The cause of the brutality that was reported among American correctional officers
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the cause of the brutality that was reported among American correctional officers. The question was whether the cruelties were situational in that it highly depended on the prison environment or whether it was because of dispositional reasons. The latter means that the concern was highly due to the sadistic personalities of the guards. For instance, the prisoners may be lacking respect for law and order, and hence their characters make conflict inevitable. On the other hand, guards may have domineering and aggressive personalities. As an alternative, the rigid power structure that exists in the prison environments may make the prisoners and guards act in a hostile manner. Therefore, people work the way they do more because of the situation at the moment rather than because of their personality.
I think Zimbardo’s experiments were not unethical. Even though the eleven people who were chosen to be prisoners suffered brutality and some even depression, there was no way he could intervene without interfering with the ongoing study. Besides, he did not expect people to act so harshly to the conditions. While it is true that Zimbardo did not tell the prisoners the real intent of the experiments, it is clear that if he had, then people would have behaved differently, and therefore, the results would have been compromised. Even though many prisoners received scarring during the study, none of the volunteers who suffered stress as a result of the experiment had the effects for more than two years. Besides, lying is sometimes necessary to make the research more successful.
However, the study has received many ethical criticisms over the years. For instance, the study lacked a fully informed consent of all the volunteers. This is because even Zimbardo did not know what the experiment would entail since everything was unpredictable. The committee tried looking into other methodologies that could cause less harm to the prisoners and, at the same time, give the desired information, but no alternative method was found. However, Zimbardo would have the volunteers to return in questionnaires every several weeks and months after the experiment. He would then let the volunteers return the surveys in a year, and as a result, he ensured that there were no lasting effects on the participants. Besides, in his defense, the benefits obtained from the study outweighed its side effects. For instance, the experiment allowed for the study of human behavior in prison settings, which could be used in the future to change the situations.
Moreover, the prisoners did not consent to be arrested at home, which was a breach of Zimbardo’s contract that the prisoners had signed. Later in the experiment, the participants were not protected from any psychological harm and from experiencing distressing and humiliating incidences. As a result, one of the volunteer prisoners had to be released after thirty-six hours due to uncontrollable crying and screaming. This was major because the guards abused their power and even broke the rule given to them that they should not hit the prisoners. However, they were not stopped because of that.
On the other hand, Rosenhan’s mental hospital study experiment was aimed at determining how psychiatry treats psychiatric patients and how accurate their diagnostic procedure was. For instance, eight experimenters faked their insanity in 1973 to see how easy it was to get into a mental institution. Yet, it was hard to come out even after acting normally. This experiment was unethical since the experimenters like Rosenhan, who were involved in medicine, used fake names and fake occupations, and they also lied to the doctors. However, sometimes the end justifies the means, and it may be necessary to lie for the success of the experiment. This is because, if they had told the truth about the intent of their operation, it would have compromised the results.
In conclusion, the research method should be as responsible and as honest as possible. However, the objectivity of the experiment should be the primary concern. As a result, a researcher should ensure that there is no bias in the experimental design, personal decisions, and even data interpretation. Besides, a research method should be open careful, and the procedure should have integrity. As such, one should avoid careless errors and negligence and also keep agreements and promises.