Was Zimbardo’s prison experiment ethical? This experiment was not ethical. Zimbardo’s research resulted in exposing a major dark side of the psychological jurisdiction of human treatment and behavior. When contemplating this experiment, issues of ethics were not observed, in other words this experiment was deemed ethical. However, the question not asked at the time of conception was whether the rights of the actors involved were unacceptably infringed upon. What were the ethical implications that led to Zimbardo’s name being associated with the term “unethical”? The term deception comes to mind. Clearly the American Psychological Association (APA) advises deception may be used when the act of deception is completely unavoidable and a debriefing must follow the experiment (Kuipers, & Hysom, 2014). The APA also recognizes deception must be avoided if there is a realistic opportunity that participants may be subjected to physical pain or severe emotional trauma (Fisher, 2005). Although Zimbardo did not …show more content…
Zimbardo has been criticized about the pressures asserted on the actors to continue in the experiment. Several participants requested to withdraw from the project several times however, Zimbardo discouraged the idea and basically strong armed the participants to proceed with the study (Zimbardo, 1973). The serious unethical allegation in this experiment was Zimbardo’s deliberate misuse of power and the purposeful neglect on the right for the participants to with withdraw when requested to do so. According to the APA, informed consent must inform the participant of potential hazards involved while participating in particular experiments (Kuipers, & Hysom, 2014). Again, Zimbardo and the participants, including the research team had no prior knowledge that the experiment would turn out the way it did. People are unpredictable by nature and to assume they will act in a predictable way can result in failure (Richards,
This study is very conflicting to me, but overall, I feel that the experiment benefited us. In my opinion, I do not believe that Zimbardo began the study thinking that it was unethical. He took the steps to choose people who were mentally capable of withstanding the study, as well as able to rebound after the simulation was complete. Zimbardo couldn’t have predicted what would happen in the simulation. He even stated at one point in Quiet Rage how we was quite surprised with some of the actions the prison guards took and even those of the prisoners when it came to helping another prisoner. But I feel like Zimbardo prepared the participants for the study to the best of his capability. I understand that Zimbardo got caught up in his role as prison supervisor in the experiment, but once he realized the harm that was being done, he put a stop to the experiment. Although no one can tell before a study takes place whether the harm will be worth the benefits, in this instance, I believe that the benefits do outweigh the
One of the guidelines for experiments is to give participants informed consent. This means that they should be fully aware of the nature of the experiment, and any risks which the participants may be subjected to. In Milgram’s study, he told participants that the experiment was to test human learning through a memory game, which was partially true. In reality, however, the focus point was on obedience to authority figures, and the extent to which people would inflict pain on another individual simply because they were told to. This immediately breaches one of the guidelines, as participants were deceived and the true nature of the experiment was hidden. An issue with deception, however, is it cannot be avoided in all cases in order to provide the results in which the experiment is looking for. For example, if Milgram told
America’s first greatest mystery has yet to be disclosed and only pieces of the events surrounding the enigma are known. The Lost Colony of Roanoke has remained a worldwide mystery for almost four centuries and there have been many attempts at discovering what actually happened there.
The Zimbardo prison experiment was a study of human responses to captivity, dehumanization and its effects on the behavior on authority figures and inmates in prison situations. Conducted in 1971 the experiment was led by Phlilip Zimbardo. Volunteer College students played the roles of both guards and prisoners living in a simulated prison setting in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
When speaking of ethics, I believe that both experiments were very much against the standards of ethics that we now hold true today, however, I believe Zimbardo’s experiment was a larger violation of ethics. The protection of participants is very important having to do with humiliation, embarrassment and loss of dignity of the participants. In social situations in bigger groups it is more humiliating for humans to do something morally incorrect then in front of only one person. Similarly the fact that the participants were in larger groups can create more social stress and anxiety. While both experiments had implications of violence, Zimbardo’s experiment also caused participants to abuse each other while Milgram’s participants were only believing they were electrocuting someone when in debrief they were assured no one was harmed. Both studies are highly criticized for the deception of the participants however, it is
The Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment has to be one of the cruelest and disturbing experiments I have witnessed since the Milgram experiment. This experiment was pushed far beyond its means and went extremely too far. I know experiments in 1971 weren’t as thorough and strategic as today's but I know today's rules and regulations never allow cruel and unusual punish just to test out one’s theory’s. I don’t believe criminologists should be permitted to conduct replications of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. I also know that the ACJS and other organizations who set the rules and guidelines for experiments would not promote or condone an experiment that is dangerous and is unethical such as Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. There were no boundaries or a level
The first ethical dilemma was the lack of signed consent from the participants observed in the experiment. The researchers never gained any form of signed consent nor did they even inform the participants that they were being observed at any point before, during, or after the experiment (Heintzelman, 2003). According to the case study the researchers stated in
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.
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
Zimbardo was an active participant in the experiment he was basically the warden instead of being an observer, he was shaping the experiment in a way. In the documentary that was viewed in class, it was noticeable that the participants were all men. The sample is relatively narrowed down it is rather small in comparison a bit biased in a way. If there were women in the study the way things would have been different. The men would have behaved differently the result maybe would have been different. The result of the experiment is very astonishing as it surpasses what Zimbardo intended to. Particularly about the participant's behaviour before and during the experiment, the prisoners began behaving like one and associated themselves with the numbers they were given (Zimbardo, p. 130). It was amazing how quick their behaviour and thinking change in a matter of time. It was not even a whole week. The other surprise was when one of the guards who was using the shades started acting more violently when he started using them. The “prisoners” was treated unfairly and abused they forgot that they were just people volunteering for the study, they could have just said something to Zimbardo and they could have left without putting themselves in a difficult situation. Though the people that suffered depression was let
This paper serves to summarize The Zimbardo Prison Experiment, better known as The Stanford Prison Experiment which was conducted by Phillip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford University. The purpose of the study was to conduct research in order to better understand the psychological components of human aggression and submission to include conformity and obedience in a prison environment with a select group of subjects playing roles as either prison guards or inmates, however, I should note, according to McLeod, S. (2016), The Navy’s intent or purpose for the experiment was to better understand how to train members of the armed forces on how to cope with stress associated with captivity as opposed to making American Prison systems more humane. Another interesting point of note is that Zimbardo conducted this experiment shortly after World War II, and the Vietnam War where concern was raised as to some of the atrocities carried out in those wars where “ordinary” people conducted heinous acts per instruction from so-called authoritative figures. Experiments with similar objectives were carried out by Stanley Milgram and others. (Jones, A. D., & Milgram, S. 1974)
In some cases, inmates are not informed of the risks that could occur during an experiment. In 1951 and 1974, the University of Pennsylvania conducted a research study that, “deliberately exposed prisoners to dangerous and toxic substances without informing them of the attendant risks” (Talvi). As a result, many complained of psychological trauma and physical illness. Usually, scientists are more consumed with their achievements in medicine than with the lifelong effects it could have on individuals. The ex-prisoners, “now in their fifties and sixties...suffer from breathing problems, gynecological complications, and all manner of skin rashes and infections” as a result of medical experimentation (Talvi). These incarcerated people would not have given consent to be experimented on if they knew what the research fully consisted of. I believe that it is highly important for people to advise their subjects of all the possible risks of a study, so it does not lead to unfortunate circumstances, like lawsuits for the experimenter or psychological trauma for the
The Zimbardo prison experiment was set up to investigate the problem of what the psychological effects for normal people result from being a guard or inmate, and in a broader sense are normal people capable of being ‘evil.’ The research question being asked was, “How would normal people react to being in a simulated prison environment? In Zimbardo’s own words, "Suppose you had only kids who were normally healthy, psychologically and physically, and they knew they would be going into a prison-like environment and that some of their civil rights would be sacrificed. Would those good people, (when) put in that bad, evil place (have) their goodness triumph?"
Psychological research has been growing and developing new ways of studying human behavior, collecting knowledge and expanding our understanding of our nature. For instance, studies involving human subjects presented risks for violation of ethical research guidelines, by pushing the limits of human experience (Kim, 2012). Throughout history, there have been numerous studies that elevated this concern, such as the Milgram Experiment of 1963. One of the major ethical raised was that it lacked informed consent from the participants and eventually raised the issue of protecting human subjects. This paper examines the ethical compliance in psychological research and emphasizes the importance of ethics and professionalism by analyzing different
The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote