Stanford Prison Experiment Essay

Today we will examine ethical considerations in the Stanford Prison Experiment social psychology research. At the end of this presentation, we will be able to identify ways the Stanford prison experiment does not meet modern principles and standards of the British Psychology Society (BPS) Code of Ethics for Human Research and ethical considerations to rectify the same.

Study Overview

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a social psychology experiment conducted in 1971 by Phillip Zimbardo, Craig Haney and Curtis Banks. The study was designed to investigate the psychological effects of the power dynamics (authority and powerlessness) between prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment. The study further attempted to understand humans’

However, this was not the case in the Sanford Prison experiment. In a journal article, Haney admitted that prison stimulation “rapidly developed sufficient power to bend and twist human behaviour in ways that confounded expert predictions and violated the expectation of those who created and participated in it” (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998, p. 710). No guidance or code of ethics can replace the need for psychologists to use their professional and ethical judgement to uphold social responsibility. By using ethical judgement, the principal researcher and the research would have demonstrated awareness of predicted and unexpected research outcomes and consequences, which would have been outlined from the inception. In turn, the benefits would have outweighed the risk of

A prison environment whereby psychological problems and health complications could be induced should have never been created. If risk cannot be avoided, protocols to mitigate harm should be in place. Participants' information should be written from the participants' standpoint, not from the researchers’ perspective.

Participants were exposed to extreme and inhumane conditions. In a journal article, Haney et al., 1973 (as cited in Haney & Zimbardo, 1998) glorified their maximising of harm. They boosted that the participants' behaviour bore a remarkable similarity to behaviour patterns found in an actual prison, and the characteristics of the nature participants encountered were negative, hostile, affrontive and dehumanising. Research participants should not be intentionally exposed to conditions where they received minimal health, sanitary and nutrition standards to justify the social advancement of research.

The ill effects of realism could be further minimised if the participants were not allowed total free will and if the volunteers selected to play the role of a prison chaplain, chair of the parole board and lawyer were recruited through advertisement instead of a real priest, an ex-convict and a public defender who behaved as they would under normal circumstances (Perlstadt,