Principle 1 is respect for others and is applied through Application 1, which is informed consent. Examples of the violation of these are deception in how the participants selected to be prisoners were delivered to the facility and the violent treatment they experienced (TheAnswerto1984is, n.d.). Although the participants signed up for this study and were briefed about the setting and general details, Zimbardo did not inform them that they would be arrested at their homes. Moreover, after the experiment began, the participants were subjected to emotional abuse from the prison’s wards. Arguably, they were not informed that the experiment might subject them to the harsh treatment of this nature. Therefore, the participants did not receive all relevant information that would allow them to make an informed decision.
Next, Principle II is beneficence, which is applied through Application 2, or not causing any harm to the participants. In Zimbardo’s experiment, although the participants thought there were going to imitate the behaviors of prisoners and authorities, the latter was psychologically abused (TheAnswerto1984is, n.d.). Moreover, some “prisoners” reported feeling as if they were in jail. Notably, Zimbardo did not debrief the participants immediately after this study to assess the level of psychological harm that this experiment has caused. One of the prisoners was released shortly after this study began because he had uncontrolled bursts of crying, which points to the distress that the study’s setting and procedures subjected people to and the potential harm.
Finally, the last Principle is the justice principle, and it is applied through Application 3, which is an equal distribution of risks. Under this Principle, the researcher must ensure that risks and responsibilities are distributed equally. Although Zimbardo’s study followed the ethical principles set by Standford at that time, he would not be able to conduct this research today. He did not take measures to alleviate potential harm, not provided instructions that would guide the wards. This reckless attitude subjected the prisoner’s participants to harm because the “wards” made their own rules.
Reference
TheAnswerto1984is. (n.d.). The Stanford prison experiment. Youtube.