Talk:Philip Zimbardo

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Psychology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stanford University B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prison study

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

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

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)

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

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

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 ?

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

Digg Effect

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?

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)

Picture

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

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]

"Deafness and paranoia" experiment

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

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

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?