Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford prison experiment was plagued with many inconsistencies and ethical issues of research. First, the researcher introduced the respondents into a research experiment without adequately preparing them for the events that unfolded. The researcher did not disclose the nature of the experiment or the fact that it might entail violence and dehumanizing acts, which invalidates the informed consent the researcher claims to have acquired. Informed consent is valid only if the researcher frankly gives all the facts and risks of research, and the respondent agrees to the terms. Also, there was selection bias because the researcher chose respondents without any predisposition to violence and exposed them to an experiment with violent acts without a control group of the real criminals. The findings of this research were inconclusive; hence the research findings could not be adopted. The researcher should have provided a control experiment and informed the respondents of what could go wrong to get informed consent.
Gender is Learned Experiment
In this experiment, the researcher deceived the parents of the subjects hence obtained informed consent. Such consent is invalid due to the failure to disclose that this was the researcher's first experiment. The chances of success were unknown. Second, the subjects were forced to adopt genders they did not want. The researcher should not have misled the parents into signing the consent form. Also, the researcher should have allowed his subjects to opt-out of the experiment when they wanted to.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Behavioral Study of Obedience
In this study, the participants were subjected to fatigue bias. The teachers often got tired of punishing the respondents but were forced to continue. Moreover, the researcher denied the participants to leave the questioning when they felt overwhelmed. By denying them freedom, the researcher contravened the ethical value of freedom to walk out of research from the respondents. Also, the study was subject to sponsor bias. The researcher and the respondents, the actors, worked together, prompting the respondents to intentionally give wrong answers to provoke the teachers to give them an electric shock. Also, the participants were misled into thinking they were hurting the others by using shock while it was just a trick. The researcher should have avoided the sponsor bias by allocating people with no ties to him as the respondents. Also, the participants should have been allowed to leave when they felt the need.
