Introduction
It is no secret that many modern psychologists must adhere to a code of ethics to maintain their procedures’ reliability and participants’ safety. A planned psychological experiment should pass a thorough evaluation by a qualified panel of experts, gaining their approval before beginning. However, such moments mainly happened occasionally.
It took Professor Philip Zimbardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Experiment for the American Psychological Association to acknowledge these ethical principles formally. While the experiment produced intriguing results, and the information gathered during the research was eventually used to improve jail conditions, it nonetheless broke multiple ethical rules. It unnecessarily endangered the participants’ physical and mental health. This paper will examine the ethical concerns raised by the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Discussion
The Stanford Prison Experiment is known to be associated with many issues regarding ethical considerations and human rights. The psychological study’s ethical side concerns social stratification, power, and subordination. For instance, “the prisoners” expressed dissatisfaction and resentment, protesting against their arrest at home, which was committed illegally and without warning (Perera, 2023). On the contrary, “the guards” were ordered to become harsher, merciless, and stiffer with each prisoner’s actions and words, even when convicts asked for mercy and compassion.
Consequently, Philip Zimbardo controlled these guards and criminals and actively followed the experiment participants, deliberately “pitting” them against each other. Thus, such actions by the experimenter toward his “test subjects” today seem selfish, ruthless, and inhumane at the very least. Another ethical problem was the existence of practical rules for both guards and prisoners. These people believed they could not get out, and the prisoners accepted everything the guards said as reality.
The research method consisted of dividing the participants into two groups and creating realistic scenarios to immerse them fully in the experiment’s atmosphere. This study was supposed to go off without any unpleasant consequences. Still, the situation got out of control, and these protectors got so used to their roles, using their powers solely out of personal purposes and wishes. No one forced the guards to abuse the prisoners, but torture treatment was voluntary. On the other hand, if they broke the rules given to them, they could also be punished and therefore put in such “acting” as much as possible.
The guards were known to abuse the convicts in every way, with sadistic tendencies following their power, authority, and status. They treated their “opponents” like inanimate objects, not caring about other people’s feelings. Many prisoners were subjected to psychological abuse and forced to do terrible things. For example, one day, securities punished a rebellious prisoner by throwing him into a pit and sprinkling him with sand at night (McLeod, 2020). They wanted to make prisoners suffer by forcing them to do more physical activity, wash toilets with their hands, or clean police shoes (Spencer McFarling, 2016, 19:00). The guards called the prisoners only by numbers, demoralizing and oppressing. (Spencer McFarling, 2016, 23:20). They also accused the rebel leader of being a spy and lying to other prisoners.
The Stanford Prison Experiment study did not include a control group or independent variables required for each experiment. Therefore, there was no basis for comparison of quality results. However, one of the most significant problems was the extreme mistreatment of prisoners who were law-abiding citizens in reality. The guards could do whatever they saw fit, disregarding the norms of morality and ethics. Prisoners had no opportunity to assert their civil and human rights and freedoms as if they were prisoners of war (Olson, 2021).
At a minimum, this study disregarded the APA ethics guidelines about the informed consent of participants and, at a maximum, violated the rule of protection from harm and implementation of the privacy of experiment participants (American Psychological Association, 2017). Hence, the experiment’s results forced new regulations on research proposals to ensure that they met the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
The participants’ mental health was in jeopardy, a much more urgent issue. The experiment’s participants endured considerable stress, humiliation, and psychological suffering. One of the inmates experienced a mental collapse and had to be taken out of his cell early. He gave way to fits of unbridled screams, sobbing, and laughter. Although none of the individuals experienced long-term or permanent symptoms, it was dangerous misconduct. The experiment violated several general psychological ethics tenets, including benevolence and non-maleficence, respect for people’s rights and dignity, and others. There were many opportunities for psychological stress, as the instance with the student’s collapse demonstrated (Olson, 2021).
After that, the experiment should have been terminated (Haslam et al., 2019). Instead, it lasted three more days and was not stopped until Christina Maslach, who had been brought in to interview the guards and the detainees, got involved. The Stanford Prison Experiment, to some extent, excluded the influence of racial diversity since it involved only Caucasian males, except for one Asian American. In conducting this experiment, I would emphasize the creation of a representative sample and, most importantly, the study’s honesty, fairness, and ethics.
Conclusion
The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the clearest examples of the unethical side of research. Its author did not meet ethical codes standards, including the APA’s code of ethics. Philip Zimbardo’s experiments were unethical due to a lack of full informed consent, abuse of participants, and failure to conduct proper debriefings. Recent evidence suggests that other important ethical issues were affecting the scientific standing of experiments, including the possibility that experimenters encouraged abusive behavior. Doing these steps could speed up growth. However, this is for the best. The scientific community should be careful not to erode the faith that the public has in them. The Stanford Experiment’s impact on public indignation demonstrates how flimsy that trust may be.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Web.
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), p. 809. Web.
McLeod, S. (2023). Stanford prison experiment: Zimbardo’s famous study. Simply Sociology. Web.
Olson, R.E. (2021). Emotions in human research ethics guidelines: Beyond risk, harm and pathology. Qualitative Research, 1(1). Web.
Perera, A. (2023). Stanford prison experiment summary. Simply Sociology. Web.
Spencer McFarling. (2016). Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment 1 1 [Video]. YouTube. Web.