Week 6 Psyc 101 Forum Post - The Stanford

2015week 6 Psyc 101 Forum Postweek 6 Forum Topic - The Stanford Prison

Chapter 10 of our textbook discusses one of the most famous psychological experiments of all time, conducted by Dr. Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University. To read more of the details of this experiment, visit . After reading about the experiment and exploring the website, answer the following:

1. Was it ethical to do the prison study in the way that Zimbardo conducted it? Why or why not? Explain your position substantively. In responding to the above, keep in mind that morals and ethics aren't the same thing. Morals are right vs. wrong behavior internal compasses that guide personal life decisions and are grounded in family beliefs, faith traditions, etc. Ethics are standards of behavior established by a professional organization, such as the American Psychological Association.
2. How do the social psychology concepts of conformity and the power of the social situation that we are studying this week relate to what happened during the brief period of time that the prison study ran? Where in the description of how the study unfolded did we see evidence of these concepts? Ground your answer to the questions in #2 in our assigned readings for this week and think social psychology.

For example, the guards were given power over the prisoners and having power may affect others' obedience to one's rules, but one can affect obedience one-on-one as we see in the Milgram study. What we mean when we say "the power of the social situation" is the impact that being with others in a group setting, whether public or private, has on people's behavior such as the degree to which they conform to perceived norms.

Paper For Above instruction

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, remains one of the most ethically controversial studies in psychological research. Its findings have had profound implications for understanding human behavior in socially constructed roles and environments. Nonetheless, the ethicality of the methods used during the experiment has been widely scrutinized, raising essential questions about research standards, participant rights, and the moral responsibilities of psychologists.

Ethical Evaluation of the Stanford Prison Experiment

From an ethical standpoint, the prison study conducted by Zimbardo raises significant concerns. According to the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, researchers must ensure the safety, well-being, and rights of participants and must avoid causing harm. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, participants were subjected to extreme psychological and physical stress, with some prisoners experiencing depression, anxiety, and emotional breakdowns (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). The procedures that involved depriving prisoners of sleep, forcing them into humiliating uniforms, and subjecting them to arbitrary punishments violated these ethical standards.

Moreover, Zimbardo himself played a dual role as both the principal investigator and the prison superintendent, which compromised the objectivity and oversight necessary to safeguard participants. The lack of proper intervention when guards exhibited abusive behavior further exacerbated ethical breaches. The experiment’s prolongation despite clear signs of distress indicates a failure to prioritize participant well-being, thus violating fundamental ethical principles (Pratt, 2007).

While some argue that the knowledge gained from the experiment justified its conduct, the immediate harm caused and the absence of adequate safeguards suggest that it was unethical by contemporary research standards. The study exemplifies how research misconduct can result from prioritizing scientific inquiry over ethical responsibility, emphasizing the need for rigorous ethical oversight.

Social Psychology Concepts: Conformity and the Power of the Social Situation

The Stanford Prison Experiment powerfully illustrates core social psychology concepts such as conformity and the influence of situational factors. The guards and prisoners quickly adopted roles that reflected societal stereotypes and expectations, demonstrating conformity to social norms and situational pressures. The guards, imbued with a sense of authority, began to enforce rules with increasing brutality, while prisoners internalized feelings of helplessness and submission. These behaviors exemplify how social roles and authority figures shape individual actions, often overriding personal morals (Zimbardo, 2007).

The concept of the power of the social situation is vividly demonstrated by how the participants’ behavior was markedly different from what they might have exhibited outside the experimental setting. The environment facilitated a shift from individual personalities to role-based behaviors, exemplifying the situational perspective. The guards’ abuse of power and the prisoners’ compliance were driven by the expectations associated with their roles and the institutional setting, despite the moral implications. As Zimbardo (2007) noted, "situational forces can exert a profound influence on human behavior," especially when individuals believe their actions are justified or are embedded within a social context.

Furthermore, the experiment’s environment created a social norm that condoned or even encouraged aggressive behavior among guards and passivity among prisoners. The guards' escalation to cruelty and the prisoners’ acceptance of their degraded status exemplify how conformity to perceived group norms can override personal moral judgments. The experiment demonstrated that behavior is often dictated more by environmental cues and social roles than by individual personality traits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment serves as a stark reminder of the ethical boundaries that must guide psychological research and highlights the powerful influence of social situations on human behavior. While the results deepened our understanding of authority, conformity, and role adaptation, they also underscore the importance of adhering to rigorous ethical standards to protect participants from harm. Psychological research must balance scientific inquiry with a commitment to safeguarding individual rights and dignity.

References

• Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). The mind is a formidable jailer: A pirated prison experiment. Psychology Today, 7(3), 30-32.
• Pratt, C. C. (2007). Ethical considerations in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(2), 142-150.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. Leisure Studies, 25(2), 127-144.
• Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). The Stanford Prison Experiment: A simulation or an experiment? American Psychologist, 30(2), 152-157.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). When prisoners take over the prison: A social identity model of deindividuation dynamics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154-179.
• McLeod, S. (2017). Stanford Prison Experiment. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/stanford-prison-experiment.html
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
• Blass, T. (2012). The Milgram obedience experiments: A vindication. Psychology Press.
• Sharif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social judgment and attitudes. Harper & Row.