An important social research project is the
Stanford Prison Experiment. This project is a classic example on how social
institutions, irregardless of its forms and manner, impose rules and
regulations to ensure conformity. However, like most of social research, there
are several questions that abound, including limitations and ethical
considerations. Due to the fact that social research projects are focused on
people, certain level of attention and care is very important to avoid harming
on the projects' participants, especially in an social research experiment.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo, in 1971, created the Stanford prison experiment,
a simulation of prison life, to understand and review the prisoner-guard interactions
(Babbie, 2012). In this controversial social research, Zimbardo looks at the
different power of roles between two interacting parties – prisoners and
guards. It sees how the interaction between two powers or roles define the
party's behavior, attitude, and change of personality.
After setting up a mock prison in one of Stanford University's
buildings, Zimbardo selected participants
from the students of the university.
Zimbardo ran an advertisement in the university for individuals who are
willing to play as prisoner or guards in an experiment that would last two
weeks. Initially, there were 75 individuals who responded to the
advertisements, but only twenty-four healthy male participants were admitted to
the experiment. These individuals agreed to be under surveillance, harassed,
but not to be physically abused for a compensation of $15 per day.
In determining the roles or conditions on
which the participant would be subjected, a simple flip of the coin was used
(Sheets-Johnstone, 2010). Participants wore appropriate uniforms that suited
their roles. Prisoner-participants wore the prison uniform and were referred by
their serial numbers, instead of their names. On the other hand,
guard-participants wore khaki uniforms and dark sunglasses; they were also
allowed to carry a symbolic club. The
rule of the Stanford Prison Experiment is simple. Guards were given authority
to impose rules for control of the prison, and to punish violators of these
rules thereof. In sense, there are no actual limits of rules. Guards were
allowed to do whatever they want, either harassing or monitoring prisoners, but
not to the extent of physical abuse.
Central to the experiment is to clearly demonstrate and present the power of
situational forces and the effect on the behavior of normal and healthy
participants – on both groups. It further reviews the essence of institutional
power to the authority power of blind obedience. With all this focus, the experiment, which
was supposed to run two weeks, was called off in six days after an observer
voiced criticism and necessity of addressing psychological impact on
participants.
The results of the experiment were both stunning and disheartening.
Participants already acted to their roles, being attached to it that they forgot
they were just volunteers of the experiment. Guard-participants were abusive
and tyrannical in dealing with prisoners who also suffered from depression and
trauma (Wildman, 2007). With regards to Zimbardo and his team, they were also
so occupied with roles as administrators and wardens of the prison that they
failed to see the harm of the experiment.
At the end of the experiment, Zimbardo had to have all the participants
debriefed and counseled to avoid the negative lasting impact of the experiment.
However, there are several questions that still abound. How well did Zimbardo
consider the ethical limitations of the study to avoid harm of participants?
Were researchers able to point possible implications of the experiment to the
participants?
Perhaps, one of the benefits that the Stanford Prison Experiment is that most
universities set-up their own oversee committees. It limits the power of the researcher over the power of the
experiment that are harmful on the participants. Due to the fact that social research
can alter the behavior and personality of the participants, the oversee
committee checks the different aspects of the research on the behavior of
individuals.
Yet, there are still different issues that
should be sorted out with the experiment. First, there were no actual limits of
the experiment. The rules of the experiment were too vague that it provided a
leeway on the actions of the guard-participants. In essence, the experiment was
not scientifically carried – there were no actual hypotheses tested but a
general observation of behaviors and responses only. With these general and
vague experiment hypotheses, as a result, control and management was not
proper. Even if Zimbardo played the superintendent role, he failed to impose
proper rules and control over the experiment, which made the entire Stanford
Prison Experiment faulty and unethical.
Being a superintendent of the prison, in
the experiment, Zimbardo had a wide control over the experiment's procedure. He
could have issued several memorandums to re-dress the situation of experiment.
As long as the researcher has a role in the experiment, it is easier for him or
her to supervise and amend major ethical concerns that affect the total safety
of participants.
In form, the experiment simulated the actual prison conditions, but in
substance, the experiment failed to reconcile with the actual prison
experience. Due to this fact, Baofu (2011) pointed out questions on the
validity of the experiment based on ecological grounds. Even if Zimbardo argued
that prison conditions are dehumanizing in sense and in form of making the
dehumanization any act will suffice, however, it reduces the experiment to
arbitrary observation only. Dehumanization is a well-guarded concern of any
social project because it involves long-lasting impact on behavior of
participants.
In the aim to arrive at a certain conclusion of the experiment, Zimbardo failed
to recognize the harmful effects of the project. In fact, it took an outside
observer to point the need to stop the experiment (Sheets-Johnstone, 2010). It
took only two days for the participants to de-individualize and act on the
roles they are playing. At same time, the prisoners already suffered tremendous
depression and trauma that rebellion happened. Yet, Zimbardo still held to the
time schedule of the experiment to arrive at the conclusion he wanted.
According to Baofu (2011), the study
violated the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, the
Canadian Code of Conduct of Research Involving Humans, and the Belmont Report.
Baofu further noted that should the experiment be done right now, it would be
impossible to get an approval. Instead
of stopping the experiment when the level of emotional and psychological harm
was still minimal, Zimbardo proceeded with the experiment without regard to the
mental health of the participants.
In any social project involving humans, the
priority is the safety of the participants. The researcher can proceed with the
experiment, only provided that safety is taken into account. Zimbardo could
have stopped the experiment at once to avoid further harm on participants,
which was resolved through psychological debriefing and counseling after the
experiment was stopped.
Although the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment has good intentions to
understanding the power of roles in prisons to resolve reports on inhuman
treatments and wrong handling of prisoners, yet the experiment itself provided
its own evils by overstepping on ethical standards. There are possible ways to
conduct an experiment, or a social research, but the primary priority should
always be the safety of participants. When these ethical considerations are not
taken into account, the result of the experiment, even if it's promising and
exciting, is easily eclipsed and discarded.
References:
Babbie, E. (2012). The Practice of
Social Research. Cengage Learning.
Baofu, P. (2011). Beyond Ethics to
Post-Ethics: A Preface to a New Theory of Morality and Immorality (Hc).
IAP.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2010). The Roots of Morality. Penn State
Press.
Stolley, K. (2005). The Basics of
Sociology. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Wildman, M. (2007). Inmate Deviant
Behaviors: An Application of Tittle's Control Balance Theory. ProQuest.
