Introduction
The Stanford Prison Experiment by Professor Philip Zimbardo achieved its purpose by determining that situations and circumstances determine people’s behaviors. In 1973, Zimbardo and his colleagues began an experiment to determine the cause of brutality and cruelty reported among American prison guards. They wanted to know whether the brutality was caused by the guards’ personalities or the prison environment. Since then, arguments have emerged about the authenticity of this experiment. Some people argue that the experiment met its purpose, and the findings can be relied on. Critics claim that the results are controversial because the participants did not act naturally, and there is a possibility that some guards were coached on how to behave.
This is one of the most popular psychological experiments ever. The purpose of this experiment was fully defined and explained. During this time, there were many reports of prison guard brutality and cruelty towards prisoners. This caused a situation in which the guards continued to display cruelty while the prisoners continued to be submissive to survive (Haslam, Reicher, & McDermott, 2015). There were little options available for the researchers to explain the psychology behind the behaviors. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct this prison situation experiment which has become popular in psychology studies (Bartels, Milovich, & Moussier, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Before conducting the experiment, Zimbardo and his colleagues advertised for the positions of experimental guards and prisoners. After receiving applicants, they went further to examine both the mental and physical status of the applicants to ensure that the participants were stable. Out of the 75 applicants, only 24 people were fit and cleared to participate. This means that the psychological effects that were shown during the experiment were not influenced by conditions external to the study (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2015). Some prisoners were so disturbed emotionally that they had to be released before ending the experiment, which only lasted five days (Haslam et al., 2015). Because of the recruitment procedure, the experiment was reliable in determining the real prison conditions.
The results of the experiment were not predetermined by the researchers. First of all, Zimbardo and his colleagues invested in the process by paying each participant $15 per day. The guards and prisoners were expected to earn this money by giving their best. There is an instance where a guard is encouraging his colleague to be tough because he was doing nothing. While this might be interpreted as coaching or influence to the results, it had little impact (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2015). Furthermore, these are people who had little or no experiences of what happens in prisons and were only acting based on what they hear or read.
Counter-arguments
Critics argue that the experiment had a lot of controversies and should not be used to explain what happens with human psychology. Some of the reasons provided include unethical behaviors, coaching of participants, and participants playing roles rather than acting naturally (Kulig, Pratt, & Cullen, 2017). The instance in which a guard was instructing a colleague to act tough can mean that they were meant to act with authority and cruelty from the onset. The purpose of this experiment was to determine the natural cause of brutality. Therefore, if there was any kind of coaching, then it is difficult to rely on the experiment.
This experiment failed to protect prisoners from emotional and psychological harm. The researchers only instructed the guards not to use any kind of physical torture. There were many instances of distress and humiliation. For example, there was a prisoner who burst uncontrollably into screaming and crying. He had to be released 36 hours into the experiment because of psychological disturbance (Kulig et al., 2017). Also, the participants did not consent to be arrested in their homes. This was a violation of the ethics of a contract that they signed.
It can be assumed that the participants were acting the prisoner and guard roles rather than being natural (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2015). First, the researchers excluded people with criminal records and then told all the 24 participants of what the experiment was all about. They, therefore, behaved based on what they had heard about prisons. Also, the experimenters like Professor Zimbardo were among the guards. This means that the participants had to do what they thought was expected of them to earn their contract pay and also due to the presence of their employers who were the supervisors.
Despite the counter-argument, I believe that the experiment achieved its purpose and could be relied upon to call for adjustments in prison environments. The researchers began by obtaining relevant permissions and obeying the available ethical requirements. Some of the ethical codes used against the experiment currently did not exist by then (Ilfeld, 2018). The surprise arrests at home were meant to make it more natural. Secondly, this was a mock prison aimed at conducting a psychological experiment. Therefore, it was not easy protecting the prisoners from the observed psychological harm (Bartels et al., 2016). Therefore, the experiment was no controversial, as some critics believe and argue.
Conclusion
The Stanford prison experiment conducted by Professor Zimbardo and colleagues has drawn many arguments with some arguing that it was controversial and its results should be dismissed. The critics argue that the experiment was unethical and that there was only one conclusion because the participants were either coached or acting. Contrary to these arguments, the experiment provided an important conclusion that the brutality in prison was a result of the nature of the environment. The researchers took the necessary and possible steps to ensure that the experiment results were unbiased. This, therefore, means that there was no controversy in this experiment.
References
Bartels, J. M., Milovich, M. M., & Moussier, S. (2016). Coverage of the Stanford prison experiment in introductory psychology courses: A survey of introductory psychology instructors. Teaching of Psychology , 43 (2), 136-141.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & McDermott, M. R. (2015). 45 Studying Harm-Doing without Doing Harm: The Case of the BBC Prison Study, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Role-Conformity Model of Tyranny. Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 134.
Ilfeld, F. (2018). Group Dynamics and the New Heroism: The Ethical Alternative to the Stanford Prison Experiment. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy , 68 (1), 124-131.
Kulig, T. C., Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2017). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A case study in organized skepticism. Journal of Criminal Justice Education , 28 (1), 74-111.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2015). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. In Time perspective theory; review, research and application (pp. 17-55). Springer, Cham.
