Saletan seems to suggest that the use of "the 24 subjects who were
judged to be most stable (physically and mentally), most
mature, and least involved in anti-social behavior" was a piece of "cultural
or political box-drawing", in that Zimbardo left personality out of the
study "because he can't control or measure" it or because he didn't think
personality was important. That may not be a fair reading of Saletan's
article, but I can't figure out what else he might have meant in the
material I quoted below. And of course if that's what Saletan DID intend,
then he simply doesn't understand either the methods or the results of the
prison study at all. Personality was not "left out" - it was carefully
controlled, because the study is pointless without that control.
For years I had my sophomore-level research students analyze the prison
study, and this was easily the most common error, so I guess I find this not
very surprising anymore. I am very interested in what people who misread the
study in this way think the study was actually about. If you miss the fact
that Zimbardo chose participants to challenge the dispositional hypothesis
then you must have some other explanation for why he chose the participants
that he chose. What in the world would you be thinking?
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
Annette Taylor wrote:
> I thought you all would be interested in this since we just discussed this
> issue; I think this guy takes exactly the opposite stance that I would
have;
> I'd like to hear what the rest of you think.
>
> ==========================================================================
> Situationist Ethics
> The Stanford Prison Experiment doesn't explain Abu Ghraib.
> By William Saletan
> Posted Wednesday, May 12, 2004, at 3:51 PM PT
(snip)
> But science, particularly social science, isn't all scientific. Every
> experimenter begins by drawing a box. Inside the box are the factors he
decides
> to control or measure. The rest�?"including him�?"are left out, either
because
> he can't control or measure them, or because he doesn't think they're
> important. The box-drawing process is seldom scientific and often cultural
or
> political. Consequently, excluded factors often turn out to be more
important
> than included ones. That's why the Stanford experiment doesn't
explain�?"or
> excuse�?"Abu Ghraib.
(snip)
> Why did guards at Abu Ghraib, unlike guards at Stanford, go beyond
humiliation
> to violence, severe injury, and rape? To answer that question, you have to
look
> not at the factors Zimbardo studied, but at the factors he left out. For
> example:
>
> 1. Personality. The Stanford experimenters picked as guards and inmates
"the 24
> subjects who were judged to be most stable (physically and mentally), most
> mature, and least involved in anti-social behavior." This group was so
> nonviolent that according to Zimbardo, "Virtually all had indicated a
> preference for being a prisoner because they could not imagine going to
college
> and ending up as a prison guard. On the other hand, they could imagine
being
> imprisoned for a driving violation or some act of civil disobedience." The
> soldiers implicated at Abu Ghraib, however, were led by two veteran prison
> guards, one of whom had received three court orders to stay away from his
ex-
> wife, who said he had thrown her against a wall and had threatened her
with
> guns.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
