The Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical according to the criteria for ethical research accepted by the APA and the British Psychology Society. These criteria are summarized in David Myer's text Psychology as follows:
1. The informed consent of potential participants must be obtained
2. Subjects must be protected from harm or discomfort
3. Information about each individual participant must be handled confidentially
4. The research must be fully explained afterwards.
Dr Zimbardo, in conducting the Stanford Prison Experiment, failed to protect experiment participants from harm/discomfort. The prisoners experienced discomfort and some even experienced sever emotional distress. Also, the guards may have experienced a great amount of discomfort upon realizing their own "hidden tendencies" toward evil and misuse of power. Even if comprehensive and extensive debreifing and counseling sessions were provided to the students, the experience was undoubtedly a life-altering experience for all. I have no doubt that some may still be pained by their memories of the 6-day experiment.
One argument that has been put forth is that the experiment involved very little deception (the exception being the surprise arrests at the beginning of the experiment), obtained informed consent, adhered to the signed contract terms. In addition, some may argue for its acceptance because of what it was able to reveal about group and power dynamics. In my opinion, this is a classic example of an age-old question: Do the ends justify the means? Even to the end of advancing our sociological knowledge, the answer is no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Sam,
ReplyDeleteThe list that you described was very informative. According to the list, Dr. Zimbardo was very close to accomplishing an ethical experiment, but I agree with you that he did not abide by number 2 as the prisoners were certainly not protected from pain or discomfort. The fact that the doctor stated that even he lost touch with reality and perceived himself as being the warden and not the experimenter shows that there was no one there to protect the participants. In addition to Dr. Zimbardo, there should have been several people there observing what was going on in order to protect the participants.
I agree with you that even with extensive debriefing, the participants were very much adversely affected by participating in this experiment. Even one of the boys who played the role of prisoner stated in his interview that he still holds animosity toward the guards and is filled with anger when having to discuss the experiment. The boy who played the guard, on the other hand, smiled and laughed during the entirety of his interview. I find it hard to believe that all the guards would act that way considering how horribly they treated other individuals.
Good luck in the course and I’m sure we will talk again!