Stanford Prison Experiment - Term Paper Example

Teacher Stanford Prison Experiment Introduction The Stanford Prison Experiment was an official study conducted in 1971on the campus of Stanford University. The experiment itself was completed by a team researchers, all under the direction of Philip Zimbardo, who a Professor of Psychology at the university. It was aimed to better understanding the psychological effects of becoming either a prisoner or prison guard, and was funded by the United States Office of Naval Research. They Navy was involved because the study was seen to be of great interest to both the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps. These two branches of the military wanted to better ascertain the root causes of conflicts that occurred between military guards and their prisoners. The experiment itself consisted of the university designing a mock prison within the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University. A total of 24 males students, from a possible 75, were selected to participated in the experiment. They were randomly assigned roles within the prison, as either a prisoner or prison guard. The goal was for Professor Zimabardo and his research team to observe the interactions that took place and how each adapted to their role. The prison was run as close to a real penal institution as was possible to replicate, and the results were quite startling. Both prisoners and prison guards were observed to have adapted to their roles in ways that were not anticipated, and before long some of the prisoners began experiencing various forms of psychological abuse and even torture. Guards even became adept at turning prisoner against prisoner. In the end, as troubling as the initial days of the experiment, even Professor Zimbardo, was the de facto superintendent of the prison, allowed the incidences of abuse to continue. Within a few days, two the prisoners quite the experiment all together, and the study itself was halted only six days in. It should also be noted that participants were paid the modern day equivalent of $85 per day to participate and that portions of the experiment were filmed. Portions of those video are still readily available to be viewed online even today. Effect on Prisoners Even though the research team went to great lengths to ensure that each of the 24 participants in the study were psychologically and emotional healthy and stable, it was quickly evident that many of them were ill prepared for the psychological toll that the mock prison experience would have on them. None of the participants had any type of criminal record to note, had no known psychological issues, and were physically fit. In the end, this might have ended up having the greatest effect on this individuals because, as they were all middle class individuals, they simply had never been exposed to the type of setting that was recreated in the basement of the psychology building at the university. The experiment itself was designed to induce a certain level of disorientation, depersonalization, and deindividualization within each participant, and this was actually exceeded in the initial observation of the study. In the end, the prisoners were treated almost exactly like an actual prisoner would be treated, right down to being arrested at home, transported to the actual police station, booked, and then taken to their cell in the basement. Prisoners were strip searched upon arrival, had to remain in their cells almost 24 hours a day, and immediately lost all privileges. It turns out that this had a more serious effect of each prisoner that was expected, and few were ready for the turmoil that this treatment would wreak on the psyche. To compound the humiliation felt by the prisoners, the guards were treated exactly as they would in positions of authority at any other similarly placed penal institution. While they were instructed not to physically hit any prisoner, they were afforded batons and guard attired, in addition to receiving instructions to only call prisoners by their number. It was also noted that verbal abuse was tolerated and allowed to continue, having a negative effect on the prisoners over time (Griggs 198). Ethicality of the Experiment With any psychological experiment involving human subjects, there will always be questions of ethics. In this particular study, all participants were made fully aware of what their participation would entail, and they were even financially compensated for their time. They were free to withdraw from the experiment at any time, which two of them after only a few days. Even with all of these measures put into place, there are questions about whether or not it was ethical to conduct such an experiment that had the potential to cause as much psychological and emotional harm as a study such as this one could possibly have. In the end, questions of right or wrong will likely always be debated, but the fact of the matter is that Professor Zimbardo and his research team followed existing guidelines governing the ethics of psychological studies in place at the time. Each study was required to sign a consent form before they could participate in the study. The study itself was approved by an Institutional Review Board. Such approval was granted by the Stanford Human Subjects Review Committee, the Psychology Department at Stanford University, and the Group Effectiveness Branch of the Office of Naval Research. Beyond this, the Study Health Department at Stanford University was also briefed about the experiment and they prepared themselves for any medical issues that might arise during the course of the study itself. Back in 1973, Professor Zimbardo actually consulted the American Psychological Association regarding the ethics of the experiment. After analyzing the structure of the experiment, the APA rules that all ethical guidelines had been followed. Involvement With Guards vs. Empathy with Prisoners One of the precipitating factors in calling an early end to the experiment was the reality that the prison guards were almost too realistic in the way that they performed their duties. They quickly became adept at siding with certain prisoners, while helping to condone abuse directed towards other prisoners that attempted to thwart their activities. Professor Zimbardo himself acted as superintendent, and he did nothing to stop the signs of abuse that began to occur within days of the actual experiment starting. In the end, he has expressed extreme regret over his lack of action and for any emotional trauma that is caused. He has reflected that he should have demonstrated a higher degree of impartiality with both prisoners and prison guards in terms of their respective roles, and certainly should have demonstrated more empathy with the prisoners. Just as this mock prison situation was a completely new experience for each of the 24 participants, the role that Professor Zimbardo took on was new to him as well. He was simply ill prepared for the reality of the situation once it presented itself, and did not take decisive action to correct it before it got out of hand (Rollier 431). Lessons Learned from the Experiment Even though the experiment itself was cut over a week short, there were many lessons to be taken from the experience. The Stanford Prison Experiment did provide a controlled environment that replicated a situation that needed to be studied. The behaviors of each participant demonstrate the effects that environment has on individual behavior. When confronted with something out of the norm, and where there is seemingly no other way out, it is observed that individuals will act in ways that they never considered possible before. They will have their moral and ethical guidelines challenged, and quite often the social environment will end up determining how the person will act. Each of the individuals were placed in a controlled setting that was unfamiliar to them. They adapted their own moral code of conduct to fit the situation, even though most of the participants in the study later reflected that they would never have acted like they did during the study out in their own personal life. Effect Towards Prisoners and Guards After the Experiment In the end, we do not really know what caused the guards to act so harshly against the prisoners, other than the reality of sudden being granted such a position of authority in a controlled environment can cause people to do things and act in a certain way that they would otherwise never consider. In this particular case, there appears to be no lasting psychological effect having been noticed on the part of either the prison guards or the prisoners. During the study, however, fifty percent of the prisoners were actually released from the prison before the six day mark due to their obvious suffering of a severe emotional cognitive means. There are no firm indications that the prison guards suffered from any such emotional abuse, and no participant dropped out from the study on the prison guard side of things, even though it is reported that one guard seriously contemplated doing so. After the study, because of the observations that were made, each of the participants was closely monitored for any lasting emotional or psychologically trauma that might have occurred. None was evident, which obviously is a positive ending to an otherwise troubling experiment. In fact, several of the participants have gone on to become highly respected in the field of psychology themselves (Haney & Zimbardo 712). Zimbardo’s Reaction in the End Professor Zimbardo is known to have been extremely distraught over what happened during the prison experiment. He was particularly troubled by the abuse that went on right in front of him and of his unwillingness to do anything to put an end to it. His judgement appears to be have been clouded during the study itself, and he simply did not react nearly as quickly as he would have liked. Instead, the behavior that was exhibited by most of the 24 participants was simply so unpredictable that he could not bring himself to action and ended up taking more of a role as that of passive observer. Years after the experiment, he actually wrote a book titled Lucifer’s Effect, of which he wrote extensively about the Stanford Prison Experiment. He is quoted there as reflecting, “I was guilty of the sin of omission - the evil of inaction - of not providing adequate oversight and surveillance when it was required…the findings came at the expense of human suffering. I am sorry for that and to this day apologize for contributing to this inhumanity” (181). These reflections illustrate a man that likely wishes he could take back the design of the experiment, even though we do not see a displeasure with the actual findings. In the end, Professor Zimbardo acknowledges that the use of human subjects in this way is not a proper course of how to conduct observations into human behavior and social structure. Conclusion It is important to remember that academia is filled with examples of great discoveries being made as the result of unintended actions. Professor Zimbardo and his research designed an experiment, in conjunction with researchers at the United States Department of Naval Research, that they felt could help us better understand the unique dynamics of human behavior that take place between prisoners and prison guards. They took every precaution and when through every approval process in effect at the time in order to design a study that would be safe and maximally effective. In the end, the experiment went wrong because of numerous factors that were simply not anticipated. This is one of the primary reasons why it is so difficult to conduct group experiments in a controlled setting on human subjects. The potential risks, as we now know and understand, are simply too great, even in light of the discoveries that are made. In the end, we learned a great deal from this experiment, not only about human behavior, but also about the design of experiments in controlled settings such as this one. Professor Zimbardo, and indeed others involved in the study, have made and continue make great advances in the field of psychology. Works Cited Griggs, Richards. “Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in Introductory Psychology Textbooks”. Teaching of Psychology, 41.3 (2014): 195-203. Haney, Craig and Zimbardo, Philip. “The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-Five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment”. American Psychologist, 53.7 (1998): 709- 727. Rollier, Bill. “A Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment”. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 58.3 (2008): 431. Zimbardo, P. G. “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil”. New York: Random House (2007). Read More