Ethical Dilemma Of The Stanford Prison Experiment

1068 Words3 Pages

This research paper aims at evaluating the experiment performed by Dr. Zimbardo in 1971, also known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, and determining the ethical dilemmas that existed in the experiment. The ethical dilemmas discussed in this paper, were evaluated using the steps discussed in class. First, let us understand why the research was conducted and how the experiment was set up. The aim of Dr. Zimbardo’s experiment was to investigate how easily people would conform to the roles of prisoner and guard in a lab experiment that simulated prison life (Mcleod, 2008). The experiment was conducted to understand the reason behind the brutality reported among guards in American prisons (Mcleod, 2008). The experiment was planned for a duration …show more content…

The designed experiment did not minimize any risks or harm to the participants and were not briefed about the potential risks of the experiment. This violates the third principle (Beneficence) of research, set by The National Health and Medical Research Council. The way in which the prisoners were treated in the experiment also violates the principle of research merit and integrity. I feel that Zimbardo’s study itself caused injustice. The students playing the role of guards were in a position of power and they used that power to manipulate the prisoners, which led to injustice in the experiment. The simulated prison environment only helped this injustice grow, as it negatively influenced the behavior of the guards. The participants in the role of prisoners were exploited and emotionally harmed. The students had no idea about what they were getting into and ended up being traumatized by the experiment. Listed below are certain code of ethics that were violated during the …show more content…

First, the students could have been given detailed information about the research and its procedures beforehand. Although, Dr. Zimbardo was himself unaware of how individuals would react under a given situation, which made it difficult for him to lay down any specifics about the study. This information could have been included in the consent forms and repeated before the experiment was started, so the participants could understand what they were getting themselves into. Dr. Zimbardo should have assigned a research assistant to act as the prison superintendent to avoid conflict of interest. The guards should have been trained before starting the experiment and briefed about the daily tasks they had to perform. This would have ensured a controlled experimental environment. The participants should have been debriefed after the experiment and referred to a counselor to ensure their psychological well-being. I feel that the summation of all these approaches would certainly have improved the experiment and minimized any harm to the participants. We cannot isolate the best approach from the ones listed above, as each plays an important role in the experiment. These approaches would have to be implemented with extreme care, as the reputation of the institutions associated with the research would be at

Open Document