The American Psychological Association (APA) is the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States. It is the world's largest association of psychologists with around 137,000 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. The APA has an annual budget of around $115m. The American Psychological Association is occasionally confused with the American Psychiatric Association, which also uses the acronym APA.

Profile[link]

Mission[link]

The mission of the APA^[1] is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.

The American Psychological Association aspires to excel as a valuable, effective and influential organization advancing psychology as a science, serving as:

• A uniting force for the discipline
• The major catalyst for the stimulation, growth and dissemination of psychological science and practice
• The primary resource for all psychologists
• The premier innovator in the education, development, and training of psychological scientists, practitioners and educators
• The leading advocate for psychological knowledge and practice informing policy makers and the public to improve public policy and daily living
• A principal leader and global partner promoting psychological knowledge and methods to facilitate the resolution of personal, societal and global challenges in diverse, multicultural and international contexts
• An effective champion of the application of psychology to promote human rights, health, well being and dignity

The APA core values statement

The American Psychological Association commits to its vision through a mission based upon the following values:

• Continual Pursuit of Excellence
• Knowledge and its Application Based Upon Methods of Science
• Outstanding Service to its Members and to Society
• Social Justice, Diversity and Inclusion
• Ethical Action in All that We Do

Awards[link]

Each year, the APA recognizes top psychologists with the "Distinguished Contributions" Awards; these awards are the highest honors given by the APA, and among the highest honors that a psychologist or psychology researcher can receive.

• Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Psychology (Early Career / Senior)
• Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest (Early Career / Senior)
• Award for Distinguished Scientific Applications of Psychology
• Award for Distinguished Contributions to Education and Training in Psychology
• Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Applied Research
• Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions to Practice in the Public Sector
• Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology

Membership and title of "psychologist"[link]

APA policy on the use of the title psychologist is contained in the Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologists:^[2] Psychologists have earned a doctoral degree in psychology and may not use the title “psychologist” and/or deliver psychological services to the public, unless the psychologist is licensed or specifically exempted from licensure under the law. State licensing laws specify state specific requirements for the education and training of psychologists leading to licensure. Psychologists who are exempted from licensure could include researchers, educators, or general applied psychologists who furnish services outside of the health and mental health field.

Full membership with the APA in United States and Canada requires doctoral training whereas associate membership requires at least two years of postgraduate studies in psychology or approved related discipline. The minimal requirement of a doctoral dissertation related to psychology for full membership can be waived in certain circumstances where there is evidence that significant contribution or performance in the field of psychology has been made.^[3]

Organizational structure[link]

APA comprises an executive office, a publishing operation, offices that address administrative, business, information technology, and operational needs, and five substantive directorates:

• the Education Directorate accredits doctoral psychology programs and addresses issues related to psychology education in secondary through graduate education;^[4]
• the Practice Directorate engages on behalf of practicing psychologists and health care consumers;^[5]
• the Public Interest Directorate advances psychology as a means of addressing the fundamental problems of human welfare and promoting the equitable and just treatment of all segments of society;^[6]
• the Public and Member Communications Directorate is responsible for APA's outreach to its members and affiliates and to the general public;^[7]
• the Science Directorate provides support and voice for psychological scientists.^[8]

Affiliate organizations[link]

The American Psychological Association Practice Organization (APAPO) and the Education Advocacy Trust, which operates autonomously as a part of APAPO, are 501(c)(6) entities, separate from APA. They engage in advocacy on behalf of psychological practitioners and health care consumers and psychology education, respectively.

The Psychologically Healthy Workplace program[link]

The Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program (PHWP) is a collaborative effort between the American Psychological Association and the APA Practice Organization designed to help employers optimize employee well-being and organizational performance. The PHWP includes APA’s Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards, a variety of APA Practice Organization resources, including PHWP Web content, e-newsletter, podcast and blog, and support of local programs currently implemented by 52 state, provincial and territorial psychological associations as a mechanism for driving grassroots change in local business communities. The awards are designed to recognize organizations for their efforts to foster employee health and well-being while enhancing organizational performance. The award program highlights a variety of workplaces, large and small, profit and non-profit, in diverse geographical settings. Applicants are evaluated on their efforts in the following five areas: employee involvement, work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, and employee recognition. Awards are given at the local and national level.^[9][10]

2010 award winners: American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare, Advanced Solutions (an HP company), Toronto Police Service and Leaders Bank.

APA Style[link]

American Psychological Association (APA) Style is a set of rules developed to assist reading comprehension in the social and behavioral sciences. Designed to ensure clarity of communication, the rules are designed to "move the idea forward with a minimum of distraction and a maximum of precision."^[11] The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association contains the rules for every aspect of writing, especially in the social sciences from determining authorship to constructing a table to avoiding plagiarism and constructing accurate reference citations.

Publications[link]

The American Psychologist is the Association's official journal. APA also publishes 60 other journals encompassing most specialty areas in the field, including:^[12]

• Developmental Psychology
• Emotion
• Health Psychology
• Journal of Applied Psychology
• Journal of Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
• Journal of Family Psychology
• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Psychological Bulletin
• Psychological Review
• Psychology and Aging
• Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

PsycINFO[link]

APA maintains an abstract database named PsycINFO. It contains citations and summaries dating from the 19th century, including journal articles, book chapters, books, technical reports, and dissertations within the field of psychology. As of January 2010, PsycINFO has collected information from 2,457 journals.^[13] Similar databases operated by other organizations include PsycLit and Psychological Abstracts.

History[link]

Founding[link]

The APA was founded in July 1892 at Clark University by a group of 26 men. Its first president was G. Stanley Hall. There are currently 56 divisions in the APA,^[14] and it is affiliated with 60 state, territorial, and Canadian provincial associations.^[15]

Dominance of clinical psychology[link]

Due to the dominance of clinical psychology in APA, several research-focused groups have broken away from the organization. These include the Psychonomic Society in 1959 (with a primarily cognitive orientation), and the Association for Psychological Science (which changed its name from the American Psychological Society in early 2006) in 1988 (with a broad focus on the science and research of psychology). Theodore H. Blau was the first clinician in independent practice to be elected president of the American Psychological Association in 1977.^[16]

Past presidents[link]

Positions on homosexuality[link]

An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (March 2012)

Cause of homosexuality[link]

The APA states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."^[17]

Conversion therapy[link]

In 1975 APA issued a supporting statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.^[18][19][20] There is a concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy itself causes social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of homosexual and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives.^[21] Most mainstream health organizations are critical of conversion therapy and no mainstream medical organization endorses conversion therapy.^{[21][22][23][24][note 1]}

The APA adopted a resolution in August 2009 stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The approval, by APA's governing Council of Representatives, came at APA's annual convention, during which a task force presented a report^[25] that in part examined the efficacy of so-called "reparative therapy," or sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).

The "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts"^[26] also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and instead seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."

Same-sex marriage[link]

The APA adopted a resolution stating that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant rights, benefits, and privileges. It also filed an amicus brief in the federal court case in which Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.^[27] The APA later praised the decision and denied the existence of any "scientific justification" for a ban on same-sex marriage.^[28]

In August 2011, the APA clarified their support of same-sex marriage in light of continued research suggesting that the same community benefits accepted as result of hetero-sexual marriage apply to same-sex couples as well, "We knew that marriage benefits heterosexual people in very significant ways, but we didn't know if that would be true for same-sex couples," said Dr. Clinton Anderson, associate executive director of the APA and director of the Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns. Anderson would also go on to clarify the Association's view on Civil Unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages: "Anything other than marriage is, in essence, a stigmatization of same-sex couples. Stigma does have negative impacts on people." ^[29] Anderson's statements have been met with scrutiny from organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage, that dispute the notion that communities are more accepting of homosexuals in states that legally sanction same-sex marriage.^{[citation needed]}

Controversies[link]

This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. (May 2010)

APA Internship Crisis for Graduate Students[link]

The APA is the main accrediting body for U.S. clinical and counseling psychology doctoral training programs and internship sites (http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/about-accreditation.aspx). APA-accredited Clinical Psychology PhD and PsyD programs typically require students to complete a one-year clinical internship in order to graduate (or a two year part-time internship). However, there is currently an "internship crisis" as defined by the American Psychological Association, in that approximately 25% of clinical psychology doctoral students do not match for internship each year (http://www.apa.org/apags/issues/internship.aspx; http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_2_1_13a_match_about_statistics_general_2011PhaseI.html). This crisis has led many students (approximately 1,000 each year) to re-apply for internship, thus delaying graduation, or to complete an unaccredited internship, and often has many emotional and financial consequences (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/04/pc.aspx). Students who do not complete an APA accredited internships in the U.S. are barred from certain employment settings, including VA Hospitals, the military, and cannot get licensed in some states, such as Utah and Mississippi (http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_1_appfaq2.html#q3 and http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2004/04/accreditation.aspx). Additionally, some post-doctoral fellowships and other employment settings require or prefer an APA Accredited internship (http://www.appic.org/match/5_2_1_appfaq2.html#q3). The APA has been criticized for not addressing this crisis adequately and many psychologists and graduate students have petitioned for the APA to take action by regulating graduate training programs. Many graduate students attend APA accredited programs, yet are unable to secure APA accredited internships possibly leading to financial and employment hardships.

Use of coercive techniques considered equivalent of torture[link]

The APA absolutely condemns the use of any of the following practices by military interrogators trying to elicit anti-terrorism information from detainees, on the ground that "there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification" for them:^[30]

• An absolute prohibition against the following techniques therefore arises from, is understood in the context of, and is interpreted according to these texts: mock executions; water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation; sexual humiliation; rape; cultural or religious humiliation; exploitation of fears, phobias or psychopathology; induced hypothermia; the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances; hooding; forced nakedness; stress positions; the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate; physical assault including slapping or shaking; exposure to extreme heat or cold; threats of harm or death; isolation; sensory deprivation and over-stimulation; sleep deprivation; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to an individual or to members of an individual’s family.^[30]

The US military has used waterboarding, stress positions, slapping, and isolation on Gitmo detainees, and justifies these on the (disputed) grounds that such techniques have gotten important antiterrorist information.^{[citation needed]}

When it emerged that psychologists as part of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team were advising interrogators in Guantánamo and other U.S. facilities on improving the effectiveness of the "Enhanced interrogation techniques", the Association called on the U.S. government to prohibit the use of unethical interrogation techniques and labeled specific techniques as torture.^{[31][citation needed]} Critics pointed out that the APA declined to advise its members not to participate in such interrogations.^[32] This was in contrast to the American Psychiatric Association ban in May, 2006 of all direct participation in interrogations by psychiatrists,^[33] and the American Medical Association ban in June 2006 of the direct participation in interrogations by physicians.^[34]

In September 2008, APA’s members passed a resolution stating that psychologists may not work in settings where “persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the U.S. Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.”^[35] The resolution became official APA policy in February 2009.

Amending the Ethics Code

In February 2010 APA's Council of Representatives voted to amend the association's Code of Ethics^[36] to make clear that its standards can never be interpreted to justify or defend violating human rights. Following are the two ethical standards and the changes adopted. Language that is in bold was newly adopted:

1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands

If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

See also[link]

• American Psychoanalytic Association
• American Psychiatric Association
• APA style
• Association for Psychological Science
• Psychonomic Society

Notes[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Website of the APA
• American Psychological Association Rejects Blanket Ban on Participation in Interrogation of U.S. Detainees

Philip George Zimbardo
Zimbardo speaking in Poland, 2009
Born	(1933-03-23) March 23, 1933 (age 79) New York City, New York
Residence	United States
Nationality	American
Fields	Psychology
Institutions	Yale University New York University Columbia University Stanford University
Alma mater	Brooklyn College Yale University
Known for	Stanford prison study, spouse of Christina Maslach, UC Berkeley, Time paradox, Lucifer Effect, Abu Ghraib
Influences	Stanley Milgram
Spouse	Christina Maslach

Philip George Zimbardo (born March 23, 1933) is a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University. He is president of the Heroic Imagination Project. He is known for his Stanford prison study and authorship of various introductory psychology books and textbooks for college students, including The Lucifer Effect and The Time Paradox.

Early years[link]

Zimbardo was born in New York City on March 23, 1933, from a family of Sicilian immigrants. He completed his BA with a triple major in psychology, sociology, and anthropology from Brooklyn College in 1954, where he graduated summa cum laude. He completed his M.S. (1955) and Ph.D (1959) in psychology from Yale University, where Neal E. Miller was his advisor.^[1] He taught at Yale from 1959 to 1960. From 1960 to 1967, he was a professor of psychology at New York University. From 1967 to 1968, he taught at Columbia University. He joined the faculty at Stanford University in 1968.

Prison study[link]

In 1971, Zimbardo accepted a tenured position as professor of psychology at Stanford University. With a government grant from the U.S. Office of Naval Research, he conducted the Stanford prison study in which 24 clinically sane individuals were randomly assigned to be "prisoners" or "guards" in a mock prison located in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford (three additional college students were selected as alternates, only one of whom participated^[2] in the study). The planned two-week study into the psychology of prison life ended after only six days due to emotional trauma being experienced by the participants. The students quickly began acting out their roles, with "guards" becoming sadistic and "prisoners" showing extreme passivity and depression.

The volunteers knew they were being used in a study but they did not know when the study would be taking place, so the initial shock of being randomly arrested one morning and taken to the mock prison put them in a mild state of shock. On arrival, the "prisoners" were stripped, searched, shaved and deloused, which caused a great deal of humiliation. They were then issued uniforms, ID numbers, and escorted to their cells by the volunteer prison guards. These changes isolated the prisoners making it harder for them to portray their individual characteristics. The guards themselves were not given any specific instruction or guidelines for the way they were to treat the prisoners. Instead, the psychologists allowed them to do whatever was needed to keep order in the prison. They were dressed very professionally in identical uniforms. They also wore a whistle around their neck and carried a night stick.

At the beginning of the experiment, Zimbardo started off with nine guards and nine prisoners. All the original volunteers were kept as backups and 3 prisoners as well as 3 guards occupied the prison at a time. Their first night in the prison, the volunteer prisoners were awakened at 2:30 AM by the guards blowing their whistles. They did this several times to familiarize the prisoners with how things were going to work and to let them know who was in charge.

The study shows that before the volunteer prisoners started showing signs of distress, they did not take the guards and their authority seriously. The prisoners mocked the guards, trying to regain their individuality. This, however, was short-lived. The prisoners soon realized that the attitude of the guards was very serious and that they demanded obedience. This began a long string of confrontational quarrels between the guards and prisoners. The guards used physical punishment and exercises, such as pushups, in order to show their authority to the prisoners.

In the morning of only the second day, a rebellion broke out among the volunteer prisoners. They ripped off their uniforms and locked themselves in their cells by pushing their beds up against the door. In response to this, the guards became very angry and called for backup assistance to the situation. This surprised Zimbardo as well as the rest of the psychologists because they had not thought it would be taken this far. Guards who were not on duty were called in and the guards who were assigned to only the night shift stayed with the guards who came in all the way through their shift the next morning. The tactic the guards came up with was to fight back in order to discipline the unruly prisoners and make them obey. In response to the prisoners barricading themselves in their cells, the guards used fire extinguishers on them to get them away from the entrances.

Once the guards were able to get into the cells, they stripped the inmates naked, tore apart the beds and the cell, and put the prisoners who had started the rebellion in solitary confinement. As all nine guards could not be on duty at once, they began rewarding the prisoners for good behavior. The prisoners who had not been involved in starting the riot were allowed to lie in their beds, wash themselves and brush their teeth and eat while those who had started the riot were not allowed to. The guards continued to use tormenting tactics to break up the prisoners relations with each other to avoid further organized resistance. In the case with one prisoner, who was a smoker, the guards were able to control his behavior because they decided when and if he was allowed to smoke.

Less than two full days into the experiment, one inmate began suffering from depression, uncontrolled rage, crying and other mental dysfunctions. The prisoner was eventually released after screaming and acting unstable in front of the other inmates. This prisoner was replaced with one of the alternates.^[2]

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.

At some point, even the prisoners who were thought of as role models, those who 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.

By the end of the experiment, there was no unification among prisoners as well as guards. The guards also had won complete control over all of their prisoners and were using their authority to its greatest extent. One prisoner had even gone as far as to go on a hunger strike. Refusing to eat, the guards put him into solitary confinement for three hours (even though their own rules stated the limit that a prisoner could be in solitary confinement was only one hour). Instead of the other prisoners looking at this inmate as a hero and following along in his strike, they chanted together that he was a bad prisoner and a troublemaker. Prisoners and guards had rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations.

One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and five had to be removed from the study early.

Zimbardo himself started to give into the roles of the situation. He had to be shown the reality of the experiment by Christina Maslach, his girlfriend and future wife, who had just received her doctorate in psychology.^[3]

At the end of the experiment, after all the prisoners had been released and the guards let go, everyone was brought back into the same room for evaluation and to be able to get their feelings out in the open towards one another. Ethical concerns surrounding the famous study often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment, which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, Zimbardo's former high school friend.

Similar studies[link]

There were ethical issues in researching the original study. A subsequent study looked at the power of roles in selected situations.^[4]

A 2006 study was conducted by the British Broadcasting Company replicating the study by Zimbardo.^[5] This study, due to the fact that was conducted in later times, had more restrictions. While there were restrictions, there were also great differences. The first of the differences was how the participants were filtered. The Stanford Prison Experiment only gave the participants interviews and then certain personality tests. The BBC study used first psychometric tests, which combined a series of personality, attitude and mood tests. These tests were self-report tests. The second measure to filter the participants was a telephone interview. If they had passed through the first two filters the final was a full clinical interview. The second difference was how the participants were labeled either to be guards or prisoners. The Stanford Prison Experiment used random assignment to arrange them into the two groups. The BBC study first divided the participants into groups of smaller numbers in which they were organized by key psychological dimensions. From here they were then separated into prisoners and guards. Another difference was how the prisoners were brought to the mock prisons. The Stanford Prison Experiment participants were actually arrested for crimes which they did not commit, while those in the BBC study were just brought to the location by a blacked out car.

When it comes to the difference in the results between the Stanford Prison Experiment and the BBC prison study, it is clear that the BBC study is more of a struggle to figure out what to do when there is no direction given. There was more of a conflict within the two groups than between the two groups themselves. The Stanford Prison Experiment was looking at what happened when you gave one group authority over another and the power the situation.^[6] Philip Zimbardo himself even made a critique on the BBC study describing the differences in the setup, execution and results of the study. The setup differences range from the actual participants age and how the Stanford Prison Experiment actually used college students, while the BBC prison study used men of different ages. The two studies differed with how they were executed and how rules were set up and a hierarchy was put in place. Neither of these happened in the BBC prison study. In the conclusion, Zimbardo states that the conclusion was only one that was put in place for media, not for science.^[7]

Other endeavors[link]

Prof. Philip G. Zimbardo, Berlin, Germany, 2008

After the prison experiment, Zimbardo decided to look for ways he could use psychology to help people; this led to the founding of The Shyness Clinic in Menlo Park, California, which treats shy behavior in adults and children. Zimbardo's research on shyness resulted in several bestselling books on the topic. Other subjects he has researched include mind control and cultic behavior.^[8]

Zimbardo is the co-author of an introductory Psychology textbook entitled Psychology and Life, which is used in many American undergraduate psychology courses. He also hosted a PBS TV series titled Discovering Psychology which is used in many college telecourses.^[9]

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 2004, Zimbardo testified for the defense in the court martial of Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, a guard at Abu Ghraib prison. He argued that Frederick's sentence should be lessened due to mitigating circumstances, explaining that few individuals can resist the powerful situational pressures of a prison, particularly without proper training and supervision. The judge apparently disregarded Zimbardo's testimony, and gave Frederick the maximum 8-year sentence. Zimbardo drew on the knowledge he gained from his participation in the Frederick case to write a new book entitled, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, about the connections between Abu Ghraib and the prison experiments.^[10]

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's writing appeared in Greater Good Magazine, published by the Greater Good Science Center of the University of California, Berkeley. Zimbardo's contributions include the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships. His most recent article with Greater Good magazine is entitled: "The Banality of Heroism",^[11] which examines how ordinary people can become everyday heroes. In February 2010, Zimbardo was a guest presenter at the Science of a Meaningful Life seminar: Goodness, Evil, and Everyday Heroism, along with Greater Good Science Center Executive Director Dacher Keltner.

Zimbardo, who officially retired in 2003, gave his final "Exploring Human Nature" lecture on March 7, 2007, on the Stanford campus, bringing his teaching career of 50 years to a close. David Spiegel, professor of psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine, called Zimbardo "a legendary teacher", saying that "he has changed the way we think about social influences."^[12]

Though retired Zimbardo still conducts research at Stanford University and teaches one class at the former Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, now Palo Alto University.

Zimbardo has made appearances on American TV, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on March 29, 2007,^[13] The Colbert Report on February 11, 2008 ^[14] and Dr. Phil on October 25, 2010. ^[15]

Zimbardo is currently heading a movement for everyday heroism as the founder and director of The Heroic Imagination Project (HIP), a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting heroism in everyday life. The project is currently collecting data from former American gang members and former individuals with ties to terrorism for comparison, in an attempt to better understand how individuals change violent behavior. This research portion of the project is co-headed by Dr. Rony Berger, Dr. Yotam Heineburg, and Dr. Leonard Beckum. ^[16] He published an article contrasting heroism and altruism in 2011 with Dr. Zeno Franco and Kathy Blau in the Review of General Psychology.^[17]

Recognition[link]

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

In 2003, Zimbardo, Gian Vittorio Caprara and Claudio Barbaranelli an academic of the University of Rome La Sapienza were awarded the sarcastic Ig Nobel Award for Psychology^[18] for their report "Politicians' Uniquely Simple Personalities."^[19]

Works[link]

• Influencing attitude and changing behavior: A basic introduction to relevant methodology, theory, and applications (Topics in social psychology), Addison Wesley, 1969
• The Cognitive Control of Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1969
• Stanford prison experiment: A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment, Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc., 1972
• The psychology of imprisonment: privation, power and pathology, Stanford University, 1972
• Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1969, ISBN 0-07-554809-7
• Canvassing for Peace: A Manual for Volunteers. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 1970, ISBN
• Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley., 1977, ISBN
• How to Overcome Shyness. Family Circle magazine, May 31, 1977 page 14 (with questionnaire)
• Cults go to high school: A theoretical and empirical analysis of the initial stage in the recruitment process, American Family Foundation, 1985
• Shyness: What It Is, What to Do About It, Addison Wesley, 1990, ISBN 0-201-55018-0
• The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991, ISBN 0-87722-852-3
• Psychology (3rd Edition), Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1999, ISBN 0-321-03432-5
• The Shy Child : Overcoming and Preventing Shyness from Infancy to Adulthood, Malor Books, 1999, ISBN 1-883536-21-9
• Violence Workers: Police Torturers and Murderers Reconstruct Brazilian Atrocities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002, ISBN 0-520-23447-2
• Psychology - Core Concepts, 5/e, Allyn & Bacon Publishing, 2005, ISBN 0-205-47445-4
• Psychology And Life, 17/e, Allyn & Bacon Publishing, 2005, ISBN 0-205-41799-X
• The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Random House, New York, 2007, ISBN 1-4000-6411-2
• The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2008, ISBN 1-4165-4198-5
• The Journey from the Bronx to Stanford to Abu Ghraib, pp. 85–104 in "Journeys in Social Psychology: Looking Back to Inspire the Future", edited by Robert Levine, et al., CRC Press, 2008. ISBN 0-8058-6134-3
• Zimbardo, Philip G. " A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University." The Stanford Prison Experiment. 2009. Web. 1 Dec 2009
• Psychology, AP* Edition, Zimbardo, Phil, Johnson, Robert, Weber, Ann, Gruber, Craig, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 2010

See also[link]

• Human experimentation in the United States
• List of social psychologists
• Stanford prison experiment
• Banality of evil
• Milgram experiment
• Seductive Poison

References[link]

External links[link]

• Zimbardo's official website
• Philip G. Zimbardo Papers (Stanford University Archives)
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Philip Zimbardo at TED Conferences
• Philip Zimbardo at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Philip Zimbardo in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Philip Zimbardo on the Lucifer Effect, in two parts