Introduction
A psychological experiment is an event conducted under particular conditions to acquire new scientific knowledge about psychology through the researcher’s deliberate intervention in the life of the examinee. Innovative discoveries in science have been crucial to human development, but in some cases, the goal still does not justify the means. Nowadays, humans know much about the peculiarities of their own brains and the psychological reactions of their bodies to certain external influences, but it has not always been this way. Only some decades ago, world scientists tried to cognize human nature and concepts of mental mechanisms in every possible way. Indeed, their methods were not humane, and the participants of these experiments would hardly share the enthusiasm of the obtained findings. Hence, the ethical issues in the Sanford prison experiment require examination.
General Information
The Stanford prison experiment is a famous psychological experiment conducted by the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo. The investigation was a psychological study of human reactions to restrictions on freedom, to prison living conditions, and the effects of imposed social roles on behavior (McLeod, 2017). Volunteers played the roles of guards and prisoners and lived in a simulated prison arranged in the psychology department building. Prisoners and guards quickly adapted to their roles, and hazardous situations began to arise contrary to expectations.
The inmates were given the experience of a fairly standard prison life, which included an inhumane and degrading form. The guards were instructed that they should never be cruel to the prisoners but that they should control everything. The first day passed without incident, but the convicts revolted the next day, barricading themselves in their rooms and not paying any attention to the guards. This conduct shocked the guards and probably led to psychological violence afterward. One in three security guards discovered sadistic tendencies, the prisoners were severely mentally traumatized, and two were expelled from the experiment early on. Despite the apparent loss of control over the experiment, only one of the 50 observers, Christina Maslach, protested its continuation; Zimbardo ended the experiment early (McLeod, 2017). Ethically, the study is often compared to the Milgram experiment conducted in 1963 at Yale University by Stanley Milgram, a former fellow student of Zimbardo’s. Despite the ineffectiveness of the experiments, Zimbardo is still a psychologist (McLeod, 2017). He was even awarded the Gold Medal for Excellence in Psychology by the American Psychological Association.
The Basic Ethical Issues and Questions
It is significant that the people who played the role of prisoners were named by numbers and were treated extremely harshly. As a result, they staged a riot and barricaded themselves in their chambers. The warders considered such behavior a challenge to their authority, suppressed the protest, and began to impose their power. That is, rule 2.01.B was violated, indicating that the experiment was unpredictable and incorrectly configured (Young, 2017). Hence, suddenly the dynamic changed completely, the wardens believed that they were dealing with dangerous prisoners, and the whole situation ceased to be an ethical experiment (Le Texier, 2019). That is, it became clear almost immediately that the observers were violating the professional standards that real prison officials are supposed to observe. That is, despite the fact that they work with criminals, everyone is entitled to their minimum rights and freedoms, even in jail (Le Texier, 2019). At the same time, this behavior of the wardens and the nasty attitude provoked a revolt from the people who performed the role of inmates and did not understand why they were treated as the worst criminals.
Prisoners were humiliated, stripped naked, had bags put on their heads; they were forced to do press-ups and other physical exercises. This treatment was contrary to ethical codes and any rules of conduct with individuals in jail. Violations of APA code 3.03, the guards were seized by the power guaranteed to them and caused suffering to the prisoners (Young, 2017). However, it contributed to the prisoners’ psychological trauma, and the management of the experiment did not immediately intervene to explain the rules again (Kulig et al. 2017). Therefore, it was not only the wardens who significantly abused and bullied the inmates who broke the ethical rules but also the organizers. This attitude contradicts the prison’s core values of discipline, sanity, truthfulness, vigilance, respect for human rights, and a sense of responsibility. Correctional officers who violate the code or its provisions are subject to appropriate sanctions (Kulig et al. 2017). Accordingly, to restore justice, the experiment managers should have punished the wardens, but they did not. This proves once again that fundamental human rights were violated and that the workers’ professional and ethical code was not respected.
It is significant to provide a concrete example of one of the convicts who participated in the experiment. One of the prisoners, Clay Ramsey, remembers that the most effective tactic was sleep deprivation, a known torture technique. He just was not capable of performing the physical activities that were required of him (Bartels, 2019). Hence, he believed that it was all managed by people who were, in fact, devoid of rational perception because, as a sign of protest, he began to refuse food. As a result, Ramses was confined to the janitor’s pantry, which served as a solitary confinement cell; other prisoners were ordered to do the same because of the hunger strike (Kulig et al. 2017). Violations of 4.05.B.3 experimentalists did not protect volunteers from injury or hazards (Young, 2017). Consequently, this conduct by the wardens was unmoral because of the emotional and physical abuse, which did not help re-socialize the inmates or improve their lives.
Zimbardo, however, reports that many inmates had nervous breakdowns and had to stop participating in the experiment. One such person developed a nervous rash all over his body. Eshleman, who played the role of the head guard, said he learned about the dark side of his soul as a consequence of the experiment (Kulig et al. 2017). He stated that he realized that Eshleman was responsible for things that he later recalled with shame in certain situations. Therefore, the psychological experience negatively influenced the psyche of the participants, which is unacceptable at today’s level of society.
It is worth noting that the experiment was the right idea, but it should not have been continued after the second day. Once the inmate had a disruption, the supervisors had already proven their assumptions that different situations could have a powerful effect on people recognized by Zimbardo himself (Bartels, 2019). It could be asserted that the experiment’s author was consciously aware of the violation of ethical standards on his part but could not stop himself. There was a violation of APA code 2.06.B, Zimbardo was overly involved in the experiment and could not make decisions (Young, 2017). As a result, the early termination of the experiment was facilitated by a second psychologist, Zimbardo’s bride Christina Maslach (Le Texier, 2019). Accordingly, it can be unequivocally argued that scientists do not even have the right to conduct experiments that violate the rights and dignity of prisoners. If the experiment goes wrong, it should be terminated immediately and apologized to the participants, rather than bringing them into real psychological trouble.
Conclusion
Although widely publicized and undisputed in the history of social psychology, this study was conducted in violation of ethical and professional standards. A close examination of the events reveals the violation of several moral standards that led to unethical consequences. These include the vague terms of experience in the participants’ contract; violation of their fundamental rights (food, hygiene, etc.). At the same time, breach of the American Psychological Association (APA) code regarding social and legal rights, in addition to the right to privacy. Accordingly, such treatment of people, independent of their social status, is not acceptable in today’s world.
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.
Young, G. (2017). Revising the APA ethics code. Springer International Publishing.
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.
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the stanford prison experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823.
McLeod, S. (2017). Stanford prison experiment. Simply Psyschology.