Week Two Blog Entry: Stanford Prison Experiment

Do you think the Stanford Prison Experiment was ethical? Why or why not?

I believe the Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical because it fostered an environment where cruelty was accepted (by prisoners, their families and psychology staff), and even expected (prison guards believed they were ‘just playing their role or doing their job’). Humans suffered tremendously during the course of the experiment, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, the experiment was unethical because Dr. Zimbardo gave himself an active role in the experiment, relinquishing any control he may have had over his experiment as an outsider observing and gathering data.

However, I also believe it may have been a necessary experiment in the course of human history because it showed that it is unethical to perform experiments where pain, demoralization, humiliation and dehumanization is or has the potential to be inflicted. Unfortunately, we are not always able to know our limits until they have been passed. Therefore, this experiment may have served as a warning to others.

I also believe a lot of good can come from this heinous experiment. The experiment showed how easily environments can manipulate good people to behave as monsters. “You can’t be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel,” Dr. Zimbardo said at the Abu Ghraib trial. The experiment showed that when people are exposed to a number of stressors, deindividuation, or a group mindset can rapidly take over. These lessons have the potential to help such groups who are particularly prone to objectification, and therefore, more easily victimized. For instance, nursing homes and prisons. Perhaps extra care and precautions can put into place here.

Although the experiment was unethical in many ways, it may have been necessary to illustrate how dangerous deindividuation is, and to serve as a precaution to future researchers and to places where environments may be ripe for creating certain roles and behaviors.