A brief review of the study
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of situational variables on human behavior. Phillip Zimbardo wanted to know why seemingly good people turn bad. Consequently, one can assert that this was explanatory research. It was exploring a certain social phenomenon i.e. evil behavior. His hypothesis was that people would modify their behavior if situations were manipulated to affect power relations. All explanatory researches tend to dwell on the ‘why’ component rather than the ‘what’. Also, because it was looking at a causal relationship then this testifies to the fact that the experiment was explanatory.
Critique of the study in terms of ethical standards
In any experiment involving human subjects, researchers are obligated not to harm participants (Cooper & Hogg, 2003). However, this rule was broken when Zimbardo carried out his experiment. Many of the prisoners were harmed both psychologically and physically. What was even worse was that the initiator of the experiment kept watching as these things going on in the prison. Participants in any research need to be told about all the possible occurrences in the study through a consent form. Zimbardo deceived his participants because he did not tell them about all that would take place in the study. He conducted surprise arrests and did not inform them about all the harsh treatment they would go through in the research. Research subjects have a right to privacy but Zimbardo did not obey this code since some of them were stripped off their clothes removed as punishment in the mock prison. The research environment was supposed to be safe but it turned out not to be. In the APA code of ethics, researchers are obligated to abide by the principles of justice, autonomy and beneficence (Cooper & Hogg, 2003). Beneficence implies keeping the harm at the lowest possible levels and increasing benefits to the greatest possible levels. Clearly, this code was violated. Autonomy implies respecting individuals and as stated earlier, privacy and common decency were overstepped in the prison. Beating the prisoners was something that violated both autonomy and beneficence. Justice means giving people their due. In the Stanford prison experiment, all ‘prisoners’ were actually innocent people who did not deserve to have chains put around their ankles or be treated inhumanely so the principles of justice had been long forgotten.
Opinion about the study
This study is seriously flawed because it was unethically done. All psychological research must adhere to the strictest ethical standards. Deception, torture of subjects and ill-treatment should never form a part of any experimental work.
Generalizability of the study
The Stanford prison experiment cannot be replicated because Zimbardo did not have a control group (Cooper & Hogg, 2003). What’s more, he had a relatively small number of participants i.e. 24. Even the manner in which these participants were selected is questionable as it limits generalizability. They were all respondents to an advertisement placed in a publication. The ad promised monetary rewards for participation so participants who responded to it only represented a small section of society. Most were middle-class male participants so conclusions made in the research could not reflect what may go on among non-male and lower or upper-class sections of society if placed in the same scenario. Furthermore, the study tried to imitate prison settings but the variables are quite different from real prison settings because guards and prisoners know that they are stuck in their respective situations completely.
Reference
Cooper, J. & Hogg, M. (2003). The Sage handbook of social psychology. London: Sage