Ethics are a big part of research, in order for research to be conducted and the findings be used then they must follow ethics set by the Ethics committee. Ethics are a set of rules and rights. The rules must be followed by the researchers and the rights are for the participants. All participants must fully consent to the research and if they are too young then a guardian must consent for them. The participants’ information must be kept confidential and they can opt out of any parts of the research that they are uncomfortable completing.
A case study that is looked at quite often in ethics is the Stanford Prison Experiment. This experiment was conducted in 1971, by Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist. The intent of the experiment was to recreate
…show more content…
The guards abused and took advantage of the prisoners. The prisoners were so miss treated that a few of them left before the study was suspended. After six days the whole experiment, which was supposed to last 14 days, was ended because Zimbardo finally realized how unethical it was to keep the experiment going.
Looking at the ethics of the experiment some were followed and some were not. The way the guards treated the prisoners was very unethical. But the prisoners were allowed leave the study early because they could not handle the stress. From an ethical stand point I do not think that the study could have been conducted any other way. The way the guards treated the prisoners was uncontrollable, the guards were given rules and they did not follow them. Ethically this experiment was doomed from the start.
This experiment was conducted poorly from a research stand point also. The sample size of the experiment was too small. Also the participant were not diverse enough because the sample was mostly white males. The set up was as close to a real prison as the researchers could get but it was not close enough to actually simulate a real prison feel. This experiment is hard to conduct there are not many ways to actually go about doing it. One way they could have conducted the experiment is actually using a real prison and real prison guards. They could have observed the way the real prison guards acted and then screened them to see if they were psychological unstable or if they were just abusing their
I believe that although valuable information came from it, the ethical quality of this experiment is very questionable. I suspected that the guards would turn more authoritative than any of them would have in real life, but I never thought that they would go as far as ridiculing some prisoners to tears. Although there were none of the prisoners had any long term effects from participating, while in the experiment they would be harassed and punished for no reason, which is where I think the experiment should have been discontinued. Control of the experiment was lost as everybody involved, including Zimbardo became completely engulfed in their roles of the prison. This really makes me question Zimbardo and the other researchers to how they could be too involved in their own experiment to stop the experiment when it began to grow out of control. I think that in the experiment the guards showed who they really were. None of them would have acted that way in their own lives. Zimbardo watched all of this on a hidden camera, and didn’t do anything until long after I along with many others think it should have been. It’s not only that the participants didn’t see the unethical characteristics of this experiment, a priest that was called in and the prisoners parents that came for a visitation day didn’t protest the treatment of their sons after hearing stories of the mock prison. There is something about these symbols of
They wore them down by the antics I mentioned above and I think the prisoners also came to the realization that there is nothing that can do to change their situation they have no authority or control. Although his experiment was viewed as controversial and iconic. I cannot in any way, shape or form justify a research permissible within the current ACJS ethical standards. I don’t believe any experiments could top the Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. How could you replicate or create an experiment similar to this one if there was no rules or guidelines to adhere by? By having no rules or guidelines is what made this experiment one of a kind and unique. Even by the ACJS ethical standards applied in my eyes, I still view it as unjust and unethical. I don’t believe that these standards should be altered so as to permit this type of research. I believe experiments like this have no place in Psychology. Despite the punishment, the individuals
It was a great experiment because we know that people would do it they were on the other end and having that power and authority to demand someone. It was scary to actually see how they became with the position in becoming a guard. I have seen many cases on the news where guards are so mean to the inmates and also where they beat them and take advantage of them because if the inmate stands up they would probably be beaten more or send to solitary. In the experiment I also notice most of the inmates rather be an inmate then an actual
The guard attempted to hide this situation from the people running the experiment because of them “being too soft on the prisoners.” Another guard, not aware he was being observed, paced around the “yard” while the prisoners slept, watching his “captives” and aggressively hitting them with his nightstick. A majority of the prisoners still involved in the experiment started to accept the loss of their identities and the abusive treatment they received, because of the belief that they “deserved it.” The guards formed a corrupt but unified team that used their power to inspire fear and complete control over the prisoners. The prisoners, in response, became mentally compromised and developed depression, feelings of helplessness, and feelings of psychosis.
The prisoners were emotionally and mentally harmed during the experiment. The prisoners started to lose their identity, and instead started identifying themselves as their number. One participant even went on a hunger strike for the time that he was in the prison. Another participant had to leave the study because he became excessively disturbed as time went on. After the study was done, people had trouble separating what the people did in the study to how they were in real life, which caused a problem when they all had to meet after the trial was over. This ethical violation is very apparent because Dr. Zimbardo did have to end the study before the two weeks was done.
The experimental study that I chose to write about is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was run by Phillip Zimbardo. More than seventy applicants answered an ad looking for volunteers to participate in a study that tested the physiological effects of prison life. The volunteers were all given interviews and personality tests. The study was left with twenty-four male college students. For the experiment, eighteen volunteers took part, with the other volunteers being on call. The volunteers were then divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, randomly assigned by coin flips. The experiment began on August 14th, 1971 in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. To create the prison cells for the prisoners, the doors were taken
To ensure to have satisfactory results in his study, Zimbardo required some preconditions. One of which was the period of time for the experiment to be conducted. He believed that one-to-two weeks would be essential in “providing our research participants with sufficient time for them to become fully engaged in their experimentally assigned roles of either guards or prisoners. Having [our] participants live in that setting day and night, if prisoners, or work for long eight-hour shifts, if guards, would also allow sufficient time for situational norms to develop and patters of social interaction to emerge, change and become crystallized” (Zimbardo, 2013). Other preconditions he had were the mentalities of his volunteers; are they “normal,” healthy mentally and physically, are they without any prior history of conviction or drug usage?
The article on the Stanford Prison Experiment titled, A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison and written by the Office of Naval Research, provides us with the overall information that deals with this controversial psychological study. The study was conducted by
The Stanford Prison experiment was terminated of August 20, 1971 only 6 days after it began. The experiment was destined to fail because the psychologist Philip Zimbardo failed to follow the APA’s ethical guideline. Dr. Zimbardo put himself in the experiment causing him to be unaware of his responsibilities to the community he worked in. Zimbardo and the correctional officers also violated the Justice and respect for people's rights and dignity. The guards were given too much power and instead of stopping them Zimbardo and his team just sat back and watched.
In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues created the experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo wanted to investigate further into human behavior, so he created this experiment that looked at the impact of taking the role of a prisoner or prison guard. These researchers examined how the participants would react when placed in an institutionalized prison environment. They set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. Twenty four undergraduate students were selected to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. These students were chosen because they were emotional, physically, and mentally stable. Though the experiment was expected to last two weeks, it only lasted six days after the researchers and participants became aware of the harm that was being done.
This experiment (pg.23) brought out the worst in the authoritative group part of the research. The guards had no humanly regard for the prisoners and lost all morals and their code of ethics (pg.30), if they had any. They harassed, tortured and humiliated the prisoners as if they had just become the righteous group by using their power to make the prisoners turn on each other. On the other side, the prisoners took their roles too seriously as well. Most became to differential susceptible (pg.6) and vulnerable to the abuse.
Psychologists have been interested in the famous Stanford Prison Experiment for decades. A vast amount of information can be taken from this short six-day study. In retrospect, we are able to observe the ethical issues within the study. From this, we are able to identify what should not be done in a study. It also enabled Zimbardo’s research team to see how realistic effects could be placed upon those in this mock prison.
The Stanford prison experiment was unique because they wanted to watch and learn the behaviors of a prisoner and a prison guard, observing the effects they found some pretty disturbing things among the students. Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University stayed true to what they believed, and they did what they felt they needed to do to find a set of results for their simulation. Unfortunately they where swallowed into the experiment, when they became the roles, just as the students where. So from their point of view I want to say that what they where doing was ethical, and being that the prison experiment was stopped before its half way mark showed that they realized that it was time to call it quits. Dr. Zimbardo noticed
This treatment made other people look at prisons bad as well as social experimenters. So. Scientists can put their hypothesis to the test. These social experiments are especially beneficial to psychologists and sociologists. Although, the trauma done to the volunteers and the thoughts put into society make the bad outweigh the
The Stanford Prison Experiment was designed to allow 24 participants (college students) to be arrested in a mock police state scenario without any charges being brought against them. The participants were hooded and put into a prison cellblock with other mock prisoners. The purpose of the experiment was to see how non-criminals would be affected by the prison culture and the oversight of prison guards. Philip G. Zimbardo (2004)