Testing Is Ethical Or Not?

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a clear example of how humans can adapt to specific social roles and behave differently under the pressure of control. The experiment illustrated the concepts of deviance and social control through participants behavior. Although the prisoners were not really prisoners, they believed that they were. The behavior of the prisoners began to morph along with the experiment. By day two, the prisoners were showing deviance by barricading themselves inside their cells. The environment and treatment of the prisoners were likely causes of the disobedience. Similarly, the guards showed signs of social control throughout the experiment. Guards were able to show control over the prisoners through various actions, such

When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.

However, when they conducted their experiments they did not breach any ethical guidelines since they did not exist (Matta, 2014). Hence, to protect the welfare, rights, dignity, and mental health of the participants, strict ethical guidelines were introduced in psychological experiments which have positively influenced the field of psychology. Also, due to ethical frameworks, people are viewed as ‘participants’ of a study instead of ‘subjects’ in an experiment. They also make psychological experiments more reputable, leading to an increase in the willingness of participation by people as their safety is ensured. The increased willingness of participation is beneficial in order to discover more about human behaviour, the effectiveness of treatment, mechanisms of a psychiatric disorder etc.

This study investigated the effects gender roles and the acceptance of dominant positions. Participants of the study were college-aged students. These students volunteered, and from there were chosen to participate in the reconstruction of the Stanford Prison Experiment, headed by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. In this experiment male students were arrested and then imprisoned in an underground make-shift prison at Stanford University. The participants were categorized into two sections, prisoners and guards. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of roles and the behaviors of the individuals engrossed in their positions. As expected, the men did comply to their occupying positions, surprisingly, their actions were stronger than predicted; the reality of the experiment altered the mindset of the participants forgetting their true roles in society. The guards became dominant, ruthless and controlling. Physical punishment and degrading actions were common with guards against inmate contact. The false reality of the experiment got so intense they were forced to shut down the experiment early to prevent any further emotional

In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.

What the researchers found during this study was that both the behaviors and mentalities of guards and prisoners changed. Guards became more aggressive and prisoners became passive. A group of five prisoners had to actually be released from the study because of physical and emotional changes they were experiencing. Those prisoners remaining actually began acting as if they were truly incarcerated. By the behaviors they exhibited they had all but forgotten that they were free to leave at any time and not forfeit the money they had already earned. Guards, on the other hand, actually stayed at the prison longer than they were scheduled and were actually disappointed when the study came to a close while prisoners were very happy and expressed their luck at getting released early. These results clearly demonstrate that it is the environment that contributes to the behaviors observed. Those who were given the role of guard expressed the power and control they had over the prisoners. The prisoners began to become hopeless and bend to the power of the guards.

The conclusions generally outlined the relationship between the young men assigned as prisoners or officers within the experiment, to the disposition hypothesis that is status quo for most prisons. A distinct pattern in authority was noted throughout the experiment, implying whenever the guards felt their authority being threatened, they would use extensive measures to regain power over the prisoners. Such measures were used as humiliation and degradation. Once the prisoners were ultimately dehumanized within their own mindset, power would be temporarily restored back to the guards until the next situation occurred. Eventually, the riots began to die off while the new life of imprisonment was accepted. Prisoners were no longer a team hoping

This essay is an investigation of the application from the Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment to some similar scenarios that demonstrate the same or similar findings found within the Stamford Prison Experiment that were influenced by external factors and influences. The Stamford Prison Experiment was conducted to investigate how subtle people are to conform to roles of the guard and prisoner in a mock prison environment and if the behaviours were influenced by the environment or by sadistic personalities of guards (McLeod, 2016). There are several factors that influence good guards to not question orders from bad guards and a few of these factors will be outlined in this essay. The first topic that will be discussed is the similarities of

Review of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment The general topic of this study was to understand the roles that guards as authoritarian figures, and

Most of the test subjects become very vulnerable and are exploited in every mental and/or physical way. Human research will always have pros/cons and be highly criticized. This case study (pg.24) proved that power can overcome many ones morals and ethical values. The power of the mind was also prone to vulnerability and influenced easily under dire circumstances. We become susceptible to our surroundings like the prison experiment, lose oneself in our environment.

In the not-so-distant past, psychological experiments were performed in order to accomplish different objectives, or test various hypothesis, often with dangerous or fatal consequences for the participants. A lack of ethical constraints and guidelines led to many horrendous experiments, performed in the name of science that left devastating repercussions to the often-unwilling participants. Many of these unethical experiments provided legitimate insights. Seventy years ago, there were no ethical guidelines, no code of conduct in place, and at the time the zeitgeist was that experiments should be conducted with minorities, the disabled, and prisoners because they were morally inequivalent to the rest of society (Collins, 2003).

Throughout history there are many examples of humans conducting experiments on other humans. Over the years human experimentation has greatly advanced the knowledge of human physiology and psychology, leading to better treatments for ailments both physical and mental as well as a better overall understanding of the human constitution. Despite all of the good which human experimentation has done for the human race there have been times when experimenters have taken human experimentation past the bounds of morality. This unethical human experimentation is most often caused when the experimenters are, in some way, able to justify their experiments.

The Stanford Prison Experiment article addresses the psychology of power by studying a model of the prisoner and guard relationship as represented by the American penal system. The authors, through a unique experiment involving volunteers who would play the roles of guards and prisoners in a somewhat realistic prison setting, hoped to provide empirical scientific evidence and information proving that the American penal system is not only dysfunctional and inherently flawed, but causes real and lasting harm to the temperament, attitude and personality of both the prisoners and the guards in American prisons.

It very clear that making humans being test subjects just seems wrong. I say this because why would we treat humans like if they are a complete different species.

Some people, guardians and some prisoners, tried to show others that there are in control. They wanted to represent themselves as leaders. And others, some prisoners, were just followers. They wanted just to fit at any price. The experiment has also shown how people can easily embrace a personage. For example, students who were assigned to play guardians. These students tried to reproduce all their knowledge about how prison’s guardians treat