Controversial Experiment in Psychology History

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

Introduction
BPS Ethical Standards
Data Type and Approaches
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Psychology aims to observe, learn, and understand human behaviors from various perspectives. Talking about controversial experiments in the history of psychology, many people admit to the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971 (Jarrett, 2014). The essence of the project was to simulate prison life and make the participants learn their roles and follow their obligations within the environment. There were 74 applicants, out of which 24 males were chosen and promised to get $15 a day (Haslam et al., 2019; Le Texier, 2019). The reasons for that research to be ended before the set deadline included abuse, unpredictable acceptance of social roles, emotional breakdowns, and aggression. Many scholars, psychologists, social workers, and sociologists defined the experience as unethical, unimportant, and irrelevant (Kulig et al., 2017; Le Texier, 2019). Although much qualitative and quantitative data were obtained within the first six days, the SPE was characterized as controversial with the participants’ current code of ethics, approaches, and rights.

BPS Ethical Standards

The British Psychological Society (BPS) is a well-known professional organization that promotes ethical behaviors during research projects through a properly developed Code of Ethics. The major ethical standards are consent, the right to withdraw, deception, protection of participants, and debriefing. In SPE, most of these principles were poorly identified or even neglected. Conflicts between prisoners and guards began on the second day of the experiment and never ended until the last day of their participation (Bartels, 2019). The first questions about the ethical aspects of the project were related to the participants’ desire to withdraw from the study and use their right to go out at any time (Bartels & Griggs, 2019). The next wave of concerns was about incomplete informed consent. The guards were not informed that they were also the experiment’s subjects (Le Texier, 2019). Besides, the guards’ abusive behaviors could be explained by the inevitable assignment to follow the orders without complete immersion in the prison situation (Griggs & Bartels, 2019). It was revealed that different situational forces provoked malevolent actions, but Zimbardo himself could not predict such development of the events.

Data Type and Approaches

In the chosen experiment, both qualitative and quantitative data were used for analysis. On the one hand, it is correct to admit that qualitative data were mainly obtained through direct observations, video recordings, and later interviews with the participants (Bartels & Griggs, 2019; Haslam et al., 2019). Stereotypes, biases, and personal judgments affected the results of the study. On the other hand, quantitative data could be ignored because there was a definite number of rules to follow and the findings showed that 90% of conversations were about prison life. Regarding the fact that the SPE is considered inappropriate, unethical, and unnecessary, it is hard to say if the approach was properly chosen. However, it was possible to gather enough qualitative information regarding the chosen methods (observations and video recordings). The shortages of poor ethics affected the results and questioned the approach.

Conclusion

In general, the SPE remains one of psychology’s most provocative and criticized projects. Many ethical guidelines were not followed, and the participants had no protection guarantees, which is forbidden in modern practice. Men were poorly motivated by a clear financial benefit and defined their roles from a material point of view. The experiment’s outcomes proved that cooperation with human subjects is a complex issue in the psychological field, and many factors must be examined before the participants enter the necessary environment.

References

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

Bartels, J. M., & Griggs, R. A. (2019). Using new revelations about the Stanford prison experiment to address APA undergraduate psychology major learning outcomes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(4), 298-304. Web.

Griggs, R. A., & Bartels, J. M. (2019). Teaching scientific thinking using recent archival revelations about the Stanford Prison Experiment. Psychology Teaching Review, 25(2), 39-47.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 809-822. Web.

Jarrett, C. (2014). The 10 most controversial psychology studies ever published. Research Digest. Web.

Kulig, T. C., Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2017). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A case study in organized skepticism.Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(1), 74-111. Web.

Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Controversial Experiment in Psychology History

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)