Limitations And Weaknesses Of The Stanford Prison Experiment Essay.

1.Provide a review of the classical study in your own words.
2. Assess five strengths of this study and five weaknesses of this study based on the evidence (in assessing, the reasons should be given – for instance, if you feel the researcher answered the question posed - explain).
3.Evaluate the ethics of the study such as consent, right to withdraw, deception, debrief or other ethical issues (reference to PSI or similar code of ethics should be noted).
4.Resource two other studies in the last 10 years that have looked at these concepts.  Provide the full reference and why these studies relate to the classic study.
5.Provide examples of how the concepts/findings in the classical study could be either applied in a real world setting or help explain an issue.

Inability to simulate the true prison environment

1.Historically human society is characterized by power distance relationships where some people assume the power and control whereas some people are controlled. This creates an abnormal relationship where one party enjoys the fruits and all the privileges and the other party do not get even their basic human rights fulfilled. This difference becomes all the more profound when the state machinery gives their permission to such institutions to work in such discriminatory way. One such institution is the prisons where the prisoners are confined under the authority of the guards and wardens for long time with very little resources (Reingle & Connell, 2014). Haney, Banks & Zimbardo (1972), conducted their experiment on the subject to establish how the conditions inside the prison affect the prisoners mentally and instead of helping them in recovering, correcting and rehabilitating the conditions inside the prisons actually makes the situation worse. To contemplate the parts individuals, play in jail circumstances, Zimbardo changed over a storm cellar of the Stanford University neuro science department incorporating with a deride jail. He promoted requesting volunteers to take an interest in an investigation of the mental impacts of jail life, 70 candidates addressed the advertisement and were given indicative meetings and identity tests to wipe out competitors with mental issues, medicinal incapacities, or a background marked by wrongdoing or medication manhandle. The examination contained 24 male undergrads (browsed 75 volunteers) who were paid $15 every day to participate in the analysis. The group was randomly divided into two sections of guards and prisoners. The guards were given the responsibility of managing the prisoners like they would have done in the real world circumstance. The prisoners were to behave like they have committed offence and hence are guilty. In the first day to start the experiment with in the most realistic way the prisoners were sprayed with sanitizers after being stripped naked, then they were provided with uncomfortable prison clothes, they were assigned a prisoner number and one ankle lock. In a short period of time it was seen that the guards are taking positively their role whereas the prisoners are becoming more and more apprehensive and most of them want to discontinue because of the extreme mental and psychological pressure that they have to go through while being in the prison. The prisoners were given punishments that excluded any kind of physical abuses, but included insults, boring, strenuous and exerting tasks. Some prisoners had to be withdrawn from the experiment in the first phase itself and the total experiment of two weeks had to be reduced and wrapped up in 6 days. It was found that the guards who were enjoying the power position did not want to discontinue and they even worked for more hours with lesser pay. The findings indicated towards the strange psychology of human beings where they enjoy any kind of position where they enjoy power over others. The findings also stated that if it was so difficult for normal people to stay in simulated prison even for 6 days, what could be the condition of the real prisoners in the jails. They would be gravely affected physically and mentally in the process and instead of rehabilitation the prisons serve as mediums of deteriorating the prisoner’s mental stability (Liebling & Arnold, 2012).

Reactions of the volunteer prisoners

2. Strengths of study

3.The PSI code of ethics is devised by the Psychological Society of Ireland in which several principles like “respect for the rights and dignity of a person”, “competence”, “responsibility”, and “integrity” are detailed (Psychologicalsociety.ie, 2018). In the research that has been conducted many aspects of these principles were ignored. It is true that consent and right to withdraw, both of these rights were given to the volunteers, but as stated by the authors themselves that many activities that were included in the experiment was not stated to the participants from beforehand. This can easily fall into the category of deception or debriefing. Apart from that the PSI code of respecting the dignity of a person was ignored because at many instances the guards abused the prisoners and forced them to do tasks that were inhuman and dehumanizing them by various means. It was seen in various phases of the research that the volunteers who were selected as guards used to innovate new ways of oppressing the prisoners even without the researchers telling them to do so. Therefore, the volunteers selected as guards abused their position to utilize it in suppressing and torturing the prisoners, may be not physically but mentally. Respect for the “rights and dignity of the person” states that the psychologists should be treating the patients with respect and dignity. In a short period of time it was seen that the guards are taking positively their role whereas the prisoners are becoming more and more apprehensive and most of them want to discontinue because of the extreme mental and psychological pressure that they have to go through while being in the prison. The prisoners were given punishments that excluded any kind of physical abuses, but included insults, boring, strenuous and exerting tasks. All of these were definitely defying the ethics of study as well as the codes of the PSI which is codified to upheld the rights and dignities of the individual. The researchers took enough care to take the consent of the individuals before including them in the research however while the research was going on many of the basic human rights and ethics were ignored.

4. Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 391-394.

In this research the researchers explore the changes in a person when that person is given the authority to “select” activities for other participants who is selected as their partners. The participants in “high power” roles had selected more dehumanizing activities for other participant, which is much similar to the Stanford prison research.

Inability to complete the research as planned

Crabtree, J. L., Wall, J. M., & Ohm, D. (2016). Critical Reflections on Participatory Action Research in a Prison Setting: Toward Occupational Justice. OTJR: occupation, participation and health, 36(4), 244-252.

In this research prisoners were taken as subjects and they were put to Participatory Action Research to reflect their perspective about occupational therapy education. It reflected the power distance in prison settings and also the injustice and deprivation they face. The findings are similar to the Stanford Prison research.

5. The findings of the research are very significant in terms of understanding the condition of the prisoners in today’s day at one hand, and to understand the psychology of the power distance relationship of people on the other hand. The importance of the research in psychological field is immensely high.

It is a question and a matter of debate that the effectiveness of the prisons as “correctional home” or “rehabilitation centers” as they are called is how much valid. The conditions that prevail in the jails all over the world today, even in the advanced nations cause more damage to the inmates than helping them to overcome their past and correct themselves for a better future. In order to understand the impact of the prison environment this study was taken up by the authors in a very realistic way. When one takes individuals from any stroll of life and dehumanize them, one gets an obtuse outcome. The "guards" — pleasant high class young fellows, all things considered — were given indistinguishable uniforms and specialist that they had no involvement with. They changed into perverted people. The prisoners were allegorically and physically stripped of their fundamental needs, personality and rights, and swung to insubordination and wrongdoing, with a few maintaining mental injury amid the procedure. The Stanford Prison Experiment was intended to spotlight the genuine effect of a common temporary jail circumstance for both guards and detainees (Zoukis, 2017). What it did was demonstrate the world how broken, and how perilous, the framework really is, and what individuals are equipped for, inside its structure of energy and frailty.

In the real world setting the findings of the study can be applied to reflect the condition of the prisoners in the jails and to improve their condition. The authorities and all the stakeholders including the human rights groups and international agencies must take positive actions to help improve the situation and lead to a better treatment to the prisoners in the jails world over (Drenkhahn, 2014). It must be ensured that at least the basic human rights and necessities of the prisoners be taken care of properly and they are treated with dignity like every human being on earth deserves. The human rights manhandling that happened at the Abu Ghraib jail under the supervision of the American military in the result of the 2003 Iraq war might be a current case of what occurred in the test, all things considered. Military personnel were pushed into the part of jail protects and started to savagely torment detainees there and at other confinement locales in Afghanistan and Iraq. A considerable lot of the particular demonstrations of embarrassment were like those that happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment, as per Zimbardo. Therefore, it is proved that the simulated scenario that happened at the Stanford prison experiment were actually the case in real world and when people were given the authority even normal men acted like they were sadistic cruel people. Humanity should take lesson from this experiment to rethink about its position on treating other people even in power distance relationships. The authorities should not take their power for granted and use it to torment the subordinates. Basic human rights should be ensured to be protected for every individual in every circumstances. The conditions of the prisoners in the jails should be improved by a joint effort from every section of the society.

Reference and Bibliography:

Crabtree, J. L., Wall, J. M., & Ohm, D. (2016). Critical Reflections on Participatory Action Research in a Prison Setting: Toward Occupational Justice. OTJR: occupation, participation and health, 36(4), 244-252.

Debeljak, J. (2015). The Rights of Prisoners under the Victorian Charter: A Critical Analysis of the Jurisprudence on the Treatment of Prisoners and Conditions of Detention. UNSWLJ, 38, 1332.

Drenkhahn, K. (2014). International rules concerning long-term prisoners. Long-term Imprisonment and Human Rights, Oxon, New York: Routledge, 31-44.

Exworthy, T., Samele, C., Urquía, N., & Forrester, A. (2012). Asserting prisoners' right to health: Progressing beyond equivalence. Psychiatric Services, 63(3), 270-275.

Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 391-394.

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1972). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison (No. ONR-TR-Z-09). Stanford Univ Ca Dept Of Psychology.

Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2012). Social relationships between prisoners in a maximum security prison: Violence, faith, and the declining nature of trust. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 413-424.

Maruschak, L. M., Berzofsky, M., & Unangst, J. (2015). Medical problems of state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2011-12. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Psychologicalsociety.ie. (2018). PSI Code of Professional Ethics | Footer | PSI. Psychologicalsociety.ie. Retrieved 28 February 2018, from https://www.psychologicalsociety.ie/footer/PSI-Code-of-Professional-Ethics-3

Reingle Gonzalez, J. M., & Connell, N. M. (2014). Mental health of prisoners: Identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity. American journal of public health, 104(12), 2328-2333.

Zoukis, C. (2017). What Humanity Learned From The Stanford Prison Experiment. HuffPost. Retrieved 1 March 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-humanity-learned-from-the-stanford-prison-experiment_us_596ff248e4b04dcf308d2a0c