Review of the study design
The Stanford prison experiment describes what happens to people and the behavioral changes that can be noted when people are kept in a controlled environment. The exploratory aspect of the experiment is clearly shown by the change in the character of the prison sentinels where they go from being morally upright to hostile and dehumanizing beings. On the other hand, the ‘prisoners’ showed symptoms of angst, portrayed their emotions negatively, and grieved when it became apparent that their freedom would be curtailed for an infinite period.
These changes in behavior occurred due to the change in the situations thus exploring what happens to people when they are subjected to appalling conditions. Generally, when power is handed to a person, he tends to abuse it and usually stamp their authority on whoever is below him. The people who are subjects show a negative reaction. They start feeling inferior and show a tendency of resigning to their fate. All this never came to their light until they were subjected to the experiment (Adams &Balfour, 2004).
A critique of the ethical issues
When it comes to experiments involving human subjects there are ethical issues and guidelines which should be followed. This Stanford experiment may not have followed the guidelines to the letter. The persons who agreed to participate in the experiment were all volunteers simply because the chief experimenter did not control the warders during the experiment in which they infringed upon the human rights of the prisoners. Though some people may argue that they might have been bribed I would say that it is not the case as the money given to them can as well be said was a sign of appreciation for the volunteer work they agreed to do for the benefit of society. The volunteers were also told what they were going to do. This did not go against the codes or the guidelines to be followed when doing research but by them being aware, it might, to an extent, alter their behaviors to suit the requirements of the study. The dehumanizing conditions and behavior were a result of the effect of power which formed the core purpose of the experiment. The benefit of the experiment may not be clear enough but it also gave a probable scenario when people are subjected to two different opposing conditions, that is one being the master and the other being the subject.
To perfectly recreate an absolute replica of a prison setting is not possible. An experiment about a prison may not really reflect what usually happens in one. The same thing may not be possible for a wider population, therefore, indicating that the experiment in itself does not give nor does it show any real benefit. But exceptions can be made as what was observed during the experiment has been witnessed in real-life prisons thus indicating that it could have shown a slight picture of what happens.
Opinion
Personally, the experiment itself was not that humane as it should have been and therefore failed the ethical test. There were cases of neglect on the part of those experimenting as they overlooked the abuse of the subjects by the prison warders. Usually, when conducting an experiment it should be in a well-controlled environment where the safety of those who volunteered to have the experiment performed on them is guaranteed. In this particular case, some ethical issues were overlooked. For example when Zimbardo ignored the abuse until Mislach made a complaint. In this case, the same people who experimented should not have taken part in it. Zimbardo, for instance, became adopted to the deeds of the guards and possibly lost focus of the study (Maxfield & Babbie, 2008).
Analysis
The situation witnessed in this experiment can be generalized to other situations. Similar cases have been noticed like in the case of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons. This also happens everywhere else as long as some people possess a superior power and authority when put in charge of others considered less important and in conditions that are conducive to propagating ruthless treatment.
References
- Adams, G.B, & Balfour, D.L. (2004). Unmasking administrative evil. New York: M.E Sharpe.
- Maxfield M.G. & Babbie, E.R. (2008). Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Hampshire: Cengage Learning