The Stanford Prison Experiment is a thought-provoking investigation that reveals insights into human behavior, while also raising ethical concerns about the methods used by Zimbardo and his team. It is important to conduct experiments that generate authentic and unmanipulated data; however, there should be limits to prevent research from crossing into unethical territory. Research should not prioritize its own existence at the expense of others.
The Stanford Prison Experiment should have been ended due to ethical concerns when the “guards” began inflicting severe physical and psychological harm on the “prisoners”. In essence, once the harm escalated beyond mere verbal insults, the experiment became unethical. Zimbardo failed to recognize and prevent the most subtle dangers, as pointed out by Baxter and Babbie (2004).
It can be argued that the harm started before the experiment began – the public arrest of volunteers at their actual homes could have lasting consequences on their relationships with neighbors and reputation. Zimbardo also failed to meet ethical standards by not fully informing participants of the potential risks. Although Zimbardo claims he was unaware of the effects beforehand, he still neglected to inform them of the severe risks and obtain their consent – specifically, informed consent – once the effects became apparent.
The voluntary nature of the study is questionable as participants may not have volunteered if they had full knowledge of the experiment, blurring the line of honesty from Zimbardo and the meaning of “voluntary” from the volunteers. The ethical dilemmas in the Stanford experiment are similar to those raised in Stanley Milgram’s obedience study. Both Zimbardo and Milgram continued their experiments despite participants’ severe psychological distress.
Despite bringing up the matter of informed consent, it is difficult to contend that these experiments should not have taken place given the knowledge acquired from certain findings. Instead, they provide a valuable educational opportunity for both the original researcher and future researchers. With the existence of tools and established measures in place, studies can now be carried out with honesty and robust ethical considerations. Reflecting on this nearly four decades later, and taking into account the abundance of information available today as well as current ethical norms, I can confidently state that I would have refused to partake in the Stanford experiment.
If I had been in that situation, I would have ended the experiment only when it made me feel personally uncomfortable witnessing emotional distress and physical humiliation. Additionally, I believe I would have become just as involved as Zimbardo did in my role as the Warden, which would have made it difficult for me to judge when the experiment needed to end for ethical reasons. Considering the severe impact the experiment had on its participants, it seems best to avoid conducting a follow-up study and subjecting volunteers to relive their experiences.
References
- Baxter, L. A. & Babbie, E. (2004). The Basics of Communication Research. Belmont, CA: Wadworth.
