Prison Experiment There Are Many

Prison Experiment

There are many ethical issues surrounding the Stanford Prison Experiment. Participants- both the guards and especially the prisoners - were put under a great deal of stress. Participants were psychologically and physically harmed. Participants were deceived; an example would be that their consent forms were not complete and did not properly address all that would take place . There was a huge invasion of privacy, not to mention the surprise arrests. Zimbardo had written that coordinators had considered alternative methodologies to use to carry out this study, and since they were studying the general psychology of imprisonment, they could find no alternative. This was supposed to be a "safe environment" to study imprisonment, but Zimbardo did not take into consideration that peer pressure would make it difficult to withdraw (Xavier, 2008).

If the APA guidelines were in effect, this experiment could not have been conducted as it violates the guidelines. Beneficence, Autonomy and justice are some principles that guide the APA code of ethics. Beneficence means to maximize benefits and to minimize harm. Does the good of the study out weigh the harm. I do not believe harm was minimized. It is fortunate that no long-term consequences seem to have occurred, however they could have. If one of these participants was prone to a mental disorder, this could have triggered it. There are steps that could have been taken to minimize harm, such as having some guidelines as to appropriate behavior. Autonomy implying respect for individuals was not present (Zimbardo, 2007)).

There was no respect for these people's rights, even from the beginning. Were participants told they would be strip searched? Justice means fairness in receiving the benefits of research in addition to accepting the risks (Zimbardo, 2007). In this situation participants were not really given an opportunity to accept all the risks. They had no idea what they were getting themselves into. They trusted a higher authority and I believe they were let down. The APA would have turned down this study because it violates some of its founding principles, especially autonomy. The guards and prisoners adapted to their roles more than they were expected, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted, 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, as two of them had to be removed from the experiment early (Carnahan, 2007).

Zimbardo (1973) did discuss for future experiments the use of a neutral person that would observe the experiment, not be involved and would call it quits if things got out of hand. This is a good idea, however safe guards would be needed just in case this person became pulled into the experiment. There would need to be clear definitions of what meant that the experiment was getting out of hand. I wonder if Zimbardo could have gotten a taste of the effects of a situation like this, by having something similar, but on a smaller scale. In stead of giving no instruction for behavior, at least having some limitations, for example, no beating the prisoners. The chain around the ankle and using ID numbers instead of names seems to be at least a little more acceptable (Carnahan, 2007).

In order to obtain these exact results, I do not know if a more ethical experiment would result the same. I cannot think of how this experiment could be carried out ethically, but I am only one person. I have faith that at team of individuals could design an experiment like this, but ethical. Online, I looked up Milgram's experiment. It said it took place in the 1960's, and that Milgram wrote a book discussing the experiment in 1974. I am confused, did the public not know about Milgram's experiment until 1974. Was it not in circulation sooner? If it was, how did Zimbardo gain approval for this study? I understand no one was aware and could have accurately predicted the intensity of this experiment as well as the effects, but I would have thought that after Milgram's experiment a greater degree of skepticism would have been present (Xavier, 2008).