Although the Stanford Prison Experiment has become a controversial study due to the effects of prison life the prisoners tolerated, I believe it was an ethical study. All of the participants volunteered to participate and some were even eliminated due to psychological or medical disabilities. Volunteers were paid to participate and were randomly selected to be either guards or prisoners. All of these aspects are important to gain approval from an Institutional Review Board.
Since no one, prisoner or guard, spoke up to stop the experiment or be removed from the experiment, they just assumed their roles, this experiment has contributed to the understanding of the role of authority in society. The experimenters were able to be objective enough that they recognized the increasing tension and distress from all the participants and ended the study earlier than planned. After the study ended, prisoners were able to talk to guards about how they felt about their treatment in prison. The Stanford Prison Experiment received flack for its quick transformation from experiment to real life, but the procedures the researchers followed categorize it as an ethical experiment.
I agree with you that the experiment was ethical. The participants were compensated for their involvement and they weren't forced into anything.
ReplyDelete- Emily Cosgrove
I'm not sure I can agree with you on this point. Zimbardo took on a role as a prison official as well as being the leader of the experiment. While playing his role as the prison warden, he led a disoriented "prisoner" to believe that he was not allowed to leave.
ReplyDeleteI may have utubed this thing a little too much...I was just shocked by the experiment.
Rachel: You're right; they were volunteers. You took a different view from most of the other students. When I've assigned this in the past, most of the students felt it was unethical. They were put off by the stress and embarrassment that the subjects had to experience. You provide a thoughtful discussion. Richard Bobys
ReplyDelete