Ethical concerns in the Stanford Prison Study and Surrogate Mother Study

Ethical Problem

Three Classical Behavior Studies

The Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo)

The Stanford Prison Study was a 1971 study of how assuming the role of a prison guard or prisoner affected the attitude of presumably ordinary persons in a simulated prison setting. For two weeks, college students were supposed to assume randomly assigned roles of guards and inmates. The study was discontinued after six days, because of concerns about the faux prisoner's safety. The study is so famous that there is an Internet website devoted to the case. (http://www.prisonexp.org/)Zimbardo continues to update the site. Zimbardo notes that his 1971 findings parallel the behavior of real-life prison guards at Abu Ghrab. At the website, Zimbardo shows photographs of how the subjects of the study were conducted. The subjects were arrested, fingerprinted, and photographed, like real criminals.

The subjects had been recruited through a classified advertisement, and according to Zimbardo were screened to eliminate candidates with psychological problems, medical problems or a record of crime or drug abuse. They were randomly assigned by a coin toss to the role of either guards or prisoners. The prisoners, after their arrest, were treated in the degraded fashion of 'real' prisoners, according to Zimbardo. However, he admits in the slide show of the website dedicated to the experiment, that many of the aspects of the simulated experimental prison, such as shackling the prisoners, forcing the prisoners not to wear underwear and don dress-like garments, were not part of a legal, regular prison routine. These socialization methods echo the atmosphere of POW camps, as they do not set clear limits on guard behavior. The guards, unlike soldiers, were free and not given clear restrictions on disciplining inmates.

For fifteen dollars a day, the prisoners found themselves subject to an environment where they were physically brutalized and their heads were shaved. The advertisement they answered simply said that they were to become parts of an experiment on prison life. Zimbardo stresses that they were fed a minimally adequate diet, and agreed to the conditions before they were subject to the abuses, but the level of abuses, which Zimbardo admits even he did not anticipate, could not be predicted, given the lawless atmosphere that prevailed amongst the guards. Zimbardo characterizes the behavior of the guards as juvenile, (and their methods and the outcome does seem like a fraternity hazing gone wrong) but justifies the accuracy of the experiment because it was similar to that of the Nazi guards. The prisoners also formed alliances, rebelled, and the guards used psychological intimidation tactics of control. One wonders at the 'value' of this experiment, given that studying real life historical accounts or sociological situations might be more beneficial than encouraging the re-creation of such tactics.

Obedience Study (Stanley Milgram)

In this study, which occurred over a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985 in a variety of countries, random persons were solicited by an advertisement for $4.50 an hour. They were instructed to give shocks to subjects, to an eventually fatal degree (so the volunteers were told) according to an experimenter's orders. According to the website devoted to the experiment entitled "A Lesson in Depravity," (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm) the subjects were told that they were watching a learning experiment. The experiment's participants were, in fact, confidents of the experimenters. They real target of the research was to see how far the volunteer subjects would comply with an authority. According to the site: "Ultimately 65% of all of the 'teachers' punished the 'learners' to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!" Compliance was lessoned via communication with the fake 'text subject.'

Ethically, no one was physically harmed, and the subjects were merely misinformed over the 'real' purpose of the experiment. One wonders, however, at the lasting psychological damage -- and callousness fostered by this experiment. Like the Stanford Prison experiment, it seems inspired by World War II and the conditions witnessed in concentration camp prisons, as well as other historical and sociological accounts of abuses in prisons, fraternities, and even schools that occur as a result of instructions from an authority figure. What is the value of creating such an experiment, and such an experience for still more human beings, one might ask?