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.