Do you agree with Zimbardo’s conclusion that his experiment was not ethical? Why or why not? Should it have been prevented from happening in the first place?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Philip Zimbardo (2008) himself decided that his Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical because it violated the first two of these principles: First, participants “did suffer considerable anguish?.?.?.?and [the experiment] resulted in such extreme stress and emotional turmoil that five of the sample of initially healthy young prisoners had to be released early. Second, Zimbardo’s research team did not disclose in advance the nature of the arrest or booking procedures at police headquarters nor did they disclose to the participants’ parents how bad the situation had become when they came to a visiting night. Nonetheless, Zimbardo (1973, 2008) argued that there was no long-lasting harm to participants and that there were some long-term social benefits from this research. In particular, debriefing participants—discussing their experiences and revealing the logic behind the experiment—and follow-up interviews enabled the participants to recover from the experience without lasting harm (Zimbardo, 2007). Also, the experience led several participants in the experiment, including Zimbardo, to dedicate their careers to investigating and improving prison conditions. As a result, publicity about the experiment has also helped focus attention on problems in prison management.