Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was one of the most prominent studies ever undertaken in psychology. The researchers of this experiment were interested in examining how people would behave when placed in situations where they had no choice over their actions or where their behavior was strictly controlled by others (Haney et al., 1973). When compared to individuals who played the part of guards, those who played the role of prisoners were much more likely to exhibit depressive symptoms. The experiment has been widely criticized as inaccurate because it lacked ethical guidelines and was conducted without consent from participants actively involved in its design or execution. This lack of support led many participants to feel violated during their participation in the experiment. Haney et al. (1973) state that various issues prevent people from fully comprehending the social dynamics of a mock jail. In particular, many of the participants reported an expectation that they would be able to exhibit dominance over their opponents through the use of physical force.
This expectation was based on their experiences with prisons in which they claimed they were given much greater control over other inmates. However, when these same participants were placed in the simulated prison, they became far more concerned with using force in interactions with their peers than expected. Initially, many participants were physically violent towards others, yet they reported remorse if such behavior was discovered (Le Texier, 2019). Panic and fear became evident as some participants began to believe that their environment had changed. This situation led them to question whether or not they still had control over their domain and what role, if any, their behavior should play within it. Due to the studys controversial nature, the main focus of this research paper will be on a critical perspective toward the accuracy of the Stanford Prison Experiment and other similar studies conducted in the same way.
Description of the Original Study
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a seminal investigation into the dynamics of peer pressure in human psychology. In this experiment, researchers sought to understand how peoples behavior was influenced and shaped by a situation in which they felt powerless (McLeod, 2020). The authors used a simulation of a prison to carry out the study. They analyzed what happens when individuals are put into an environment where they feel they have no control over their lives and are not treated with respect by those around them. They found that participants behaved in ways that were consistent with their personalitiesthat is, some prisoners exhibited aggression while others became passive-aggressive or withdrawn (Haney et al., 1973). The participants were undergraduate students at Stanford University who volunteered for the study. They were randomly assigned roles in the simulated prison environment: guards or prisoners. Guards had the power to decide who was allowed to leave their cellblock (prisoners), and those who could not escape were considered incorrigible. (Zimbardo, 2007). The guards also had complete control over whether or not prisoners could use toilet facilities outside their cells.
In addition to these factors, other factors such as background characteristics like intelligence level and age also influenced behavior within this simulated environment (Haney et al., 1973). The experiment concluded with ratings of how much they wanted to remain in prison or be released after 24 hours. The results showed that the guards exhibited more aggression than the prisoners and were less likely to identify with their roles as prisoners. The authors of this study were concerned that some individuals may not have been able to adapt well enough within such an isolated environment because they may not have had previous experience with such situations.
The researchers perspective that the situational context had a more significant influence on participants behavior than their beliefs and values was supported by their findings in this study. The authors argued that several factors beyond their control affected the participants behavior. These factors included the specific context in which they found themselves and the beliefs and values of other people involved (Haney et al., 1973). They argued that environmental factors were more influential than individual experience and that it is impossible to predict how individuals will respond to certain situations based on their experience. In addition, participants exhibited more unusual violent behavior when they believed their status as either inmates or guards was being threatened. This finding is consistent with the idea that the context of the situation had a more significant influence on participants behavior than their own beliefs and values.
Criticisms of the Study
The Stanford Prison Experiment has been criticized for several reasons. The study participants were randomly assigned to two groupsone group was told they would be prisoners, and the other would be guards (Griggs, 2014). The guards were college students who had been paid to participate in the experiment. The study participants were unaware of their roles until after entering prison (Le Texier, 2019). The authors were justifiably praised for taking on a difficult task: how to test whether prison guards would abuse their power over prisoners. The study had two parts: first, they created a mock prison to observe how people behaved when they felt trapped or powerless (McLeod, 2020). Second, they gave each participant a fake identity to create the conditions for this experiment.
Some critics have claimed that this type of experiment is unethical because it creates an artificial situation that lacks real-world consequences for the participants. Others have argued that it is unethical because it exposes participants to potentially dangerous situations without their knowledge or consent (McLeod, 2020). The researchers were also criticized for failing to provide enough information about how long the study would last or what would happen if things went wrong during or after their experiment ended. Further, the critics who spoke up about the studys validity were correct because the guards did abuse their power over the prisoners (Griggs, 2014). They had been given authority over these peoplethey saw them as less than humanand thus felt justified in mistreating them (Le Texier, 2019). Further, omissions and distortions in this experiment made its results less meaningful than they seemed at first glance. For instance, when Zimbardo spoke about his findings in 1973, he did not include any women or minorities in his description of what happened within his prison simulation; instead, he focused on white males.
Personal Opinion on the Accuracy of the Field of Psychology in the Study
The field of psychology should have a much more accurate understanding of the Stanford Prison Experiment than it currently does. The experiment is widely considered unethical because it was designed to test the hypothesis that people deprived of their freedom can be psychologically affected by their treatment. Griggs study found that many introductory psychology textbooks do not accurately represent the Stanford Prison Experiment, confusing students about what the researchers did (Griggs, 2014). This study is encouraging because it suggests a need for more accurate information about the Stanford Prison Experiment and other psychology experiments to be included in introductory psychology textbooks.
The next step would be for researchers to conduct another study examining how much time is spent discussing ethical issues in introductory psychology textbooks. Further, determine how much time is spent discussing ethical matters such as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Suppose they find that little time is spent discussing ethical issues. In that case, it can be concluded that these issues are not important enough for students to learn about in an introductory psychology course (Griggs, 2014). If they find that these issues are discussed often, people can say they are important enough to be taught in an introductory psychology course. At least some of them should be addressed to raise students awareness about the importance of ethical research practices when studying human behavior.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Stanford Prison Experiment is not a perfect account of what occurred at the actual prison, it provides one of its most accurate psycho-analytical accounts. It is also a rare find in terms of historical accuracy and quality. This study deserves its place among other landmark psychology experiments and should continue inspiring those interested in Prison Psychology. Moreover, in a future where virtual reality is more perfected, there is no better time to evaluate the use and abuse of power in a setting. This study did precisely that; it allowed participants to act out roles they would not usually have the opportunity to choose freely. However, many critics have suggested that the study was unscientific and unethical due to the environment being too stressful for most people involved. It has been seen as one of the first experiments using perspective-taking and situational variables. Finally, while people are certainly not faced with the same confinements in their daily lives as the participants in this study, there is a lot they have learned through the work of this experiment.
References
Griggs, R. A. (2014). Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 41(3), 195-203.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. The Sociology of Corrections (New York: Wiley, 1977), 65-92.
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823. Web.
McLeod, S. (2020). Stanford prison experiment. Simply Psychology. Web.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: How good people turn evil (London: Rider).
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.