Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique of the stanford prison experiment
Critique of the stanford prison experiment
Effects of stanford prison experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critique of the stanford prison experiment
In the film on the 5 most disturbing and unethical human experiments concerning the MK Ultra experiment conducted by the CIA. I found that as unethical and inhuman this experiment was; the experiment was very scientific. The experiment was incredibly unethical with causalities associated with the project, it was very scientific with the purpose using drugs and other methods in an attempt to alter one’s mind state.
1.
Although the Stanford prison experiment was a very unethical experiment, the research conducted was very scientific. The psychological research done in the Stanford prison experiment included observing how readily people would imitate roles of a guard and prisoner. Quantitative and qualitative data were recorded in order to find out whether the brutality among the guards was due to the personality of the guards (dispositional) or due to the social environment of the prisons (situational) (McLeod 1970). Concluding the research, Zimbardo experiment proved and supported that people’s conformity is more situational (environment) than dispositional (personality).
Psychological research must meet certain criteria in order to be considered scientific. Here are some of the criteria and how it applies to The Stanford prison experiment.
• Replicable- Although the
…show more content…
When conducting a psychological research, consent and detailed debriefing of risks should be outlined to the participants. This fault could be seen in the Stanford prison experiment, as if the participants were informed that they will be psychologically and mentally scared, they would have withdrawn from the experiment beforehand. With these type of experiments, less people would be interested in participating for psychological researches. Without these ethical principles in place, research as a whole could be disastrous and
Phillip Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, engineered “The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted August 1971 at Stanford University.” It was created only for college students in lectures at Stanford University. Zimbardo’s central idea was “to create a functional simulation of a prison, not a literal prison” (¶ 13). During the experiment an event called counts was administered. The guards would wake up the prisoners and make them repeat their individual numbers over and over, for memorization. The counts issued at night by the guards worked to enslave the prisoners, but empower the guards.
Many ethical boundaries were crossed in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Abuse was not limited to physical, but also psychological (Burgemeester, 2011). In the movie The Stanford Prison Experiment, which depicts events that actually occurred, the guards played physiological tricks on the prisoners. The prisoners were lead to believe that they actually committed crimes and couldn’t leave the experiment. One main thing that the guards did to physically and psychologically harm the prisoners was to tamper with their sleeping schedules. They would wake the prisoners on the middle of the night and have them do exercises, and once they were done they were permitted to go back to sleep (Ratnesar, 2011). By doing this the prisoners lose sense of what
The Stanford Prison Experiment commenced in 1973 in pursuit of Zimbardo needed to study how if a person are given a certain role, will they change their whole personality in order to fit into that specific role that they were given to. Zambrano significantly believed that personality change was due to either dispositional, things that affect personal life and make them act differently. Or situational, when surrounded by prisoners, they can have the authority to do whatever they want without having to worry about the consequences. Furthermore, it created a group of twenty-four male participants, provided them their own social role. Twelve of them being a prisoners and the other twelve prison guards, all of which were in an examination to see if they will be able to handle the stress that can be caused based upon the experiment, as well as being analysis if their personality change due to the environment or their personal problems.
The scientific method and rules of ethics are important tools when researching and experimenting. When researchers abide by these guidelines, experimentation is considered to be safe for the test subjects, as well as the person conducting the research is considered reputable. Experiments go awry, however, when researchers ignore the scientific method and rules of ethics. The experiments of Alfred Kinsey and the scientific team of William Masters and Virginia Johnson have been criticized for their methods of research and sense of ethics. Both scientific teams researched human sexuality, a topic in which is perpetually scrutinized. Kinsey and Masters and Johnson were not always ethical in their studies, and did not always follow the scientific method.
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
All participants should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. If they had been deceived they must be told and explained why, as well as being told about their role in the experiment. Any questions must be answered honestly and as fully as possible.
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
While it lacked most of the characteristics of a proper experiment, the study is a major contribution to the field of psychology and our understanding of situational forces. Hock (2012) states, “the mock prison situation was so powerful that it had morphed…into reality. [The students and experimenters] had become their roles…These roles were so powerful that individual identities dissolved to the point that the participants and experimenters had difficulty realizing just how dangerous the behaviors in the ‘Stanford Prison’ had become.” The Stanford Prison Study made major waves in 1970s understandings of why people do what they do, what makes good people do bad things, and how situational forces can have control over people’s behaviors. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a game changer in understanding human behavior and what compels or motivates our actions—is it the situation or our principles?
One major flaw in the ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment was Zimbardos involvement as the warden. He was involved in the experiment yet he was overlooking the entire event as well. There was no one who was impartial with no emotional or psychical involvement in the actual experiment. This caused Zimbardo to not judge the situation in an ethical way and see that the treatment of the poisoners was not okay. One thing that Zimbardo did ethically was he did not permit physical violence in this experiment and released the people playing the prisoners when they reached extreme distress. I would say that the Stanford Prison Experiment was not ethical due to many factors. The lack of separation between warden and researcher caused Zimbardo’s
The ethical implications within certain psychological studies are huge. The Stanford Prison experiment received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment. He also assumed the role of prison warden and parole board officer, so some would argue he wasn’t acting objectively as he was involved in the experiment. The participants acting as prisoner were deceived in the first instance as they were not informed they would be arrested and taken to the experiment. This was a breach of the ethics of the contract the participants had signed. The biggest ethical implication of this study was that the participants weren’t protected from harm, distress
The Stanford Prison Experiment of social psychologist, Philip G. Zimbardo was conducted at Stanford University in 1971. Twenty-four men who volunteered for the experiment were thoroughly selected (physically And mentally healthy, intelligent, and middle class members). Participants were randomly assigned either to the role of a guard or to the role of a prisoner in a simulated prison environment.
The first sections provide a background for what the later sections will discuss as this section makes the distinction between ‘practice’ and ‘research.’ However, these two terms can occur simultaneously, but if the smallest amount of research is present, the activity is required to be reviewed for the protection of its human subjects. Basic Ethical Principles states that there are three fundamental principles for ethical research involving human subjects: respect for persons, beneficence-maximizing benefits and minimizing harm, and justice-fairness of distribution. These principles are applied in the last section which is also broken down into three parts. The first of which states that informed consent is needed; this ensures that participants agreed to participate and that they are presented all the information clearly before the experiment or after-only if the results could be affected. The second section accounts for potential harms and analyzes if the research is worth the risks. The final section requires the process of selecting subjects to be socially fair and
Psychological research has developed over many years of trials, criticism and changes. Today the American Psychological Association (APA) provides guidelines and rules for researchers to ensure research provides respect, beneficence, and justice for participants within the studies (txt). Based on previous research studies, ones that do not meet the current guidelines, some could be changed to meet current guidelines, while others would not be allowed as research studies in todays’ professional arena.
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
Following the ethical codes and getting approval from the Institutional Review Board (if the study has human subjects) can really decrease the possibility of any harm being done to the participants. A perfect example of a research study that had lots of things unethical practices was the Tuskegee Syphilis study: