrow, and I suspect there will be even more pageviews. The opening paragraph seems like it could use improvements - I asked ChatGPT for suggestions and got these back, for your consideration (I think there may still be too many biased words, but do these read any better?)

My query to ChatGPT: Could you help me improve this paragraph - it is the introductory paragraph on wikipedia for the biography of Philip Zimbardo, and could be better written. Can you give me a couple versions in encyclopedic phrasing, with citations?

Here’s the current version: 

Philip George Zimbardo (/zɪmˈbɑːrdoʊ/; born March 23, 1933) is an American psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University.[1] He became known for his 1971 Stanford prison experiment, which was later severely criticized for both ethical and scientific reasons. He has authored various introductory psychology textbooks for college students, and other notable works, including The Lucifer Effect, The Time Paradox, and The Time Cure. He is also the founder and president of the Heroic Imagination Project.[2]

ChatGPT’s proposed revisions:

Version 1: Philip George Zimbardo is a highly distinguished American psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, renowned for his contributions to the field of psychology. One of his most notable works is the controversial 1971 Stanford prison experiment, which sparked significant ethical and scientific debates. Zimbardo has also authored several acclaimed textbooks on introductory psychology and written numerous other influential works, including The Lucifer Effect, The Time Paradox, and The Time Cure. He has also been recognized for his significant contributions to social psychology and his advocacy for heroism, having founded and led the Heroic Imagination Project. Source: [1] Stanford University, "Philip Zimbardo," accessed March 22, 2023, https://profiles.stanford.edu/philip-zimbardo. [2] Heroic Imagination Project, "About Dr. Philip Zimbardo," accessed March 22, 2023, https://www.heroicimagination.org/about/philip-zimbardo/.

Version 2: Philip George Zimbardo is an American psychologist, a professor emeritus at Stanford University, and a highly acclaimed figure in the field of psychology. His groundbreaking 1971 Stanford prison experiment remains a significant milestone in the history of social psychology, despite its controversy and criticism. In addition to his pioneering research, Zimbardo has authored several influential textbooks on introductory psychology and written numerous other noteworthy works, including The Lucifer Effect, The Time Paradox, and The Time Cure. He is also the founder and president of the Heroic Imagination Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting heroism and leadership among individuals and communities. Source: [1] Stanford University, "Philip Zimbardo," accessed March 22, 2023, https://profiles.stanford.edu/philip-zimbardo. [2] Heroic Imagination Project, "About Dr. Philip Zimbardo," accessed March 22, 2023, https://www.heroicimagination.org/about/philip-zimbardo/.

Reactions? Anyone else here now experimenting with ChatGPT as a writing tool? DrMel (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_Zimbardo&oldid=1252338648"