Ethical Concerns in the Stanford Prison Experiment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Main Ethical Observations
Key Standards
References

Main Ethical Observations

Principle 1 – Respect for the autonomy, privacy, and dignity of individuals and communities

The arrest in the P. Zimbardo experiment may violate several interconnected rights outlined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Zaksaitė, 2018). It includes the right to dignity and respect for one’s private life and freedom from torture and other cruel treatment.

Principle 2 – Scientific integrity

Zimbardo has acknowledged that he actively participated in the study, which indicates that he had some influence on the outcomes. He gave the “guards” batons at one point, which would have conveyed to them that it was normal to use physical force (Bartels, 2019). He argued, however, that their actions developed naturally (Lapin, 2018).

Principle 3 – Social Responsibility

The Stanford Prison Experiment also shows the importance of authority persons’ aims. Scientists who conduct experiments, like Zimbardo, are in a position of authority and are accountable for not misusing it. Another takeaway from the well-known Milgram experiment was this (Knowles, 2018).

Principle 4 – Maximising Benefit and Minimising Harm

Unlike many scientists, who kept their distance during most experiments, Zimbardo immersed himself in his work to the point that he prioritized it over the welfare of his participants (Yanow et al., 2018). Here, the harm is evident, much like when doctor-researchers put their interests above those of patients.

Key Standards

Risk

While the experiment produced intriguing results and the information gathered during the research was eventually utilized to improve jail conditions, it nonetheless broke multiple ethical rules and unnecessarily endangered the participants’ physical and mental health (Code of Ethics and Conduct, 2021).

Informed Consent

The findings demonstrated that social roles greatly impact people (Le Texier, 2019). Such serious repercussions spurred criticism of the study’s ethics (Le Texier, 2019). Participants were not given sufficient information to enable them to grant informed consent.

Confidentiality

Regarding secrecy, Zimbardo pledged that all data would be classified, with a master list accessible only to the lead investigators, and that consent forms for any film material would be secured from each participant before any films were screened (Perlstadt, 2018).

Giving Advice

The fictitious environment should not permit unrestrained activities outside of a formal structure (Sards-Joshi, 2022). Implementing very little statistical control or control group is not recommended, and there is no way to confirm that the experiment was indeed the reason for the severe behaviors seen (Sards-Joshi, 2022).

Deception

According to Zimbardo, they were permitted, within reason, to take any actions necessary to uphold the rules of the facility and the inmates’ respect (Resnick, 2018). Interviews with persons participating and audio recordings show that the guards were either coerced into acting cruelly or thought the experiment was an improv game (Resnick, 2018).

Debrief

To the surprise of Zimbardo and his colleagues, however, the guards quickly abused their authority by forcing detainees to urinate in a bucket that made the jail smell like urine and excrement, shooting a stream of “skin-chilling carbon dioxide,” and deploying a variety of psychological torture techniques (Kim, 2020).

Competence

Zimbardo’s dual roles as superintendent and chief researcher created a conflict of interest that caused him to lose sight of the harm being done to the study participants (Oates et al., 2021).

References

Bartels, J. (2019). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159(6), 780-790. Web.

Code of Ethics and Conduct. (2021). British Psychological Society.

Kim, C., C. (2020). Lessons from the Stanford Prison Experiment: fifty years later. The Stanford Daily. Web.

Knowles, H. (2018). Unchaining the Stanford Prison Experiment: Philip Zimbardo’s famous study falls under scrutiny. The Stanford Daily. Web.

Lapin, T. (2018). Famed Stanford Prison Experiment was a fraud, scientist says. New York Post. Web.

Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford prison experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823.

Perlstadt, H. (2018). How to Get out of the Stanford Prison Experiment: Revisiting Social Science Research Ethics. Current Res. J. Soc. Sci. & Human., 1, 45.

Resnick, B. (2018). The Stanford Prison Experiment is based on lies. Hear them for yourself. Vox. Web.

Sards-Joshi, G. (2022). Philip Zimbardo: Beyond the Stanford Prison Experiment. Brain Fodder. Web.

Oates, J., Carpenter, D., Fisher, M., Goodson, S., Hannah, B., Kwiatowski, R., Prutton, K., Reeves, D. & Wainwright, T. (2021). BPS Code of Human Research Ethics. British Psychological Society.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2018, September). Framing” deception” and” covertness” in research: Do Milgram, Humphreys, and Zimbardo justify regulating social science research ethics? In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3), pp. 1-31.

Zaksaitė, S. (2018). Unmasking the aggression in the works of Oskaras Korsunovas and Lars von Trier. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas, 48(2).

Click Here To Order Now!