Introduction
Research is one of the most integral elements in the field of science, especially psychology. Research allows scientists and scholars to test their hypotheses and make new discoveries about various phenomena. Among such research materials is the Stanford prison experiment, which was conducted in the 20th century. The research quickly became well-known in the academic field, and while some could find it novel and promising, many viewed this experiment as a highly unethical and unreliable study. Nowadays, the given material is highly debated due to its nature and approaches. Although researchers of the Stanford prison experiment let the participants immerse themselves in the authentic correctional facility environment, it was highly ineffective due to the unsuitability of the sample for the set purpose.
Study Overview
First, it is necessary to introduce the experiment that will be discussed. The Stanford prison experiment, which was conducted from August 15 to 21, 1971, in the basement of Jordan Hall, sought to understand the psychological consequences of control and helplessness in a correctional institution (Stanford Libraries, n.d.). Haney and colleagues created a practical prison environment and recruited young, mentally healthy male university students to the positions of convicts and guards in order to evaluate the situational hypothesis (Maxfield, 2015). The prison was built in the basement of a psychology faculty facility (Maxfield, 2015). The research, which was intended to last one to two weeks, was finally forced to be stopped on the sixth day because the convicts were subjected to brutal and inhumane treatment by their peers, which caused the research project to quickly spiral out of control (Stanford Libraries, n.d.). Therefore, ultimately, the experiment conducted by Haney and colleagues was a failure.
Purpose of the Study
In the given study, researchers wanted to know why some phenomena occur in a certain way. As explanatory research, the scientists in this example were attempting to pinpoint the causes and effects of the event they were examining. Although there are several causes for prison issues, psychologists Philip Zimbardo, Curtis Banks, and Craig Haney were particularly interested in two broad theories in 1973 (Maxfield, 2015). The first was the dispositional theory, which claimed that jails are cruel and demeaning because of the sorts of inmates and administrators who operate them (Maxfield, 2015). Prisoners have shown a disregard for the law and a propensity to use aggression and fraud; corrections officers may be excessively dictatorial and brutal. The second was the situational theory, which held that regardless of the kind of individuals who reside and work in the facilities, the jail setting alone produces harsh, dehumanizing circumstances (Maxfield, 2015). Therefore, there were two hypotheses that the researchers wanted to test.
Sampling Strategy, Sampling Technique, and Resulting Sample
When it comes to the sampling aspects of the Stanford prison experiment, its sampling strategy is nonprobability. More specifically, the nonprobability sample type used was a convenience sample. Data gathered from any accessible instances is defined as a convenience sample (DeCarlo, 2018). The participants were chosen based on the availability and willingness of the students on campus. Moreover, the researchers’ approach was simple random sampling. The scientific community published advertisements in newspapers, such as The Stanford Daily and The Palo Alto Times, to participate in an experiment on the psychology of incarceration (Stanford Prison Experiment, n.d.). The resulting sample was twenty-four students with equal distribution between guards and prisoners (Stanford Prison Experiment, n.d.). The students had no history of mental illness, physical illness, or criminal arrests.
Research Design
Regarding the research design, it is a true classic design experiment. The experimental group, commonly referred to as the treatment group, faces the intervention, whereas the other group does not (DeCarlo, 2018). Here, two groups are present, such as the prisoners and the guards. Moreover, a true experiment must randomly assign individuals to either the control or experimental groups (DeCarlo, 2018). To ensure that the convicts and guards were equivalent to one another at the start of the experiment, the assignments were made at random, much like a coin flip (Stanford Prison Experiment, n.d.). Thus, two groups were observed, and their behaviors were then analyzed.
Four Ethical Principles
In terms of ethical principles, the researchers did not fully comply with the standards in the majority of cases. For instance, the first ethical principle is the one of informed consent. Researchers must create processes to acquire people’s informed permission to engage in their study (DeCarlo, 2018). In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the students were informed of their roles in the research (Stanford Prison Experiment, n.d.). However, the principle was not complied with due to a lack of information about the potential emotional consequences of participation in the experiment. Moreover, there is another ethical principle that focuses on confidentiality. The principle was complied with since participants were given ID numbers to ensure anonymity (Zimbardo et al., 1971). Here, each inmate may only refer to himself and the other inmates by number and was required to use only his ID number while speaking.
The following ethical principles are the safety of the participants, with which the researchers did not comply. The main directive issued to guards was that physical violence or punishment of prisoners was forbidden (Maxfield, 2015). However, participants who played guards could make other decisions as to their behavior toward prisoners (Maxfield, 2015). Moreover, considering that the experiment was held in the basement, prisoners were housed in dangerous, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions. Finally, researchers had to permit participants to leave the research whenever they chose and in the given example, this was followed. The majority of participants appeared to forget or misinterpret that they could quit and by convincing one another that there was no alternative, they perpetuated a sense of confinement (Stanford Prison Experiment, n.d.). Therefore, there were not only unsafe conditions but emotional strain.
Validity of the Experiment
Although conditions and research aspects were mentioned, it is necessary to review the validity of the experiment. Throughout the experiment, quick questionnaires were given out to convicts and guards to gauge any emotional states (Maxfield, 2015). Researchers interviewed every individual around four weeks after the trial ended to gauge their emotions (Maxfield, 2015). It can be seen that researchers ensured the accuracy of the collected information, and it can be considered valid. Findings that are founded on the quick readiness of people to comply with the imposed stereotypes and expectations are accurate. This is proven by the erratic behaviors of prisoners and the aggressive behaviors of guards.
Reliability of Findings
As for reliability, it can be assured that the experiment’s findings are indeed unreliable. On the one hand, the experiment was based on monitoring the response of participants to stereotypes, especially in prison groups. However, on the other hand, the respondents were aware of what to expect, even though the university simulated a prison setting. They were aware that they were only acting as captives. Therefore, the findings are not reliable since the research did not include real prisoners.
Result Generalization
Finally, regarding the generalization of the material, it can be claimed as impossible. The officers and inmates were acting and, as shown in the experiment sample requirements, had no previous experience in correctional facilities. Thus, their conduct might not have been impacted by the same variables that impact the behavior of prisoners in real life. As a result, it is impossible to adequately extrapolate the study’s results to real-world situations like prisons.
Conclusion
Hence, the Stanford prison experiment allowed participants to fully immerse themselves in the setting of a correctional facility, but it was mostly unsuccessful since the sample was unsuited for the intended goal. Simple sampling was used, and the participants were recruited through advertisement. Twenty-four male college students were involved, with twelve guards and twelve prisoners. The experiment did not last for the intended two weeks and had to be abruptly finished.
References
DeCarlo, M. (2018). Scientific inquiry in social work. Open Social Work Education. Web.
Maxfield, M. G. (2015). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology (4th ed.). Cengage Learning US. Web.
Stanford Libraries. (n.d.). The Stanford prison experiment: 40 years later. Stanford University.
Stanford Prison Experiment. (n.d.). More information. Web.
Zimbardo, P., Haney, C., Curtis Banks, W., & Jaffe, D. (1971). The Stanford prison experiment. Stanford University. Web.