Introduction
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted an infamous study, and he called it the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). This research is often considered influential in psychology. The experiment went beyond the traditional academic discourse and was referenced in movies and mass media reports (Le Texier, 2019). However, the research has been widely criticized due to the unethical nature of the study. Thus, it is essential to learn more about the analysis, its methodology, ethical standard, and possible recreation of an experiment using a more ethical approach.
Research Study
The primary purpose of Zimbardo’s work was to explore how quickly individuals would identify with corrections officers and prisoner roles during the prison simulation. The author was eager to research what was causing the guards to be violent. Thus, the idea was to discover whether such attitudes were due to the extreme personality types of prison employees, or the problem was in the environment (Le Texier, 2019). The researcher’s primary motive was to concentrate on the influence of collective identification, and social reinforcement of actions that would generally repel average individuals. Thus, the goal of the experiment was to determine the actual reasons for the correctional officers’ behavior.
Research Method Used
To research the positions individuals perform in jail settings, Zimbardo used a social psychology experiment method. He transformed the basement of the Stanford University building into a jail simulation. The research sample was the students that had to assume the part of inmates and guards. Therefore, 21 male university students volunteered to participate (Le Texier, 2019). These students were later randomly divided into two groups, and the main goal was to keep the experimental prison environment similar to the actual one. For instance, the volunteers received a distinctive uniform and were locked down. Whereas guards were also given appropriate clothing, handcuffs, and sunglasses, so eye contact between the two groups became impossible. Overall, Zimbardo divided volunteers between guards and inmates and observed them within an incredibly realistic prison environment.
Ethical Standards
The results of the research were extremely alarming, as prisoners started to act violently to the point where the inmates were in possible physical and psychological danger. Therefore, the results proved that individuals are highly influenced by social roles (Le Texier, 2019). Such severe consequences sparked criticism regarding the study’s ethics (Le Texier, 2019). Primarily because participants were not provided with enough information, so they could not give informed consent. Moreover, the researcher failed to minimize the risk of harm to the individuals that participated, which is an essential ethical principle of scientific experiments. Overall, the study was considered unethical as prisoners’ human rights were not regarded, putting the participants in possible danger.
Possible Recreation
One of the reasons the experiment was unethical was that it did not provide enough protection to the prisoners while putting them in real danger. One of the possible ways to study a similar research question is through analyzing the behavior of actual new correctional officers in actual prisons. As the correctional officers have little experience with jail, the methodology would be similar to the SPE. The difference would be that the inmates would not be under direct threat as it was the most vulnerable group of the experiment. Therefore, to avoid the ethical issues of the SPE, it would be better to limit the analysis to a real prison instead of imposing violence on random volunteers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the SPE is one of the most famous modern psychological experiments. Despite its fame, it has been highly criticized, and the researcher had to end the tests early. The SPE’s main goal was to explore the reasons behind the violence of correctional officers and see if it was a result of their personalities or the prison environment. The researcher used the methodology to put strangers in prison and allowed them to be violent. The experiment ended badly, as the methods were unethical and harmed the participants. Lastly, the only possible way to recreate the experiment ethically would be to exclude volunteers from participation and to use real prisons.
References
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823–839. Web.