StanfordPrisonGuard

I think that most people don't understand the construct of "the experiment." To begin with, how is it possible that the lead researcher who is suppose to be impartial was the prison warden making all the important decisions every step of the way?

On the question of ethics, I don't think most people realize that lots of the tension created in the experiment came from sleep deprivation and waking prisoners in the middle of the night for prisoner counts. This is a form of internationally recognized torture. The American psychological society has since banned this type of experiment using these techniques, but Zimbardo and his staff allowed and encourage this behavior and other behavior to prisoners. It all comes down to Zimbardo being warden and in charge of everything that the prison guards did and what was inflicted on the prisoners.

Honestly, I think it would have been better if it had never happened. It introduced a concept of innate human evil into accepted common wisdom that I don't believe to be true and I especially don't believe that experiment to be the proof of that.

It was unfortunately that after the experiment we never had a full group debriefing. Rather, I can't speak for the prisoners, but the guards met with the researchers after the experiment. During the debrief, we were encouraged to say bad things about the prisoners. We were then told that we did such a good job that we would be rewarded with a $30 bonus on top of our $15/day ($90 total) pay. At that point, I spoke up and said that I thought that was bullshit and that if anyone should get a bonus, it should be the prisoners. They were there 24/7 and we were only there for 8 hour shifts. After I said that, I got up and walked through a side door. When I opened the door, I saw all the prisoners watching us through a one-way mirror. I was shocked since I had never heard of a mirror like that at the time and it really took me by surprise. I just chalked it up as another in a seemingly never-ending series of deceits of trying to pit us against one another and leave the experiment feeling animosity towards the other group. It felt indicative of how this experiment was run and managed throughout.

I did contact the head of ethics at the American Psychological Society and had an exchange. While he was never sanctioned, they did prohibit a lot of his techniques as a result (they weren't prohibited at the time). To me, I don't know why he wouldn't be retroactively sanctioned, or have his results called into question as a result, but that's the way it is.

I know a lot of the prisoners didn't like it. There was one prisoner who was kicked out, which was, in my opinion, his way of trying to quit.

I felt that Zimbardo had a conclusion and he constructed "an experiment" to demonstrate it. That was my belief at the time and now.