PSYC 101 APUS The Stanford Experiment Discussion

Peer Response on Discussion:

Good evening class,

The ethical considerations surrounding Zimbardo’s conduct in the Stanford Prison Experiment are profound. The study’s methodology, involving psychological distress and dehumanizing treatment of participants, raises significant ethical concerns. The absence of proper safeguards exposed participants to unforeseen psychological harm. The manipulation of roles and the lack of informed consent further compounded these issues by compromising participant autonomy and well-being. The prioritization of scientific advancement over ethical considerations, as evidenced by the study design, draws criticism for its disregard for potential harm inflicted on participants. The ethical assessment leans toward an unfavorable judgment of the study’s approach due to its disregard for participant well-being and autonomy.

The Stanford Prison Experiment unearthed crucial social psychological constructs, chiefly conformity and the power of the social situation. Participants conformed to assigned roles and behaviors that diverged from their values under situational pressures. The experiment highlighted the influence of authority and the perceived legitimacy of actions, leading to power abuse and cruelty. While these insights could potentially be uncovered through alternative methods, the study’s methodology remains problematic from an ethical perspective. To maintain ethical integrity while exploring these constructs, an adapted study could prioritize informed consent, mitigate psychological harm, and grant participants the ability to withdraw from the study. These ethical adjustments would still permit relevant findings concerning behavior in social contexts.

The experiment in the YouTube Vsauce video titled The Standford Experiment was meant to challenge the original Stanford experiment and highlighted the importance of individual temperament and people’s desire for conformity. Repeating the experiment with a larger test group of randomly selected participants would increase the value of the Vsauce experiment, as there was too much bias and manipulation while selecting the participants for the results of the study to stand on their own. However, the implications of the influence that can be exerted on people by taking advantage of their inclination to conformity still shone through as the participants generally did what was expected of them. 

However, a different perspective is offered by the study Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show. The study contrasts the prevailing consensus on conformity’s dominance with historical examinations and empirical studies. The analysis of Nazi bureaucrats and Milgram’s obedience experiments reveals a different story. The understanding that individuals blindly conform or unquestioningly obey authority figures is challenged. Historical accounts of Nazi functionaries showcase active engagement, personal responsibility, and even resistance. Similarly, Milgram’s experiments indicate that participants grapple with moral dilemmas and align their actions with perceived scientific benefits rather than solely conforming to authority. The notion that people are inherently inclined to conform or obey is questioned based on evidence that suggests a more nuanced perspective.(Haslam & Reicher, 2012)

In conclusion, the concepts of conformity and the power of the social situation are intertwined with the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment. While the study’s participants exhibited conformity to assigned roles and the authority present in the social context, a deeper examination reveals that conformity is not a singular, fixed response. The Vsauce experiment and Haslam and Reicher’s critical study highlight the nuanced nature of conformity and the importance of understanding individual agency and motivations within social dynamics. This multi-faceted view enriches our comprehension of how people respond to authority and conform to roles in various settings.

Take care,

-Jordan

References: 

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426

Vsauce (Director). (2018, December 19). The Stanford Prison Experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND_bBDE8RQ