The Stanford Prison Experiment presents an interesting look at the ethical issue, and while the volunteers were informed of what they might experience they were not given full disclosure about what the experiment would entail. Zimbardo and the other organizers of the experiment have argued that full disclosure was impossible, as they were unable to predict how the guards would react, but I still believe that the experiment was unethical.
Additionally, some of the promises that Zimbardo et al., made to the prisoners were not kept. For example, the prisoners were promised that they would not by physically harmed but as the testimony of some of the guard-volunteers shows some of the prisoners were, in fact, physically assaulted. Because Zimbardo et al did not take any steps to prevent the harm that came to the volunteers, and because they failed to properly inform the participants of the dangers of the experiment, I would say that the experiment was unethical.
I also do not believe that the suffering of the participants was balanced by the knowledge gained by the research. There are countless real-world examples of ordinary people being placed into guard-like roles and thus became sadistic that could have been studied. For example, Zimbardo et al., could have looked at ordinary Germans who were made to guard POW’s during the Second World War, and could have seen a similar pattern of authoritarianism. Recreating the scene, to me, seems unnecessary and merely proved a fact that could have been proven through studies into situations that have already happened.
While both of these experiments clearly had moral dilemmas, I believe that the Milgram experiment was clearly a more significant breach of ethical principles than the Stanford Prison Experiment was. This is primarily because of the extent of the deception that was extended to the participants of the Milgram experiment. While those who took part in the Stanford experiment were not provided with full disclosure, and things escalated to a point beyond what Zimbardo was able to predict, the organizers of the Milgram experiment knowingly lied to those involved. The entire experiment, in fact, was based upon lying to their participants through the use of actors, rigged slips, and false information. Additionally, Milgram also pressured his participants to continue even after they began to show signs of severe stress, while Zimbardo et al. cancelled his experiment prematurely once his patients began to unravel.
I believe that, while these experiments caused unnecessary harm and it may have been possible to gather the same information without them, now that they have been conducted, they are important. For one thing, they helped to set the discussion forward in the field of ethics, but for another they were able to conclusively show the impact of authoritarianism and the way that power can easily go to the head of an individual. And, since there was no great long-term injury to the participants, and because they were able to show a deep insight into the human brain, I do not believe that it would have been better had they never been done. They were deep breaches of ethical principles, but the set the stage for future researchers and showed us what not to do while researching.
Had I been in charge of the experiment, I would have exercised more control as the “warden” to ensure that the guards did not become physically abusive towards the inmates. Zimbardo, while attempting to let the situation play out in a natural manner, allowed the guards to become far too abusive, and that led to the phycological damage that we saw unfold with the prisoners. I also think that the chain attach to the food of each prisoner was excessive – this is not even something that is done in actual prisoners, and I feel that it needlessly interrupted the sleep of the participants by trying to constantly remind them of the oppression they were under. That said, I do not think that I would have terminated the experiment earlier. Instead, I would have likely tried to alter the behavior of the guards – for example Zimbardo said that the guards were becoming increasingly abusive during the night, and marching prisoners around with bags on their heads. This behavior should be outlawed, and concessions could have been made to the prisoners to see if that would improve the mental state of the participants.
I also would have certainly conducted a follow-up study to ensure that the participants did not have any long-term effects from the study. The experiment clearly placed an extreme amount of stress on those involved – both guard and prisoner – and I would want to see if it had any long-term health or personality effects on those who endured it.
There should be a greater level of civilian oversight in facilities like Attica that would mandate outside officials periodically inspect those inside the institutions and ensure that certain standards are being followed. This could be done through surprise, on-the-spot inspections, interviews with discharged inmates, and the watching of surveillance footage. The key is to guarantee that the individuals doing the oversight are from outside the facilities themselves.
By having outside, civilians agencies overseeing facilities on behalf of the taxpayers, it would eliminate the secrecy and also provide a fresh set of eyes to record the abuses present. Dr. Zimbardo himself said that he began to grow hostile towards those who questioned his experiment while he was in the role of the warden, a fact which proves that the warden himself cannot be responsible for adequately overseeing the facility. They too can become too deeply entangled on the goings-on of the facility, and instead an outside, independent agency becomes necessary. That agency would enforce codes, work to prevent abuses, and flag possible budding issues that could harm the prisoners.
One of the chief things that I believe the Stanford Prison Experiment showed was the power of the guards to either make the lives of the inmates under their guard miserable, or to allow them to have some semblance of normalcy during their time behind bars. I think that this shows that guards need not only enhanced training, but potentially increased oversight as well. On their own, the Stanford experiment showed that guards could let the power go to their heads, and the authoritativeness inherent to their position could lead them to become tyrants inventing arbitrary rules and working to ensure that the prisoners have as few comforts as possible.
By instituting increased oversight to prevent these kinds of tyrannical tendencies from developing within a prison, and by providing increased training that clearly lays out the rules guards are expected to abide by, as well as how guards are supposed to react in certain situations to minimize risk and decrease the possibility of harm to all parties, I believe that the correctional system could be changed for the better. There are many problems within the modern correction system, but by decreasing renegade authoritarian tendencies among the guards I think we can alleviate a significant burden that many inmates face, a burden that was clearly highlighted by the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Works Cited
- https://www.prisonexp.org/the-story
