Reflection
During the beginnings of this essay, I had so many ideas going through my head
as to what it was that I wanted to talk about. Finally, the idea to write about something I
learned in sociology came to mind because I figured sociology was a good subject that
presented many situations with ethical questions. When I realized that I wanted to write
about the Stanford Prison Experiment, I tried finding out all I could about it, because it
was one of the most interesting studies I had ever heard of, especially when I saw what
others had to say about it.
To ensure that I would write a convincing claim, I asked for feedback from my
peers in the class, as well as brainstormed heavily to make sure I was covering
everything. Throughout the whole process, my biggest strength was probably how I was
able to gather so much information and process it into a way that would allow me to
utilize and synthesize my sources that were used. I was able to gather an abundance of
ideas from my sources, as well as talk about what their views were on parts of the
experiment that I was discussing. However, my biggest weakness, as I feel is usually the
case, was the organization of my paper. It doesn’t really help that there is a word limit as
well. With everything that I’ve learned from this paper, I could have easily written five
more pages about the subject. With that being said, if I had more time to revise my
paper, I probably would have made sure that my paper was more organized, and flowed
easily throughout.
Word Count: 1795
Simone Monroe
Dr. Jason Coats
Focused Inquiry II
27 April 2015
The Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison experiment by Philip G.
Zimbardo and his colleagues became one of the most well known psychological
experiments. Alongside Stanley Milgram’s experiment, which involved the study of
obedience, it paved a way to determining the regulations and ethicalities of future
sociological and psychological experiments. With that being said, the question remains,
how far should psychologists go when experimenting with human subjects? It was
wrong for Zimbardo to continue his prison experiment for as long as he did, knowing
what its effects were doing to his participants. To discuss this unethical decision, I will
also be using analyses by Ali Banuazizi, Thomas Carnahan, Peter Gray, as well as
thoughts on free will with James and Stuart Rachels.
The first reason as to why Zimbardo should have stopped his experiment earlier
than he did was the emotional distress that was put on the “prisoners”. The fact that
within the first four days, five prisoners had to quit the experiment is one big factor in
and of itself. One prisoner developed a rash all over his body due to the stress he was
going through. When using human subjects in an experiment that is completely
psychological and has nothing to do with testing physical results, if a subject does end up
having some kind of physical pain inflicted upon him, then the experiment needs to stop
right then and there. I believe that this was a bad judgment call on Zimbardo’s
part. When looking in on what Ali Banuazizi had to say about the experiment, he and his
coauthor had strong beliefs that one of Zimbardo’s biggest flaw with experiment was the
fact that the subjects of the experiment were not placed in a social situation that would be
equivalent to that of a real prison environment. They had what he called a “reality
transformation” (Banuazizi 155). This is when a person is placed in a situation and reacts
realistically to whatever situation they’ve been put in. In Banuazizi’s article, he states
“As early as the second day of the experiment, the loss of sense of reality among the
subjects assumed "pathological" proportions. The prisoners came to believe that they
were confined in a real prison on some real criminal charges; having lost all hope of
escape”(155). While Banuazizi explains how the flaws of the experiment are what
basically caused the distress felt by the prisoners, Thomas Carnahan and his coauthor, in
contrast, explain how it was the prisoners’ fault for the experiences that they went
through during the experiment. In their article, they discussed how just being selected for
the experiment already predetermines how it is going to be concluded based on the
personalities that were even interested in participating in the experiment. According to
Carnahan, the emotional distress was probably caused by the abundance of both
aggressive and authoritarian personalities from both sides. Now what Peter Gray has to
say on the matter, as I’m sure all of my sources have this in common, is that the main
reason emotional distress became present amongst the subjects of the experiment is due
to the fact that they were given roles to play, which are heavily stereotyped, and when
acting with these notions in mind, emotional distress will happen because these aren’t
criminals who are facing real charges. These are college students trying to make a quick
buck.
With that in mind, this also brings up my next point, which is the abuse of
power. When looking at power abuse, some people would say, James and Stuart Rachels
included, that it all has to do with human nature. In each and every one of us, there is a
small part of us that has the capability to do terrible things. At least, this is the belief by
most philosophers and many psychologists. When someone is given the power of
authority, it is up to them on how they are going to use that authority whether for the
good of everyone or as a means to an end. In the Stanford Prison experiment, the guards
took the latter with their authority, leaving the prisoners to become more submissive each
day of the experiment. Going back to the article by the Rachels’, which talked about how
our decisions are already predetermined, and could possibly be influenced heavily by
environmental conditions, they make the claim that the prisoners were just put in the
wrong circumstance. They make the case for the guards and say that the only difference
between the guards and the prisoners was their circumstance (Rachels 291). The guards’
actions were influenced by stereotypes of real guards in actual prisons, and were merely
playing that role. In agreement with Rachels and Rachels, Banuazizi also says the same
thing. He states “The subjects entered the experiment carrying strong social stereotypes
of how guards and prisoners act and relate to one another in a real prison (Banuazizi
156).” He then goes on to say “In fact, even Zimbardo and his associates admit that
when the guards were questioned after the study "about their persistent affrontive and
harassing behavior in the face of prisoner emotional trauma, most guards replied that they
were 'just playing the role' of a tough guard (156)”. Carnahan’s view, which goes
alongside the genetic view that the Rachels’ present in their claim, leads one to believe
that the outcome of the experiment was already predestined. Typically with psychology
experiments that involve human subjects, the personality of people who want to
participate correlate with what the study is. The fact that this was a prison experiment,
people with abusive behaviors and aggressive personalities are going to want to take
part. The outcome of the experiment was to be expected because the participants all
shared traits of abusive behavior.
With the partake of abusive behavior, and human nature in general, as well as the
abuse of power, this can all lead to criticisms and flaws of the experiment that were stated
by other professional individuals. As stated before, I believe that one misjudgment of
Zimbardo that cannot go missed is the fact that he allowed the experiment to go on for as
long as he did, knowing of one subject who had physical effects from the experiment as
well as having take four other people out by the fourth day. Other criticisms involve
Peter Gray in his statement as to why he, an author of psychology textbooks, refuses to
put the experiment altogether in his books. He basically blames Zimbardo for the act out
of the guards on the prisoners. He says in his article “Much research has shown that
participants in psychological experiments are highly motivated to do what they believe
the researchers want them to do (Gray).” Both the guards and the prisoners acted how
they thought Zimbardo and his associates expected them to act, according to Gray. In
this scenario, the results could very well be considered skewed because this is probably
not the way the subjects would have behaved if they acted as themselves. Apparently
Zimbardo even told them what the guards were to do with the prisoners through his set of
rules. Gray’s article shows Zimbardo’s conversation: “We cannot physically abuse or
torture them," I said. "We can create boredom. We can create a sense of frustration. We
can create fear in them, to some degree. We can create a notion of the arbitrariness that
governs their lives, which are totally controlled by us, by the system, by you, me, ...
(Gray)”. Also the fact that Zimbardo was silent throughout the whole event gave the
guards an even greater sense of approval that they were doing everything they thought
they were supposed to do, which was not the case.
Banuazizi also has many critiques as to why the experiment didn’t go as well as
planned. In his article he says “In the light of the preceding analysis, we maintain that
the subjects in the Stanford Prison Experiment were not placed in a social situation
functionally equivalent to a real prison (Banuazizi 155)”. This means that because the
subjects were not given a scenario of a real prison, they cannot act out how individuals
would act in a real prison environment, especially when they’ve never been in prison
before, or had criminal background. The experimental hypothesis, as well as everything
having to do with the experiment was proven correct, but if the goal was to create an
actual prison simulation, then it was not reached. Also, the subjects knew that this was
an experiment. The things that the prisoners experienced in the simulated prison would
have been regarded as honor or recognized as courageous, when those acts done in actual
prisons make the real prisoners feel ashamed and embarrassed over the crimes that they
committed. Banuazizi then concludes to say in his article by A. G. Miller, "Even if
roleplaying produces data comparable in its topography to actual behavior, it is not
precisely the same thing as the in predicting how they themselves would perform actual
behavior in its antecedent and theoretical in the role of prisoner, twice as many females
properties [p. 634]."
As I have said before, The Stanford Prison Experiment has become a very
influential event of both the 20th century as well as the community of behavioral
sciences. It has set many precedents as to what is allowed when experimenting with
human participants. Although my sources that were discussed had criticisms about the
experiment, I’m sure they too will also agree how necessary this experiment was. In the
words of Peter Gray, “Too often, in our psychological research labs, we trivialize
reality. Zimbardo’s prison experiment is a good example of that.” I think this brings up
a very good point. Although experiments like these are necessary to further our
knowledge of this world, sometimes we should just accept things and situations for that
they are.
Sources
Banuazizi, Ali, and Siamak Movahedi. "Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison: A
Methodological Analysis." American Psychologist 30.2 (1975): 152-60. PsycNet. Web.
Carnahan, Thomas, and Sam McFarland. "Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment:
Could Participant Self-Selection Have Led to the Cruelty?" Revisiting the Stanford
Prison Experiment: Could Participant Self-Selection Have Led to the Cruelty? N.p., 17
Apr. 2007. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Gray, Peter. "Why Zimbardo's Prison Experiment Isn't in My Textbook." Psychology
Today. Sussex Publishers, 19 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. “The Case Against Free Will.” (n.d.): n. pag. Rpt. in
Evolving Ideas. 2014-2015 ed. Plymouth: Hayden-McNeil, 2014. 285-97. Print
Zimbardo, Philip G. "Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison." Mapping the Social
Landscape: Readings in Sociology. By Susan J. Ferguson. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill,
2002. 69-78. Print.