Nicodemus, Koby Bryan T.

2016131527

To know or to discover THE GAP

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, college students acted as guards or convicts

in a mock prison setting as part of a social psychology study. The experiment was

American-funded. Office of Naval Research, which took place in August 1971 at

Stanford University. The study's goal was to evaluate how role-playing, labeling, and

social expectations affected behavior over the course of two weeks. But after just six

days, the experiment was stopped by the lead researcher Philip G. Zimbardo because

prisoner abuse had reached frightening new levels. After receiving more than 70

responses to an advertisement for a "psychological study of jail life," researchers chose

24 participants who they deemed to be in good physical and mental condition. The paid

participants, who received $15 per day, were split into equal groups of guards and

convicts at random. Guards were given mirrored sunglasses that prohibited eye contact

and were instructed not to physically harm inmates.

Numerous ethical issues have been leveled at the study, including the absence

of participants' fully informed permission because Zimbardo himself was unsure of the

outcome of the experiment (it was unpredictable). The detainees also didn't agree to

being 'arrested' at their residence. The researchers wanted the arrests to be a surprise,

therefore they withheld the information from the detainees in part because the police

had not given final consent until just minutes before the volunteers opted to participate.

Some of the ethical issues are as follows:

 Deception/Informed consent

o Although Zimbardo contends that subjects were informed of the conditions

they would face, there were additional conditions in the experiment, such

as being detained at home by a real police officer, and the degree of

degradation to be felt throughout the experiment had not been sufficiently

described. The study was clearly deceptive, and as such, it was unethical.

 Debriefing

o Additionally, the study delayed debriefing participants until a few years

later, at which point it was challenging to determine the extent of

psychological impairment that had resulted from taking part in the study. A

post-experimental debriefing is currently regarded as a crucial ethical

factor in the design of a study and may help guard participants from

additional psychological injury and assist those impacted by involvement

in rehabilitation.

 Protection from Harm

o Although not all research-related dangers were foreseen, when they did

occur, the trial was not promptly stopped. Prisoners' simulation

participants were not provided with any protection from psychological or

physical damage, and they frequently encountered instances of physical

abuse, humiliation, and psychological pain. As a result of the Stanford

Prison experiment, moral norms for safeguarding participants from bodily

and psychological harm were created.

References:

Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five

years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53(7), 709–727.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.7.709

Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American

Psychologist, 74(7), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000401

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), 809–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000443

Onishi, S. L., & Hebert, R. S. (2016). The Stanford Prison Experiment: Implications for

the Care of the “Difficult” Patient. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative

Medicine®, 33(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909114552126