The Family Case

The Stanford Prison Experiment was designed to study social interactions between prisoners and guards, "to find out what happens when you put good people in a bad space". Stanford undergraduates were told they would be arrested and thrown into a simulated jail, a windowless hallway in the basement of a campus building. The participants were divided into two groups, prisoners and guards. Both groups had distinct members that helped propel the experiment in negative ways. This experiment was also a test of nature vs. nurture. Zimbardo stated he wanted to note if it was the institution or the things inside of you that control your behavior and help you rise above a negative environment.

The most serious ethical violation Zimbardo committed during this study was allowing the psychological damage the guards inflicted on their fellow classmates and prisoners. When a few bold prisoners resisted the guards, whether through hunger strikes or barricading their cells, the guards resorted to verbal abuse and scare tactics. Prisoners were subjected to erratic sleep schedules and solitary time in a narrow, dark closet. The guards may have been trying to instill a sense of unison among the prisoners by harassing them equally, and punishing them all for the deviant acts of some.

According to the book chapter, Zimbardo violated the 'no harm to participant' code of ethics. Psychological damage to be specific, he did debrief the participants afterwards and allowed them to engage as peers, instead of as prisoner and guard. The guards being the primary source of the psychological damage also learned something about themselves. One particularly harsh guard, Dave Eshleman, said that he drew his inspiration from a movie he'd seen that summer and that the uniform, nightstick and aviators helped him get in character. "And some of the student-guards were soon exhibiting degrees of sadism that would later challenge their own self images" (69). During the debriefing he attempted to separate himself from his cruel actions towards the prisoners. 'The benefits of the study should outweigh the risk'. In the case of the Stanford study this ASA guideline was violated. Although Zimbardo was answering his question about good people in bad places, he was destroying peer relationships and subjecting them to psychological abuse.

A positive alteration to the study could be the addition of trained prison