Thanks Marie & Paul, exactly my thinking when I posted this. Clearly this was not a scientist and this person did not understand the scientific method. In fact, most of the points he makes to discredit the Prison study actually enhance it, if you know what you are talking about. I'm not good writing letters to an editor, etc. but here is one that probably needs to be written just to straighten out the misconceptions Slate has now embedded in his readers' minds.
Here is the sad part of this: It was posted to an ultra conservative political website. I continue to be saddened at how people at both extremes of ultra conservative or ultra liberal, whatever those terms may mean...... misinterpret literature to suit their situation. However, what puzzled me in this case was that I would have thought that an ultra conservative site would welcome the Zimbardo study as vindication for the events that followed as a consequence of consevative governmental decision- making. Rather, the author is trying to discredit this explanation of events at Abu Ghraib. Which puts the burden back onto the military personnel individually and directly. Also, let me add to Paul's statement that it wasn't just personality that was controlled! The misinterpretation of the prison study seems to be greater than that because he is also calling into question the 'power of the situation' (to borrow Zimbardo's phrase) when he says that, for example, ethnicity played a role in the Abu Ghraib situation that was not present at Stanford--and then he tries to say that the prison study would not predict that! Huh? Clearly, to me at least, what Zimbardo showed was that these behaviors emerged DESPITE holding constant variables such as ethnicity. When, left to vary, such a variable might only add to the negative behaviors that emerged amongst the guards. Yesterday, because I am preparing to teach a summer session intro course with a new lesson plan I revisited the Stanford Prison site and see that it has already been updated to explain the Abu Ghraib situation. Quick work. Annette Quoting Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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] > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
