For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them).As the prisoners became more submissive, the guards became more aggressive and assertive. Whattransformations take place when people go through an experience like this?This means the study's findings cannot be reasonably generalized to real life, such as prison settings. ’- writes Craig Haney two years after the experiment.Hence, as of today no such an experiment could take place within the Ethical Code of the American Psychologist Association.
Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. Alternative methodologies were looked at which would cause less distress to the participants but at the same time give the desired information, but nothing suitable could be found.Eventually while talking to the priest, #819 broke down andbegan to cry hysterically, just two previously releasedprisoners had. Some even began siding with the guards against prisoners who did not obey the rules.Company Registration no: 10521846Over the next few days, the relationships between the guards and the prisoners changed, with a change in one leading to a change in the other. Ultimately some of the prisoners were subject to torture. Prisoners were not referred by names, but only by numbers and unlike the guards they were not allowed to leave the experiment scene.The folllowing sample essay on Stanford Prison Experiment Ethical Violations discusses it in detail, offering basic facts and pros and cons associated with it. The majority of the subjects became prisoners and guards and was no longer being able to differentiate between their roles and their personality. They also had a tight nylon cap to cover their hair, and a locked chain around one ankle.However, there is considerable evidence that the participants did react to the situation as though it was real. This evidence of cognitive dissonance in the community of prison seems to confirm in a limited manner, existence of a substantial negative psychological part in comprehensive human nature (Festinger 32).An independent observer would have been useful in ensuring that participants in the experiment made not have any interest in experiment’s outcome.
As the paper shows, not only the prisoners or the guards, but he himself, an experienced psychologist failed to differentiate between his warden role and his personality. There has been controversy over both the ethics and scientific rigor of the Stanford prison experiment since nearly the beginning, and it has never been successfully replicated. Youcan't quit.âHowever, it has been suggested that the US Navy was not so much interested in making prisons more human and were, in fact, more interested in using the study to train people in the armed services to cope with the stresses of captivity.Privileged prisoners also got to eat specialfood in the presence of the other prisonerswho had temporarily lost the privilege ofeating. Zimbardo himself waited in the basement, in case the released prisoner showed up, and planned to tell him that the experiment had been terminated.