The Experiment Compared to Real Prisons

     The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study that was conducted in order to discover the cause of negative interactions between guards and prisoners. The study wanted to test if it was the personality characteristics of the guards and prisoners or if it was the environment of the prison that could cause the detrimental behaviors. The experiment was set up so that the participants would be in a simulated prison environment, but without the threat of any physical harm. It was designed to be as similar to a real prison, but the findings do not support how a real prison environment can affect those who live within it.

     There were many differences between the study and how a real prison system works. "Ethical, legal, and practical considerations set limits upon the degree to which this situation could approach the conditions existing in actual prisons and penitentiaries." (Zimbardo). This meant that there were rules that participants had to follow in order to have a safe and ethical environment to conduct the experiment. There were only a small sample of participants who agreed to go to take part of the study compared to the vast amount of inmates throughout the country that regularly do not choose to go to prison. The participants were all white college males with the exception of one person who was from oriental descent. This does not provide an accurate sample relative to prison population. The maximum sentence for the participants was only two weeks and their sentence could not be extended. "Unlike other prison system, prisoners could not be extended indefinitely for infractions of the internal operating system." (Zimbardo). There were many aspects of prison life that inmates and guards have to deal with. These aspects could not be implemented in the experiment because they would not be considered ethical. "There was no involuntary homosexuality, no racism, no physical beatings, no threat to life by prisoners against each other or other guards." (Zimbardo). This experiment could not be compared to real prisons because of the unlimited amount of variables that can't be replicated in an ethical psychological experiment. (Zimbardo)



     The experiment does not prove correlation or causation of environmental factors that cause inmate and guard interactions, but does provide information that can be attributed to a couple of theories. The experiment can teach us about the power of authority, conformity, social learning theories, obedience, and ethics. It gives insight as to how an environment can influence, alter, or enhance our behaviors, and how behaviors can effect our psychological responses to situations. "In one sense, the profound psychological effects we observed under the relatively minimal prison-like conditions which existed in our mock prison make the results even more significant and force us o wonder about the devastating impact of chronic incarceration in real prisons." (Zimbardo).


References:

Banks, Curtis. Haney, Craig. Zimbardo, Philip. "International Journal of Criminology and                             Penology." Intropersonal Dynamics in Simulated Prison. (1973) 69-97. Web. 17 Oct. 2016

12 October, 2016. Conclusion of the Experiment

     The Stanford Prison Experiment had concluded eight days earlier than the study had first scheduled. The study was terminated early due to the extreme and unpredictable behaviors that participants had shown, and the participants were under psychological stresses that could possibly cause long-term damage. The findings of the study provided information related to multiple theories and offered insight on behaviors exhibited by participants.

     The study was intended to determine whether interactions between prisoners and guards in American prisons were caused by situational or dispositional factors. Situational referred to the environment of the prison, and dispositional referred to the psychological characteristics of inmates and guards. Before the study took place, the participants displayed characteristics that were deemed normal in comparison to aggressive tendencies, anti-social behaviors, and other qualities that would predetermine certain behaviors. The participants were chosen to play either the role of a guard or prisoner. The experiment showed that participants adopted these roles, and went beyond the expectations that the researchers had anticipated. "In less than one week their behavior in this simulated prison could be characterized as pathological and anti-social. The negative, anti-social reactions observed were not the product of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather, the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behavior of essentially normal individuals." (Zimbardo). The study supports the theory that situational factors in a prison setting can influence unfavorable behavior interaction between guards and prisoners in this setting. "The profound psychological effects we observed under the relatively minimal prison-like conditions which existed in our mock prison make the result even more significant and forces us to wonder about the devastating impact of chronic incarceration in real prisons." (Zimbardo).


     There are some explanations as to why the participants acted like they did, such as deindividualization, learned helplessness, and conformity. Deindividualization is a state when one becomes so immersed in the norms of the group that one loses their sense of individual identity and personal responsibility. This referred to the sadistic and controlling actions that were attributed to most of the guards participating. The majority of the group acted a certain way, creating the need for the others to conform. Learned helplessness, in this case, pertained to the actions of the prisoners. Any action that was taken by a prisoner had little effect on what happened to them, and eventually they learned that they were helpless to the outcome of the situation. "In the mock prison, the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding." (McLeod). 




     The study also supported other theories that involve social psychology. "Thus we have another instance in support of Mischel's social learning analysis of the power of situational variables to shape complex social behavior." (Zimbardo). Mischel's theory suggested that personality and behaviors are shaped through our biology and the environment. More information on this theory can be found in "Toward a Cogntive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality". "Our results are also congruent with those of Milgram who most convincingly demonstrated the proposition that evil acts are not necessarily the deeds of evil men, but may be attributable to the operation of powerful social forces." (Zimbardo). Milgram's Theory was about the relationship between behavior and social situations. More information on the theory can by found in " Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority".

     This study provided crucial information that helped to support theories that are still studied today. It was a study that would not be allowed to have been done today due to ethical issues, but the knowledge gained from it outweighed the possible detrimental outcomes. The participants that were involved in the study were subject to harmful psychological trauma, but none of them sustained any long-term effects. To this day, this famous experiment is being studied by individuals in the psychological community, and the information is still used to examine many social psychological situations.



References:

Breil, Jeff. Plous, Scott. Jensenius, David. "Prisonexp.org." Stanford Prison Experiment. Social
     Psychology Network, 2015. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.

McLeod, Saul. "Stanford Prison Experiment." Simply Psychology. N.p., 24 Sept. 2016. Web. 12 Oct.
    2016.

Banks, Curtis. Haney, Craig. Zimbardo, Philip. "International Journal of Criminology and                             Penology." Intropersonal Dynamics in Simulated Prison. (1973) 69-97. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

Mischel, Walter. "Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality." Psychological
     review 80.4 (1973): 252.

Milgram, Stanley. "Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority." Human relations 18.1
     (1965): 57-76.

09 October, 2016. Ethical Issues with the Experiment

     The Stanford Prison Experiment has a lot of criticism about weather or not it was done ethically or not. "The ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment have long been called into question, and, certainly, without stricter controls this experiment would not be sanctioned today; it could pose a genuine risk to people disposed towards mental and emotional imbalances." (Shuttleworth). While most of the experiment followed ethical guidelines and was run morally, there was some issues that can be questioned. Participants did fill out an informed consent form, but some information was left out on parts of the form. An informed consent form includes various parts to it, such as the purpose of the study, potential risks or benefits, and procedure of the study. The participants that were selected to be prisoners were arrested at their homes and strip searched when they got to the prison. The consent form did not list this part of the study. It was ethically wrong to withhold information about what the participants were going to endure. 


     Psychological or physical harm that can be caused during an experiment can also be considered to be very unethical in human experiments. There was no way to expect psychological effects during the study, but participants did have psychological breakdowns that could have caused long-term effects. There was no long-term effects that had occurred but there were six participants that had showed signs of psychological stress that involved screaming, crying, and psychosomatic rashes. Participants were unaware that the study would have caused such distress and they were not protected form this harm. As an experimenter, Zimbardo, should have ended the study as soon as the first participant showed psychological distress or potential physical harm. The experiment did end after six days instead of the fourteen expected days, but the first participant to show signs of distress began only after thirty-six hours."Participants playing the role of prisoners were not protected from psychological harm, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger." (Mcleod). There was also a "riot" that occurred, which could have ended in an extreme physical altercation. Ethically, it was wrong to continue the study, because participants were being put into a dangerous environment, which could have resulted in severe psychological issues.

      The study has been evaluated by many people and today is still criticized for ethical concerns. It has also led to a need for ethical guidelines, which is now enforced by the American Psychology Association. Experiments must now get an approval from an Institutional Review Board. The IRB looks into the experiment as a whole and decides if it can be done ethically. If the Stanford Prison Experiment was brought to the IRB today, then it would altered in a way that it could be done ethically or it would be completely denied.


References:

 Shuttleworth, Martyn. "Stanford Prison Experiment - Roles Define Your Behavior." Stanford Prison

      Experiment - Roles Define Your Behavior. Explorable.com, 22 June 2008. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. 

McLeod, Saul. "Stanford Prison Experiment." Simply Psychology. N.p., 24 Sept. 2016. Web. 07 Oct.
      2016.

Breil, Jeff. Plous, Scott. Jensenius, David. "Prisonexp.org." Stanford Prison Experiment. Social                           Psychology Network, 2015. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.

04 Oct. 2016. Research Ethics in Psychology

            

    Ethics are an important aspect when looking into psychological research. Psychologists must follow an ethical code, which is defined as "a system of principles governing morality and acceptable conduct." (thefreedictionary.com). The American Psychological Association created the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" for researchers to use and follow in order to conduct research for their experiments. There are numerous rules and procedures that all psychologists must follow in order to create safe environments for participants for moral and legal reasons.


     In order to start a research study, the psychologists must first bring a proposal of their experiment to an Institutional Review Board for approval of ethical standards.The IRB is made up of various ethical committees that review the proposals and determine if the benefit of the research outweighs any risks that can happen to participants. Without approval from a certified ethics board, research can't be started. "These committees may request researchers make changes to the study's design or procedure, or in extreme cases deny approval of the study altogether." (Mcleod).  Once the proposal gets approved, they can perform their study while complying to all of the APA's ethical code of conduct.

     There are many points that psychologists must follow during there experiment, but here are some of the most common ethical guidelines that I will provide. Every participant must give an informed consent of knowledge about the study that the researcher provides. The potential participants are given information regarding:
"1. Purpose of the research
2. Expected duration of the study
4. Right to decline or withdraw from the study at any time
3. Procedures of the study
5. Potential risks or effects
6. Research benefits
7. Confidentiality agreements
8. Incentives of participation
9. Opportunity for potential participants to ask questions and receive answers about the experiment"
(American Psychological Association)
Deception is also an ethical issue, because morally it is usually wrong to mislead or misinform participants in a study in order to achieve results. Sometimes deception must be used during a study. Researchers must use deception in the study if there is no other way of conducting the experiment. The study should have the least amount of deception as possible and should not harm the participant when they learn of the deception after the study. Even though some researchers use deception, other psychologist disagree with it and deem it unethical to use deception for any reason. After a study has been completed, all participants must be debriefed. During the debriefing, researchers explain the study, the results, and if there was any deception used to the participants. They use debriefing to  make sure that the participants are psychologically and physically healthy after the study has been completed. (Mcleod). Researchers also should post their findings and analysis of the study that took place. It would be unethical to lie about any part of the study from beginning to end and would also be considered unethical to withhold any information about the study. The researcher should give the information to the public and other psychologists for review or for other researchers to duplicate the study in order to prove the validity of the results. (A.P.A.)

     Ethical Psychology should be practiced by all psychological researchers in order to ensure the safety of all participants. If a study is conducted in an ethical manor, then all participants should have no long-term mental or physical ailments, their human rights should not be violated, and the laws that all must abide should remain unbroken. A study that is ethical protects the researchers reputation and allows the researcher's study to be accepted in the psychology community.


References:

American Psychological Association. "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
     " PsycEXTRA Dataset (2010): 1-15.Http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/. APA, 
      01 June 2010. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

"ethical code." WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. 2003-2008. Princeton University, Clipart.com, Farlex 
      Inc. 4 Oct. 2016http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethical+code

McLeod, Saul. "Psychology Research Ethics." Simply Psychology. Creative Commons, 01 Jan.
     1970. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.

02 Oct. 2016. The Experiment

     When the participants arrived at the prison and were given a basic rundown of the situation, the experiment began. The prisoners were first given a set of  "prison rules"  (Breil) that was composed from the ideas of the warden and guards. The first day into the study, participants settled into their assigned roles and no significant altercation had occurred. The second day of the study, despite the relatively smooth first day, was when the experiment started to get interesting. Prisoners in one of the cell blocks had blockaded the door of the cell and refused to listen to the guards. Guards had used a fire extinguished to help control the situation, without knowledge of the experimenters. Those least involved with the rebellion were given special privileges, which lead to dissent among the prisoners. After the incident, the guards had decided to start using psychological tactics to assert authority and control over the prisoners. (Zimbardo)

     The guards used a variety of psychological tactics that lead to prisoners to express much distress. "Although it was clear to all subjects that experimenters would not permit physical violence to take place, varieties of less direct aggressive behavior were observed frequently (especially on the part of the guards)."  (Zimbardo, 80-81). The guards made prisoners do many push ups if they had made any errors, which Nazi's had also done to punish those within internment camps. They would take away mattresses, leaving only concrete for the prisoners to sleep on. As a form of degrading the prisoners, they would be forced to give their uniforms and stand naked in cells. Other forms of punishment prisoners had to endure was not being allowed to use the restroom or only using a bucket to use in their cells. Sometimes as forms of punishment the guards would not allow the prisoners to empty the buckets, creating an unsanitary environment. "Throughout the experiment commands were the most frequent form of verbal behavior and, generally verbal exchanges were strikingly impersonable, with few references to individual identity." (Zimbardo, 80). Guards used deindividualization techniques by reinforcing the idea that prisoners were just numbers and not a person with a name. They eventually started to use this technique to harass them frequently. (Zimbardo)

http://www.prisonexp.org/

     During the experiment, prisoners began to internalize their roles and began to believe this was more real than it actually was. Some of the prisoners even thought about accepting "parole" without their payment for the experiment, instead of simply quitting the study. "They talked about prison issues a great deal of time. They "told tales" on each other to the guards. They started taking prison rules very seriously, as though they were there for the prisoners' benefit and infringement would spell disaster for all of them. Some even began siding with guards against prisoner who did not obey rules." (Mcleod). As the experiment continued, prisoners began to act more erratically, express intentions of harm, and lost control of themselves. Thirty-six hours into the study, prisoner number 8612 began to scream and act irrationally to the point of possible emotional and psychological trauma that could have lasted long-term. The experimenters pulled out a total of five prisoners before the study ended in order avoid long-term damage. Prisoner number 416, was a stand-by participant, until he replaced another prisoner that had to leave because of possible psychological harm. When he saw how prisoners were treated, he decided to go on a hunger strike. The guards responded by putting him into solitary confinement and forcing the other prisoners to bang on the door and scream 416. The prisoners experienced intense psychological abuse from the participating guards, which lead to extreme measures.  "The most dramatic evidence of the impact of this situation upon the participants was seen in the gross reactions of five prisoners who had to be released because of extreme emotional depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety. The pattern of symptoms was quite similar in four subjects and began as early as the second day of imprisonment. The fifth was released after being treated for a psychosomatic rash which covered portions of his body."  (Zimbardo, 81)

http://www.prisonexp.org/

     The experiment ended six days into a fourteen day study. The guards were becoming more cruel as the experiment went along and displayed sadistic behaviors that could end up causing emotional and psychological trauma to other participants. "Despite the fact that guards and prisoners were essentially free to engage in any form of interaction (positive or negative, supportive or affrontive, etc.), the characteristic nature of their encounters tended to be negative, hostile, affrontive, and dehumanizing." (Zimbardo, 80). Despite the fact that there were many observers in the experiment, only one person questioned the morality and ethics of the experiment. "Professor Zimbardo's former graduate student (and future wife) Christina Maslach confronted him and said that by taking on the role of prison superintendent, he had become indifferent to the suffering of his participants."  The guards thought they were not being watched by experimenters at night, so their actions were becoming more aggressive. This was also another reason the experiment ended early. (Zimbardo)



References:

McLeod, Saul. "Stanford Prison Experiment." Simply Psychology. N.p., 24 Sept. 2016. Web. 1 Oct.
      2016.

Banks, Curtis. Haney, Craig. Zimbardo, Philip. "International Journal of Criminology and                               Penology." Intropersonal Dynamics in Simulated Prison. (1973) 69-97. Web. 1 Oct. 2016.

Breil, Jeff. Plous, Scott. Jensenius, David. "Prisonexp.org." Stanford Prison Experiment. Social                    Psychology Network, 2015. Web. 1 Oct. 2016.

27 Sept. 2016. S.P.E. goal, participants, and procedure.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a controlled experiment that included a prison setting with volunteer participants that took the roles of either prisoners or guards. "The goal was to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role playing exercise that simulated prison life."   (Saul). Zimbardo wanted to test the dispositional hypothesis that would help determine if prison atmospheres were controlled by the environment or the people in them. "The dispositional hypothesis has been embraced by the proponents of the prison status quo (blaming conditions on the evil in the prisoners), as well as by its critics (attributing the evil to guards and staff with their evil motives and deficient personality structures)."  (Zimbardo, 71). This would mean that the reason there is a violent prison atmosphere is because of the people within the prison and not the environment of the prison itself. If the participants in the experiment were more peaceful and non-aggressive, then the dispositional hypothesis could be true. If the opposite happened, which means the volunteers acted aggressive like the real prisoners and guards, then it would support a situational explanation.

http://www.prisonexp.org/gallery/

The twenty-two participants were selected from seventy-five volunteers to be subjects in the prison life experiment for fifteen dollars a day. "Those who responded to on ad in the newspaper completed an extensive questionnaire concerning their family background, physical and mental health history, prior experience and attitudinal propensities with respect to sources of psychopathology (including their involvements in crime)."   (73) The participants who passed the initial questionnaire were then interviewed by an experimenter, and the most mentally and physically stable with the least amount of anti-social behaviors were eligible for the study. All of those selected for the study were strangers to one another, healthy, Caucasian, except for one that was from Oriental descent, and college male students in the Stanford University area for the summer. (Zimbardo says) "The final sample of subjects were administered a battery of psychological tests on the day prior to the start of the simulation, but to avoid any bias, the cores were calculated after the study was completed."  (Zimbardo, 73).  Before the experiment started, one subject dropped out, which left ten prisoners and eleven guards.

http://www.prisonexp.org/gallery/

The initial procedure and set up of the experiment started with creating a "mock" prison that was similar to a real prison in certain aspects. The used a basement underneath the Psychology building at Stanford University. Those randomly assigned to the prisoner roles were arrested in their home without warning, taken to a local police station for fingerprinting and mugshots, then blind folded to be driven to the "mock" prison. Prisoners were stripped from their clothes and possessions deloused, given a prison uniform, shackles and an identification number. While they were in the prison, they were only allowed to use the ID numbers instead of their real names. Prisoners signed a contract stating: they would be given a sufficient amount of food to survive, little to no privacy, would be subject to the guards methods of control without physical abuse, and their rights would be suspended during the experiment to create the role they were given to be more authentic. Participants playing the role of the guard were given khaki uniform, a whistle, a police club, and sunglasses. They were given orders to do anything necessary to maintain law and order in the prison setting, and to command respect from prisoners without the use of physical violence. (Zimbardo says)  "The prisoners remained in the "mock" prison twenty-four hours per day for the duration of the study... The guards worked on three-man, eight-hour shifts; remaining in prison environment only during their work shifts, going about usual lives at other times." Zimbardo acted as the prison warden and also observed the behavior of both the prisoners and guards.

http://prisonexp.org/

During the study, data was collected through videotaping audio recording interactions of participants, and group rating scales for emotional changes in prisoner and guard participants, and personal observations. There was also an individual difference scale, which the participants took the day before the study and also after the study was completed. The individual scale included " F-scale of Authoritarian Personality [1], and the Machiavellianism Scale [2] - as well as areas of possible personality pathology through the newly developed Comrey Personality Scale [3]. The subscales of this latter test consist of: trustworthiness, orderliness, conformity, activity, stability, extroversion, masculinity, and empathy."   (Zimbardo, 78).

References:

McLeod, Saul. "Stanford Prison Experiment." Simply Psychology. N.p., 24 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept.    
        2016.

Banks, Curtis. Haney, Craig. Zimbardo, Philip. "International Journal of Criminology and Penology."
         Intropersonal Dynamics in Simulated Prison. (1973) 69-97. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.

Breil, Jeff. Plous, Scott. Jensenius, David. "Prisonexp.org." Stanford Prison Experiment. Social
         Psychology Network, 2015. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.