A critique of the Stanford Prison Experiment's ethical compliance and research purpose

¶ … 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 "wanted show the dehumanization and loosening of social and moral values that can happen to guards immersed in such a situation." The object of the experiment was "to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard," (Cherry, n.d.). The research had a focus, but its focus was relatively open-ended in terms of specific hypothesized relationships between dependent and independent variables. Zimbardo (2012) reflects on the experiment and claims it was a "dramatic demonstration of the power of the situation on human behavior." He was also "interested in prisoners and was not really interested in the guards."

2. The Stanford prison experiment is still talked about today not just because of its findings related to psychology and sociology but also for its implications for research methodology and ethics. Ethical codes related to informed consent arise, as "no one knew what, exactly, they were getting into," (Ratnesar, 2011). Moreover, the experiment went on long after participants were being harmed. "For six days, half the study's participants endured cruel and dehumanizing abuse at the hands of their peers," (Ratnesar, 2011). Ratnesar (2011) explains, "the participants "were taunted, stripped naked, deprived of sleep and forced to use plastic buckets as toilets." The experimental conditions and methodology would never be permissible with a current board of ethics in any credible research institution.

3. The Stanford prison experiment is certainly fascinating at face value and in spite of its ethical problems. Reflecting on the experiment several decades later, Zimbardo (2012) states that the Stanford prison experiment demonstrates "parallels with the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib." Real-life examples highlight what happens when one group of people are endowed with legitimized authority, as prison guards are, and another group is stripped of that power, as prisoners are. Zimbardo (2012) explains, "our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress." I value the Stanford experiment as a landmark example of the pitfalls inherent in the current prison system. Unfortunately, the unethical methodology used at Stanford is considered common practice in correctional institutions around the world. We might have learned how to design psychological experiments better, but we have yet to learn how to design correctional facilities better.