Ethical Issues on the Das Experiment of Zimbardo - Literature review Example

Ethical Issues on the Das Experiment of Zimbardo Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction Research experiments their findings are always bound to elicit a lot of controversies regarding how the research activities are carried out and how the outcomes are analyzed and presented. Yet since research study is the best way to gather facts about a population, it cannot be gainsaid. One of the most controversial experiments to have been done in history is one done on prison life by one professor of psychology at the Stanford University, Philip Zimbardo. The study is commonly known as the Das Experiment of Zimbardo. The findings depict how people can be so held in some roles that it may be difficult to break away from them. This paper will address the ethical issues surrounding the experiment such as how it was carried out, the methods used, comments on the nature of methods used, whether the participants were treated ethically or not, safety status of the researchers and nature of the findings. Outline of how the Das Experiment was carried out Professor Zimbardo and his team at Stanford University in the United States set out an experiment to study the psychological impacts of becoming a prison guard or prisoner. The study was aimed at analysing the behaviour of those people who demand obedience from others, such as prison guards. The team was a sample population of 24 male undergraduate students selected from 70 students. The selected group was required to act in the roles of prison guards and prisoners and had to live in a mock prison depicting the real nature of prison life within the basement of the psychology department at the Stanford University. Each participant was to be paid $15 per day for the two weeks they would live the “prison life” (Argyle 1998, p. 24). The group that was selected had the desirable attributes such as lacking psychological issues, no crime history and had no medical disabilities. These qualities were regarded the attributes of a good representative sample. The participants (volunteers) were assigned to their respective roles by tossing a coin; hence they were assigned randomly (Hardy & Heyes 1999, p. 121; Argyle 1998, p. 24). The group that took the prisoners’ role were stripped and deloused and then given prison clothing to put wear. In addition, they were given numbers that would be used to identify them instead of being allowed to use their names. In the same perspective, those assigned as guards were given uniforms, black reflecting sunglasses and truncheons. Events that occurred in the “prison cells” were recorded using concealed cameras located in various premises (Hardy & Heyes 1999, p. 121; Argyle 1998, p. 24). Goals and objectives of the experiment Professor Zimbardo and his team set the experiment to examine the phenomenon that the innate personality traits of prisoners and prison guards were fundamentally key to understanding the abusive prisons conditions. Essentially, the experiment was aimed at revealing why prison guards and officers demand obedience from their subjects, that is the prisoners as well as prisoners’ perceptions of guards and how they are likely to behave under them (Argyle 1998, p. 24). According Hardy and Heyes (1999), Zimbardo’s experiment was aimed at revealing how people get attached to roles that eventually become traditions regardless of how heinous the actions may be (p. 121). Zimbardo aimed at exploring the validity of a dispositional explanation of aggressive behaviour. He pointed out: “If you place ‘ordinary’ people in a prison environment and designate them as guards and other as prisoners, how would they behave? Would they too behave aggressively, thus showing situational influences?” (Kimmel 2007, p. 113) How the experiment proceeded The participants were so engrossed in their roles that the experiment had to be stopped after only six days instead of the projected 14 days due too much cruelty displayed by the “prison guards” against the “prisoners.” Some of the guards developed uncontrollable emotions against the prisoners and the prisoners were so distressed. The guards made the prisoners to clean out toilet bowls using their bare hands, force-fed them or often put those who rebelled in solitary confinement (Hardy & Heyes 1999, p. 122). On the other hand, the prisoners often opted to fight back but were overpowered by the armed guards. As such, they became pathetic and subservient and therefore allowed the guards to do whatever they wished. Explanation of the participants’ behaviour It is difficult to explain the “guards’” sudden change in behaviour since the participants were students with no past criminal record. Yet they became overtly brutal against the prisoners. In addition, they had been screened for any possible psychological disorders, implying that whatever they did was out of their own discretion (Banks 2004, p. 142). Argyle (1998) suggested three issues that may have contributed to the guards’ unique behaviour. One is that the guards acted so partly because they were playing the roles that they had been assigned, and therefore acted the way prison guards normally did. Thus the participants were acting based on what they knew usually happened in prisons (Argyle 1998, p. 24). The second point is that given that prisoners showed some disobedience, the guards needed to depict some form of coercion so as to control them. Even then, some of the guards exercised too much coercion. In a similar experiment by Milgram it was found that some form of deteriorating behaviour is usually displayed by prison guards (Argyle 1998, p. 24). The third point is that in Zimbardo’s study and in others it was found that once victims have been degraded, they can easily be considered by their masters as subhuman, so that their rights can easily be violated (Argyle 1998, p. 24). Issues about the experiment Zimbardo, as well as Milgram had very good objectives in their research. In fact Banyard and Flanagan (2005) note that both researchers seriously considered ethical issues before they embarked on their studies. Nevertheless, whether the studies were ethical or not is amenable to discussion. Analysing the two researches, Banyard and Flanagan (2005) consider Milgram’s study to have been ethical while dismissing Zimbardo’s study as having been non-ethical (p. 23). But the fact that the two studies are still worthy being analysed more than 40 years after they were conducted raises questions over the manner in which they were done. Banyard and Flanagan (2005) also note that experiments that involve deception (such as Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s are in danger of taking away a participant’s right to autonomy (p. 23). This is clearly notable in the manner in which participants acting as prisoners in Zimbardo’s study were treated. The same was of Milgram’s case in which some participants were told to administer shocks to others as a way of learning. Hence, in both cases, participants may have been cruel to their colleagues just because they were learning and therefore acted as real people would actually have behaved but this does not in any case justify Zimbardo’s or Milgram’s studies. According to Kimmel (2007), deception involves the withholding of information or misleading of the participants in any research. Deception is morally wrong in the context of the obligation of researchers to protect the welfare of the subject or subjects (Kimmel 2007, p. 113). Judged from this perspective, the Das Experiment of Zimbardo was clearly characterized by deception. There is also a responsibility of the researcher to be trustworthy. Protection of participants from psychological harm implies that research participants should be shielded from undue risk during the study. This might include loss of dignity, embarrassment, or threats to a person’s self esteem as a result of participating in the research (Kimmel 2007, p. 113). Ironically, Zimbardo’s subjects were exposed to all these negative aspects of research. Although there was some form of consent in Zimbardo’s study, the researcher failed to provide the participants with an understanding of what would happen next as the research proceeded (Kimmel 2007, p. 113). This highlights the lack of ethical concerns in Zimbardo’s study. Nevertheless, the researcher notes that a lot had been done with respect to the daunting task of handling two dozen volunteers for two weeks (Zimbardo 2007, p. 28). Informed consent implies that research participants should be permitted to agree or refuse to partake in any given research based on complete conclusive information regarding the nature as well as rationale behind the activities involved. Such consent is not always possible in the purview of the researcher given that it is likely to undermine the validity of the study (Kimmel 2007, p. 113). It can therefore be said that if informed would have been allowed, Zimbardo’s study would not have reached the cruel point it reached. In addition, it is notable that the research had to be stopped before the elapse of the projected 14 days due to ethical concerns. One major concern about Zimbardo’s study is that the “guards” were allowed to behave as if the research was primarily about the reaction by prisoners to prison life under the guards (Kimmel 2007, p. 113). Conclusion From Zimbardo’s point of view the Stanford University prison study was well planned. This is because the participants acted in a real prison environment, thus making the findings very valid. However, given that the researchers did not invoke the participants’ full consent, a high magnitude of deception was involved. Thus, ethically it can be noted that Zimbardo and his team erred by allowing some of the participants to be subjected to cruelty. Yet, it is this deception that made the participants act the way they acted because if informed consent had been allowed, the findings about prison life would not have been valid as Zimbardo obtained them and as noted by (Kimmel 2007, p. 113). This leaves room for further discussion on ethical issues in psychological studies and validity of the results. References Argyle, M 1998, Social influence, Wiley-Blackwell, London. Banks, C 2004, Criminal justice ethics: theory and practice, SAGE, London. Banyard, P & Flanagan, C 2005, Ethical issues and guidelines in psychology, Routledge, London. Hardy, M & Heyes, S 1999, Beginning psychology (5th edition), Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kimmel, A J 2007, Ethical issues in behavioral research: basic and applied perspectives (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, London. Kimmel, A J 2007, Ethical issues in behavioural research: basic and applied perspectives (2nd edition), Wiley-Blackwell, London. Zimbardo, P G 2007, The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil, Random House, New York. Read More