Zimbardo Experiment Psychology

Major issues that had arisen because of the Stanford Experiment were also caused because of critical pieces of information that were left ignored following its termination. There is no overarching way to know whether the guards momentarily became evil or simply acted that way. If one person began to act in a cruel manner, other people may have followed their lead because it appeared they knew what to do and no one wanted to appear as an outcast. Either way, it still showed how people thought they should act when placed in a prison system. In many ways, Zimbardo failed to state how not all of the guards acted in such a crude manner. He left this vital aspect out of the way to make his argument appear stronger that people can change when given

Despite the expectations that every guard would act with hatred towards the prisoners, some showed sympathy and wanted to help the prisoners escape. This experiment is not reliable if Zimbardo doesn’t mention the outliers. It is difficult to determine how these same participants would have acted if they were actually convicted of a crime or truly a correctional officer. Out of the few people he examined, there could not be a standard created on how any person would act when placed in a similar scenario.

Despite the argument opposing the Stanford Prison Experiment, some people still found it necessary for the progress of psychology. Prior to this large scale experiment, there was a lack of laws dealing with ethical guidelines, deeming this experiment as legal at the time because there were no rules against it. Without the Stanford Prison Experiment, new laws would not have been implemented into the prison systems to ensure that people involved in prisons remain safe. More specifically, this

Even though there were changes made, problems like those in the Stanford Prison Experiment still happen. A specific example of this relevance years later was Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was “one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions” (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib ). This prison was a precedent of the implications the Stanford Prison Experiment had drawn. Despite the fact people believe the Stanford Prison Experiment was necessary because of the adjustments made, these corrections did not stop the officers at Abu Ghraib. Prisoners were held captive and punished in corrupt ways such as “sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack” (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib). This occurrence in Iraq at Abu Ghraib shows that abuse in prisons can ensue at any point in time, regardless of the cautious measures taken. This is a prevalent issue in our society that even changes to the law will not prevent these issues from happening