Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford prison study seems like an absurd psychological experiment by today's ethical standards. Issues of research design and validity aside, the Stanford prison experiment was ethically questionable on several counts. To make prisoners clean toilet bowls with their bare hands, to deprive the prisoners of sleep by waking them up in the middle of the night for arbitrary counts, and to chain their feet together are deplorable methods that took the Stanford experiment too far.
The ethical problems started even before the experiment began, as Zimbardo never mentions anything about informed consent. Although Zimbardo insists that participants were thoroughly screened for pre-existing psychological conditions there was no way of knowing for sure which of them might have been prone to developing psychological disorders. Especially in the early 1970s when the experiment was conducted, awareness of the nature and extent of psychological trauma was minimal. No clear diagnostic procedures were used, and the participants had no idea what they were getting themselves into. More importantly, they were not guaranteed the right to terminate the experiment at their will. When Prisoner 8621 asked to get out of the experiment he was summarily ridiculed and sent back. It was only when he screamed that Zimbardo was forced to let him quit. Guards were also given far too much leeway in their ability to mentally abuse and thoroughly humiliate the prisoners. There were no checks on their behavior.
Interestingly, Zimbardo and the other directors seemed to be aware of their ethical transgressions. On visiting day, they purposefully cleaned up the prison to sterilize its appearance and make the parents feel appeased. Their actions clearly show they were aware of the sadism inherent in the prison experiment and were covering it up. Oddly, Zimbardo seems less than remorseful even in retrospect. The Stanford prison experiment left as much of a legacy on creating ethical standards in psychology than it did on elucidating any psychological or sociological reality.
Stanford Prison Experiment Ethical issues are always first and foremost a subject of ambiguous grounds when it comes to experiments that are hinged on human behavior. Whether this is because of the short- and long-term consequences of psychological and physical harm, ethical questions are raised with regards to how much scientific benefit can be accrued from conducting such an experiment. This question remains heavily controversial especially in the Stanford Prison Experiment,
Stanford Prison Experiment The roles we take on in our everyday lives are dictated by several factors. Whether it's the role of mother, son, student, cashier, accountant, boyfriend, wife, or teacher, the roles that make up our identities are varied and we slip into and out of them without any conscious thought. These roles are adopted by us based on expectations and assumptions prescribed to us by ourselves and others. The
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
Participants in the study did receive a psychological testing battery but in the study it is reported that scores were not known until the close of the experiment. This may mean that the aggressive behavior seen in the experiment was not due to the effect of the situation on the person, but rather the interaction of the person in the situation. Members of the study staff (minus Dr. Zimbardo,
Stanford Prison experiment was to examine the psychological and sociological effects of incarceration. In particular, researchers set out to examine how prisoners reacted to being bereft of power. Ultimately the experiment illustrated not just how prisoners reacted to being powerless, but also how simulated guards reacted to being bestowed with nearly unlimited power over others. The experiment was therefore exploratory in nature. Shuttleworth (2008) claims that the researcher Zimbardo
Among the dozen investigations of the Abu Ghraib abuses, one found that the landmark Stanford study provided a cautionary tale for all military detention operations. In differentiating the comparatively benign environment of the Stanford prison experiment, this report makes obvious that in military detention operations, soldiers work under demanding combat conditions that are far from benign. The insinuation is that those combat conditions might be anticipated to produce even