Reading about the Stanford Prison experiment was really interesting, however it raises questions for me about the ethics of it all. The thing that struck me the most was the ability to create such intense power dynamics, even though all participants knew that the prison was fake. Not only did the guards take their role seriously, perhaps too seriously, but also the prisoners did not question the guards’ authority. Also, the psychologists behind the study started to act more as prison wardens than psychologists. When they heard rumors of the prisoners trying to escape, they focused all of their energy into trying to foil the plan, instead of studying the prisoners trying to escape. Also, even outsiders, such as family visitors, did not question the authority of the prison guards/ superintendents. It is shocking how real the situation became for everyone, and how quickly the power dynamics strengthened.
This study makes me question the ethics behind it. Although they cut the study short, when it became clear that the prisoners were suffering mentally and the guards were becoming increasingly abusive, prisoners were still tormented severely throughout the experiment. The participants did agree to become prisoners in the study, but I doubt that it was enclosed just how degradingly they would be treated. Also, when one prisoner tried to quit the experiment, he was convinced to stay. Another one was pressured into staying by the other prisoners just to prove that he wasn’t a “bad prisoner.” He had forgotten that he was not even a prisoner at all. Just a college student who had agreed to participate in a study. It struck me when the psychologist reminded the prisoner of this and said “it was as if he had waken up from a bad dream.” Any experiment that makes participants forget who they are cannot be ethical. Also, the guards became abusive, when likely they are good, respectful people.
I recognize that this study was done a long time ago, before there may have been more strict ethical guidelines for psychological studies, but I would hope that after this experience, stricter guidelines were put into place.
It is crazy to think that Zimbardo’s experiment was permissible, as now it would never get approved by an IRB. However, did we need to make these ethical mistakes to realize why exactly we needed an IRB?
After experiments like this one (and Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment, for example), deeper ethical guidelines were put in place for scientific and social scientific studies. But it is interesting to think what we wouldn’t know about human behavior had the Stanford Prison Experiment not occurred.
I agree with you, it’s hard to imagine that this experiment was approved and was considered ethical by the researchers at the time. I think that the experiment showed us so much about human behavior, but it is interesting to think about (as Anna said) how maybe these mistakes needed to be made for actual change to happen (through an IRB)?