Lack of Informed Consent
One of the primary ethical concerns of SPE was the lack of fully informed consent (McLeod, 2016). While Zimbardo had all participants sign informed consent forms, even he did not know what would happen due to the unpredicatable nature of the experiment (Zimbardo et al., 2000). Additionally, the participants who were selected as prisoners did not give consent to being arrested at their own homes because the researchers wanted the arrests to come as a surprise (McLeod, 2016). McLeod asserts that the surprise arrests were "a breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all of the participants had signed" (2016).
|
[Stanford Prison Experiment]. (2009, June 08). Stanford Prison Experiment: A Student Is Arrested. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/sYtX2sEaeFE.
|
Potential for Experimenter Bias
Dr. Z, Craig Haney, David Jaffee [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2017, from http://www.prisonexp.org/gallery/
|
In addition to being the primary researcher, Zimbardo also assumed the role of prison superintendent. Zimbardo participating as prison superintendent created a high potential for experimenter bias. Zimbardo admits that serving as prison superintendent affected his ability to make important decisions that were his responsibility as the primary investigator. He states, "One reason we did not [end the experiment on day 2] was because of the conflicts created by my dual roles as principal investigator, thus guardian of the research ethics of the experiment, and as prison superintendent, thus eager to maintain the integrity of my prison" (Zimbardo et al, 2000, p. 14).
|
Requests to withdraw from study
Another tenet of ethical research is that "all participants in a study should always have the right to withdraw from the study" (Fraenkel, at al., 2015, p. 64). However, 36 hours into the SPE, participant #8612 started exhibiting signs of emotional distress and went to the prison warden and superintendent (the researchers) and asked for permission to leave. Instead of being released, he was chided for his weakness and given the offer of becoming an informant in exchange for no more guard harassment. He went back and told the other prisoners that they could not leave; they could not quit. It was not until he began having uncontrollable fits of rage, screaming, crying, and cursing, that the researchers decided that they should let prisoner #8612 leave the experiment (Stanford Prison Experiment, 2017).
|
[Stanford Prison Experiment]. (2009, June 08). Stanford Prison Experiment: I just felt totally hopeless. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/gbDy4ZtB2fU.
|
Psychological Distress and Harm
The SPE was unethical because people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their peers over an extended period of time (Zimbardo et al., 2000). On Day 1, the prisoners were stripped naked, searched, and deloused -- all tactics of degradation. On Day 2, prisoner #8612 suffered a severe stress disorder and became the first of five prisoners who had to be released before the experiment was terminated. As the days went by, the guards became increasingly more abusive, both verbally and emotionally. Guards often used their power to coerce the other prisoners into antagonizing anyone who caused problems (Stanford Prison Experiment, 2017).
In his book The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo (2007) acknowledged, "the findings came at the expense of human suffering. I am sorry for that and to this day apologize for contributing to this inhumanity" (p. 235). |
[Stanford Prison Experiment]. (2009, June 08). Stanford Prison Experiment: Prisoner 819 did a bad thing. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Ol1KB-_rIgA.
|