The Stanford Prison Experiment Essay Example

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) carry out this evaluation to protect participants and uphold their human rights. Shaughnessy, Zechmeister ; Zechmeister (2009) state that the IRB has the power to approve, disapprove, or request modifications to the research proposal before granting its approval.

The main ethical duty of the IRB is to ensure a fair assessment of research proposals, considering the perspectives of the institution, researcher, and participants in the study" (pp 62-63). The risk/benefit ratio evaluates if a proposed study or experiment has value. When evaluating a research proposal, the IRB strives to reach consensus by subjectively assessing the risks and benefits for both individual participants and society as a whole.

To ensure a well-balanced study, it is important to consider the nature and extent of both the risk and calculated benefit for participants, as well as the potential scientific value. According to Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Zechmeister (2009), if the risks outweigh the potential benefits, research is not approved by the IRB. Conversely, if the benefits outweigh the risks, it is approved (p 64).

Psychological research carries various risks, such as physical injury, social injury, and mental or emotional stress. To assess these risks, it is essential to consider their impact on a participant's daily activities, physical and mental health, and abilities (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Zechmeister , 2009). Ultimately, researchers aim to safeguard participants from any emotional or mental stress. This includes stress that may arise due to participants' misunderstandings about the psychological task (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Zechmeister, 2009).

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 to study how different situations affect human behavior. The experiment focused on

the effects of assuming roles as prison guards or prisoners. Zimbardo and his colleagues aimed to observe how participants reacted in a simulated prison setting. In an interview, Zimbardo mentioned that they selected mentally and physically healthy individuals who were aware of the prison-like conditions and understood that certain civil rights would be given up (Cherry, 2010).

The question of whether the goodness of those placed in the evil prison would prevail was raised. The Stanford University psychology building's basement was used as the location for the mock prison. Out of 70 volunteers, 24 undergraduate students were chosen to portray either prisoners or prison guards. They were paid $15 a day and the role-playing lasted for one to two weeks. The selection process ensured that participants had no criminal background, psychological issues, or major medical conditions (Cherry, 2010). The procedures took place in this setting.

The simulated prison included three prison cells measuring 6’ x 9’. Each cell housed three prisoners and three cots. Other rooms were allocated to prison guards and the warden. One small area was dedicated to solitary confinement while another served as the prison yard. Participants were assigned randomly to either the prisoner or prison guard role. Prisoners remained in the simulated prison around the clock for the duration of the study, while prison guards worked in teams of three on eight-hour shifts. All behavior was recorded using hidden cameras and microphones.

The Stanford Prison Experiment had to be terminated after only six days due to the severe mistreatment from the prison guards and the extreme anxiety and stress experienced by the prisoners. According to Cherry (2010), five of the

prisoners had to be released early from the study as they were experiencing intense negative emotions, including crying and acute anxiety.

The participants and researchers, including Zimbrano, lost sight of the reality of the situation in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbrano, acting as the prison warden, ignored the abusive behavior of the prison guards. It took a graduate student to object to the simulated prison conditions and the morality of continuing the study. The aftermath and impact of the Stanford Prison Experiment on psychology and related establishments today is manifold.

The study has had several effects in the field of psychology. It has impacted the original model of behavioral research, challenging the belief that behavior is influenced by dispositional factors. Additionally, it has led to changes in laws regarding the psychological well-being of juvenile prisoners, as lawmakers have altered pre-trial detention housing to prevent violence against minors. Furthermore, the experiment has also influenced psychological assessments for military and law enforcement groups.

SERE, or Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape training, is a program created for military personnel, Department of Defense employees, and private military contractors. Its main goal is to teach individuals how to avoid capture, acquire survival skills, and comprehend the military code of conduct. The selection and training process for instructors in this program are greatly influenced by the findings of an experiment. This experiment uncovered that even emotionally stable individuals exhibited abnormal behavior. Consequently, a thorough selection process and several months of additional training were put into place.

The typical SERE instructor is typically over 30 years old, which is about 10 years older than the college students involved

in the prison study. They usually have more than 15 years of military experience, are married, have received multiple personal awards, and have been the top performer in their previous command. Furthermore, they do not have a history of legal issues, substance abuse problems, or disciplinary actions (Doran, Hoyt, Morgan, 2000). The selection process involves extensive screening that includes personal and in-depth interviews, reviewing medical records, and conducting psychological tests such as the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2).

The SERE instructor must have strong determination to succeed, the ability to manage frustration, enjoy working as part of a team, and handle the challenging evaluation process and constant monitoring at SERE school (Doran, Hoyt & Morgan, 2000). Furthermore, the Stanford Prison Experiment led to the development of psychological research initiatives that were influenced by its findings.

Philip G. Zimbardo leads the Heroic Imagination Project, which aims to empower and inspire the general public to become heroes by countering negative influences. Zimbardo stresses that the project's objective is to educate individuals on effectively embracing heroism (Drury, 2011). This ambitious initiative involves various psychological agencies in its mission.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, despite being considered unethical and impossible to replicate, has offered valuable insights into human behavior in specific situations. The research highlights problems with sampling and ecological validity that could have been resolved if IRBs had been present in 1971. Nonetheless, the experiment retains importance as it prompts ethical considerations and promotes the protection of human rights.