Ethics, Controversy, & the Future

Ethics, Controversy, & the Future
By: Jesilyn
Abstract
The Stanford Prison Experiment has been one of the most ethically controversial studies in the history of psychology. Some say that the study was a total disgrace while others believe that without such procedures our knowledge would be limited or nonexistent. This ignites the flame for inquiring minds. Just what did happen in the basement of Stanford University in 1971, how might such a study have affected its participants and do scientists have the right to perform such research or does a modern set ethical standards stand in the way? This document will answer these questions and more as it examines 36 years of information.
Ethics, Controversy, & the Future
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University and Financed by the U.S. Navy and Marines (Wikipedia, 2007). The purpose of this experiment was to explain how people develop norms and how the effect of one’s position or title, and society’s expectations play apart of their reaction when placed in a replicated prison situation (Zimbardo, 2007). The results were also meant to assist the military in explaining and correcting the current problems that existed within their prison system (Wikipedia, 2007).
The first step in the process was for Zimbardo and his staff to place a newspaper article in the Palo Alto Times and the Stanford Daily. They offered $15 a day (which according to Wikipedia is equal to $75 in 2007) to male college students for participating in their research project that would study the “psychology of imprisonment” (Zimbardo, 2007). 24 of the 75 men that responded to the article were chosen to participate because they were considered to be the most psychologically stable and healthy of choices. These men had no prior arrest records, they had no current medical conditions, and they had no psychological disorders. Of course with such a close similarity, the decision of which men would play which role had to be made. Random assignment (a simple coin toss) was used as the determining factor thus separating twenty-four men into twelve inmates and twelve guards.
The participants were chosen for the project therefore the next step was for the men to be provided with a document called an informed consent form. This form, once signed, would certify that the individuals had been given all the information pertaining to the experiment they were to take part in. In this case the men would be expected to play the role of either inmate or guard. They would be observed, filmed, and participate for the full length of the study as paid volunteers. Finally, they would agree not to hold anyone responsible for any damage as a result of the experiment. Once signed, the men were sent home to wait to be contacted with further instructions; these being phone calls/letters that never came.
The contact came with arrests when Palo Alto police arrived at the homes of study’s “prisoners”. These men were then placed in handcuffs, searched for contraband, read their rights, and driven to the police station where they were booked. Five men were charged with burglary, and four were charged with armed robbery. Once booked, the inmates were dressed in smocks that resembled dresses (without underwear), rubber sandals, and had woman’s stocking hose caps placed on their heads and chains with locks placed on one leg. At this point the prisoners were ready for transfer to the mock prison where the warden and guards were waiting with a list of rules that the inmates were to follow. These rules included such things as silence while resting and eating, the upkeep of cells, and how the inmate should respond to Arthurian figures. The first day of the procedure went fairly well even though the process of being stripped, deloused, and placed in confinement was severely degrading.
Day two wasn’t quite as easy as angered, profanity screaming inmates placed their beds against cell doors, removed their caps, and tore their numbers off their shirts. This sparked anger in the guards making them retaliate with force. They began using fire extinguishers on the inmates until they could invade the cells after which they stripped the cells and the inmates of their clothing and began their own style of intimidation. What had started as three guards for an eight hour shift turned into nine guards, this wasn’t going to work. So, they came up with a plan. The made one cell a “good boy” cell, placed three men in that cell. These men got back their clothes, were fed and allowed to bathe. The rest were not. After a while those three were removed and three others were placed in their place. This process caused the inmates to believe that someone was playing informant which created negative feelings amongst the inmates and gave the guards the upper hand because it separated the offense. This gave the guards more power and allowed the guards to lower their numbers back down to three.
For the remainder of the time things really began to spin out of control. The guards grew more and more abusive. Corporal punishment became brutal beatings. Military like exercise used as adverse therapy because abusive as guards applied pressure to the backs of the inmates. Restroom breaks were taken away and men were forced to use buckets that they were not allowed to empty. Food was withheld. Not to mention, it got even worse at night when the guards thought the cameras were off.
The worst part about it is that everyone got so wrapped up in their roles that no one realized that the experiment had went too far. The inmates had forgotten that this was a paid experiment, which they were allowed to quit. They had become inmate number so in so, and were telling each other that they couldn’t leave. The guards had grown in to their role so much that no one seen the inmates as being equal men anymore. They were the bad inmates, nothing more nothing less. And even Dr. Zimbardo was caught up in the drama of it all. He was suppose to be the one watching and making sure the safety of everyone was ensured but he was more concerned with running the prison than being a researcher. Nothing could prove that more than the first visitation day when the guards forced the inmates to clean the cells and themselves. They couldn’t have the public knowing what was actually happening in that basement now could they! By cleaning up the mess they were covering up their actions which is probably why parents, friends and associates didn’t show concern when they came to visit. I mean seriously, it was an experiment. Guests seen a clean atmosphere, a pretty, friendly receptionist, and were only there a limited time. Not to mention, back then, men were thought to be strong willed, with even stronger egos. Basically that’s saying most believed that the experiment was only designed to last for two weeks so what harm could be done in two weeks. Therefore between the cover, up done by the team and the outsiders expectations the abuse of the “inmates” went unnoticed. That is it went unnoticed until Christina Maslach came to view the progress of the study.
Christina Maslach an assistant professor at Berkeley and the romantic companion of Zimbardo became apart of the experiment on the fifth day when she arrived on site to familiarize herself with the setting. She had agreed to assist with interviews, but had not been apart of the planning or observation process. Obviously her doctorate from Stanford hadn’t prepared her for what she was about to see, because once inside she became appalled by the view. Although she was a psychologist and was supposed to understand, when it came down to it the whole situation made her ill. She couldn’t bear watching what was happening to those young men and these emotions would later explode as Zimbardo attempts to gain her opinion of his experiment. Now whether it was this extraordinary conversation, the actual abuse taking place between the guards and the inmates, or a combination of both Maslach’s involvement turned her into a hero. She became known as "the one who stopped the Stanford Prison Experiment." (O’Toole, 1997)
So the question here is what caused Maslach to contest the actions taking place within the mock prison? The answer is ethics. Ethics is an individual’s interpretation of right and wrong. In Maslach’s case it was a matter of personal ethics. She could not Handel what was taking place. For lack of better words, it bothered her. Now, personal ethics differ from professional ethics because professional ethics involve public decisions and such a responsibility requires guidelines, which is why public agencies developed the “codes of ethics”. Basically, these documents provide written answers to problems incase an issue should arise during professional interactions. Obviously, the Stanford Prison Experiment had become one of those types of situations. Now, despite popular belief; the American Psychological Association did conduct a complete investigation of Zimbardo and the experiment in 1973. This investigation concluded that all ethical standards in place at the time had been followed. So, the scrutiny being faced by the experiment was on a personal ethics level. This lead officials to make changes in the APA Code of Ethics. Now, we aren’t actually going to discuss those changes; we are however going to discuss the major ethical violations that an experiment like this would create a study such as the one above were to happen in today’s society.
According to the American Psychological Association’s most recent version of the Ethical Code of Conduct, The whole experiment began as an ethical violation. Section 8.02 states that when doing research, participants have the right to withdraw their service at anytime (even after the study has begun) and that any variations from or consequences for such action should be documented prior to the beginning of the study in the informed consent form. (APA, 2007).
In the case of the Stanford Prison experiment, this did not happen. Some participant’s requests to quit were overlooked and others were told they could quit only if they gave up their pay. Sadly this may have been prevented if Zimbardo would have followed today’s Section 3.04, which states that psychologists are to avoid harm while working with others. (APA, 2007).
You see, in 1971, not only were the students subjected to physical and emotional abuse but the abuse was witnessed by the professional in charge of the operation as he himself preformed the job of superintendent. In other words, Zimbardo had placed himself in a dual relationship. Today this would violate section 3.05 due to the fact that during the role of superintendent, Zimbardo became so involved and his judgment so impaired that he was incapable of performing his duties as a psychologist/researcher. (This also violates Section 3.06 “Conflict of Interest”, 3.08 “Exploitative Relationships” and 8.04 “Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants”, because they hold similar meanings). (APA, 2007) Actions of abuse and neglect of this nature could have caused severe long-term psychological damage to his subjects.
Psychological effects due to incarceration are not unusual and often vary from individual to individual. It’s probably safe to say that most people would never have thought a two week study would leave permanent damage. However due to the length of this study, the “institutionalized” mentality of the inmates, and the abusive behavior of the guards, one could project the possibility of many post experimental problems amongst the individuals who participated in the study. For instance, the inmates were placed in degrading, circumstances, humiliated, and some of them were expelled from the project for sensitive reasons. The fact is a situation like this could at the very least cause problems of lowered self-esteem or worse it could have created much more severe reactions such as post traumatic stress syndrome. Post-traumatic stress syndrome’s symptoms include things like reoccurring nightmares, insomnia, detachment, loss of appetite and irritability. Other reactions to PTS include clinical depression (Bi-polar disorder), anxiety disorder, and addictions. (Wikipedia, 2007). Of course, I believe these same effects could have occurred in the guards who felt over come by peer pressure to be a person who they weren’t and act in ways they felt were unethical as well. However, in the other guards, I feel the experiment may have opened doors to negative psychological issues that would be dangerous to society. For example, Power and control can become an addictive force in a person’s life. Matter a fact when some people accidental stumble upon their domineering side they become consumed by their own inward thought and in return create a chain of events that may eventually lead to criminal acts. This by no means is suggesting that incarceration is a negative force that should be eliminated, nor is it saying that studies like the Stanford Prison Experiment should not exist.
Conclusion
The Stanford Prison Experiment proved that psychologically healthy individuals could become aggressive or depressed when placed in a mock prison environment. It also showed that researchers (Zimbardo, 2007) can also take on such characteristics when they place themselves in dual relationships. If this could happen to an educated, law-biding person in a simulated setting, can you imagine the adverse effects that the actual correctional system creates with their long term incarcerations? The fact is with out studies like this we would have never known the answers to questions like these and others. That is why it is so important that psychology finds a way to continue to do this type of research even if it defies what society believes to be ethical or humane. Of course, it would be helpful if researchers would do a better job of not only planning their projects to include each individual’s duties, but also place a general requirement for the participants to under extensive counseling after the experiment ends. These techniques would help insure the safety of not only the participants but society as a whole.

Annotated Bibliography
American Psychological Association (APA). (2000). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved June 2, 2007. From the American Psychological Association Website:
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
This website covers the professional ethic guidelines for psychologists. In my essay I refer to sections 3.04 Avoiding Harm, 3.05 Multiple Relationships, 3.06 Conflict of Interest, 3.08 Exploitative Relationships, 3.07 Sexual Relationships With Students and Supervisees, 8.02 Informed Consent to Research, and 8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants.

O’Toole, Kathleen. (1997). The Stanford Prison Experiment: Still powerful after all these years. Retrieved June 2, 2007. From the Stanford University News Website: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/97/970108prisonexp.html
This article provides explicit details about the conversation that took place between Zimbardo and Maslach the night before the experiment ended. It shows how personal ethics played a role in the entire situation.

Wikipedia. (2007). Stanford prison experiment. Retrieved June, 2, 2007.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Goals_and_methods
This website provides a large variety of information about the prison experiment including ethical views and intimate details that I used while writing my essay.


Zimbardo, P. (2007.). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved June 2, 2007, from The Standford Prison Experiment Website:
http://www.prisonexp.org/
This website provides explicit details that happen during the process of the Stanford Prison Experiment.