Principle 3 - Integrity of Relationships.

Introduction

We are examining the psychological experiment shown in the film “The Stanford Prison
Experiment”, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez. The film is based on the Stanford Prison
experiment, which ran from the 14th of August 1971 to the 21st of Aug 1971. I will be
critiquing the experiment compliance and noncompliance of the Code of Ethics For
Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Specifically examining the experiment
under principle 3 “Integrity in Relationships”.

3.1

The Stanford Prison Experiment did not comply with this validity aspect of honesty (3.1.3),
the reason being that Philip Zimbardo does not have a hypothesis nor an independent
variable for the experiment. Without a hypothesis it's difficult to set a clear direction and
communicate your expectations with the public. Independent variable is also a critical error
of this experiment since without it it's hard to draw a meaningful conclusion to the public.
Stanford prison experiment hardly comply with anything ensure that the result is valid not
only the experiment dont have a hypothesis or a independent variable but Philip also involve
himself in the experiment with bias intentions this these failing aspect of the experiment
which making this more of a simulation than a experiment.

Philips have accurately complied with the subjects qualification (3.1.1), education and
experience, before the experiment Philips provided a form which showed necessary things
to the experiment and let them select their preferred role during it, however Philips have
ignored one thing he stated on the form which is guards can not use any violent action
towards prisoners.

Philip failed to comply with the non biassed aspect of honesty (3.1.4), first of all Philip did
not randomly select the role that participants get put in. This decision causes selection bias
because they are chosen based on their psychological stability and general mental health,
which could lead to a lack of representative data or a skewed result. This experiment did not
comply in the way that even Philips himself got so immersed into his role of a principal
investigator he became a part of the experiment. He did not maintain the necessary
objectivity, which may have influenced the actions and behaviours of the participants..
 Principle 3 - Integrity of Relationships.

3.2

Principle three: The Integrity in Relationships, is about the building of relationships with the
expectations of being respectful, truthful, and honest, all while maintaining proper
boundaries and avoiding conflicts of interest. Psychologists aim to do what's right when
interacting with others. What will be examined is a sub-principle of Principle three: personal
values. Psychologists will enhance integrity in relationships by recognising, and, where
relevant, declaring the opposition's values and beliefs. They must also acknowledge their
beliefs and how these may affect their work and endeavour not to disadvantage those they
work with.

Professor Zimbardo did not comply with section 3.2 when applying the principles to the
Stanford Prison Experiment. An example is when the experiment “goes too far,” and
Zimbardo’s personal beliefs cause him to continue the experiment when the guards have
physically hurt the prisoners, decreasing the integral relationships. Although Zimbardo has
taken the experiment too far, he does allow two prisoners to be released because of their
beliefs that they are mentally hurt. Zimbardo also does not comply with section 2.2.5,
Zimbardo is unaware of his influence in his experiment, changing the experiment without an
independent variable, into a simulation. He also does not maintain awareness of his
interactions with the prisoners which creates new variables, defeating the purpose of the
experiment. Irregular maintenance of Zimbardo’s personal beliefs also led to the
psychological distress of several prisoners. Zimbardo also does not regularly evaluate his
work in section 2.2.6, causing the “experiment” to get out of hand. Although many aspects of
the Stanford prison experiment did not comply with section 3.2, it did partially comply with
section 2.2.6, regular supervision did take place to ensure the Stanford prison experiment
was a good simulation. Zimbardo should have been less involved in his work as he
influenced the purpose of his experiment.
 Principle 3 - Integrity of Relationships.

3.3.1

Psychologists clarify and make explicit their role and responsibilities with the person(s) with
whom they are working.

Principle three (integrity of relationships) in the New Zealand code of ethics is meant to state
the boundaries and roles a psychologist has in place to prevent malpractice and to maintain
healthy professional relationships with coworkers and clients.

Part 3.3.1 of the code of ethics states that psychologists need to clarify and make explicit
their role and responsibilities with the person(s) with whom they are working. This means
that a professional psychologist needs to have strict rules and ethics around who they work
with whether it be co-workers or clients. This is so a psychologist can keep boundaries
between them and their clients/colleagues and keep their work life separate from their
personal life. During Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison “experiment”, the participants were
not fully informed on what the roles of the operators were with Zimbardo and many other
conductors of the experiment being added in as specific roles for the experiment adding
many unstable variables to the experiment. As a result of this, Zimbardo accidently added
himself into the experiment and became much too emotionally invested in his simulation.
Another example of principle 3.3.1 of the code of ethics being broken is in Milgram’s
Obedience experiments where persons involved were instructed to conduct an electric shock
to another person that they couldn't see, even though the person they were shocking was an
actor and pretending to be in pain, the participants would often attempt to shock at the
highest voltage when instructed to do so. The participants were misled during the
experiment due to them not knowing the person they were abusing was an actor. An
example of 3.3.1 being executed well was when the prison conductors of the stanford prison
experiment explained to the participants their roles and jobs as inmates and prison guards.

3.3.2

Psychologists maintain appropriate boundaries with those whom they work and carefully
consider their actions in order to maintain their role
 Principle 3 - Integrity of Relationships.

Principle 3, Integrity in Relationships, lays down the guidelines expected of psychologists to

abide by, primarily concerned around their professionalism with being honest, accurate and
respectful to whoever they are working with. Following this principle permits psychologists to
continue to aid society in a meaningful and helpful way.

Within 3.3 Structure of Relationships, I will be examining 3.3.2 in context of the Stanford
Prison Experiment carried out by Dr. Zimbardo, ‘Psychologists maintain appropriate
boundaries with those whom they work with and carefully consider their actions in order to
maintain their role’. The Stanford Prison Experiment did not comply with point 3.3.2 as Dr
Philip Zimbardo became increasingly involved with the course of the experiment, and
became directly involved acting more so as the mock prison warden than the psychologist
he was meant to be, violating the boundaries of the individuals who had signed up for the
‘experiment’ and letting his desire for the experiment to continue get in the way of the
general treatment of the ‘prisoners’ of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Within the movie, an
example of this is when real life colleague of Zimbardo, Gordon H Bower comes across
Zimbardo and asks what the independent variable of the experiment is, and Zimbardo is
unable to answer as his experiment has become a simulation. One way the experiment did
comply with 3.3.2 is when Zimbardo, realising the psychological impact on those who were
involved, authorised the release of two of the ‘prisoners’, however this compliance was to a
limited extent due to personal involvement into the experiment by Zimbardo. This experiment
could have been improved if Zimbardo had been working with equals, rather than simply
undergraduate assistants, who may have been able to keep Zimbardo’s personal
involvement from affecting the experiment and the boundaries of the prisoners.

3.4

Firstly, the “Stanford Prison Experiment” did not comply with sub-principle 3.4, Specifically
with sub-sub-principle, 3.4.1. Midway through the “Stanford Prison Experiment” one of the
researchers had to leave the experiment. The replacement researcher was the lead
researcher's wife and former student, Christina Zimbardo. They clearly did not comply with
this point because, with the introduction of Christina into the experiment, they encountered a
dual relationship in the experiment. This clearly conflicted with sub-sub-principle, 3.4.1. It
worsens when you consider that Christina knew that her husband was involved in the
experiment. She did not seek to avoid dual relationships going against all aspects of
sub-sub-principle, 3.4.1. The experiment also doesn't comply with 3.4.3. Jesse Fletcher was
the ethics counsellor for the experiment as well as an ex-convict. Throughout the
 Principle 3 - Integrity of Relationships.

experiment, Jesse instead of keeping a neutral stance on the experiment. Instead of strictly
following the parameters set out by the experiment, he started to inflict the experiences and
trauma he had lived through in prison onto the prisoners in the experiment. Feathering his
own personal interest in making the prison more “realistic”. Although the experiment shown
in the film did not comply with principles 3.4.1 and 3.4.3. They somewhat comply with
principle 3.4.2. When Christina left the experiment to ensure her personal well-being stayed
intact, she was not a part of the negative impact on the well-being of the research
participants. The Stanford Prison Experiment could have done more in-depth background
checks on the researchers involved in the experiment, in order to comply better with 3.4.

Conclusion

The Stanford Prison Experiment fails to comply with principle 3 “Integrity in Relationships”.
Although they may have complied with some of the sub and sub-sub-principles of the main
principle. Overall, they did not comply with principle 3 “Integrity in Relationships” under the
Code of Ethics For Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand.