Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S

EXPERIMENTS 1

Unethical Behavior in Zimbardo and Milgram’s Experiments

Student’s name:

Institution:
Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S
EXPERIMENTS 2
Unethical Behavior in Zimbardo and Milgram’s Experiments

Ethics are a crucial practice in any aspect of society today. However, it is even more

vital in research that uses human subjects. Research ethics refers to practices that ensure that

misconduct does not undermine the implications of a study of its participants. Human

research subjects may fall into a category of vulnerability since they lack the professional

expertise to criticize the research, often leading to a potential for exploitation. The Stanford

Prison Experiment and Milgram’s research on obedience are such studies where the lead

researchers created environments that were unethical and at times, potentially dangerous.

This discussion serves a valuable role in informing future research endeavors. For example,

the American Psychological Association (APA) revised its regulations on ethical research

following observations made concerning the Zimbardo’s experiment. A critical evaluation of

the studies indicates significant misconduct and unethical behavior.

Hypotheses

The Stanford Prison Experiment of 1973 sought to determine the influence of

situational and dispositional factors in the modification of human behavior and personality

(Kulig, Pratt & Cullen, 2017). As such, the researchers hypothesized that situational factors

contributed to behavioral modifications. As such, the prison scenario was developed as a

situational variable that would influence the behavior of the study’s participants.

Milgram’s initial experiment sought to determine the relationship between obedience

and authority concerning the extents people were willing to obey authority when it meant

harming others (Packer, 2008). As such, the researcher hypothesized that under the influence

of authority, obedient people were willing to go to extreme lengths in causing harm to others.

As such, much like Zimbardo, Milgram developed a scenario where these variables interacted

in a controlled environment. This initial study set the stage for the assessment of other

relevant variables within the environment.

Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S
EXPERIMENTS 3
Recruitment and Participants

Both experiments recruited participants similarly. Advertising and the financial

rewarding of participants was evident in either study. Zimbardo recruited students from the

Stanford campus through advertisements for volunteers for the experiment. He then

proceeded to evaluate their physical and mental health as a precursor to the experiment

leaving a sample of 25 participants (Kulig, Pratt & Cullen, 2017). These participants were

rewarded $15 for their participation in addition to providing consent. Milgram’s experiment

also sourced participants from the New Haven area after the researcher advertised in the local

paper. The study obtained 40 participants across various skill levels in their respective

occupations (Packer, 2008). Milgram’s study offered the participants $4.50 for participation

in the study.

Who decided participant roles?

Zimbardo’s prison experiment involved the leadership of Phillip Zimbardo. As a

psychologist and the lead researcher on the project, Zimbardo was responsible for the design

of the study. He converted the basement of the psychology department of Stanford University

into a mock prison where the roles of the participants would be determined (Kulig, Pratt &

Cullen, 2017). The researcher designed the study such that individuals would adopt the roles

of prisoner and guard. The assignment occurred randomly where each participant had an

equal chance in obtaining any of the two assignments. The research had a total of 10

prisoners and 11 guards. The guards worked on shifts while two guards were placed on

reserve duty. During the study, Zimbardo also acted as a prison superintendent as well, take

responsibility in guiding the actions of both guards and prisoners.

Milgram’s experiment involved complete control of the lead researcher. The

experiment’s design indicates that the roles of the participants were not random. Instead,

Milgram had complete control over role allocation. The three most prominent roles included
Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S
EXPERIMENTS 4
those of teacher, learner, and instructor or experimenter (Packer, 2008). All 40 participants

were duped into the role of the teacher through a rigged system where all the learners were

Milgram’s confederates. Similarly, the experimenter was one of Milgram’s proxy in a lab

coat. He was an actor. It is crucial to acknowledge the gender bias that existed in this

recruitment process as all the participants were male.

Unethical Practices in the Experiments

Zimbardo’s prison project involved two significant instances of unethical behavior.

The first has to do with consent, which was in no way fully informed. Typically, consent is

provided when the participants are fully aware of the processes involved in the research as

well as possible consequences to these procedures (Manson & O'Neill, 2007). However,

Zimbardo’s consent documents and information failed to provide a comprehensive overview

of the study. As such, the prisoners were unaware of their forceful arrest from their homes by

police officers working alongside Zimbardo (Kulig, Pratt & Cullen, 2017). This deliberate

omission of the crucial information constitutes a breach of informed consent. Zimbardo’s

experiment also failed to protect human subjects from harm. According to the Common Rule,

researchers must mitigate or minimize any risk incident on the human subjects (Menikoff,

Kaneshiro & Pritchard, 2017). However, the Stanford Prison Experiment failed to adhere to

this ethical guideline by facilitating the physical and psychological harm of the participants

designated as prisoners. For example, physical harm in the form of aggression and beating

was common. Similarly, the prisoners suffered significant psychological trauma and

humiliation. For example, prisoner #819 was subjected to psychological harm as the guards

instructed the prisoners to mock him as a weak individual for experiencing a mental

breakdown.

Milgram’s experiment also breached informed consent by using deception as a

foundation for the study. The participants were subjected to a bogus selection process to
Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S
EXPERIMENTS 5
determine their roles. The process was rigged such that the participants were all designated as

teachers while all other participants were Milgram’s proxies (Packer, 2008). Nevertheless,

this deception of the fairness of the process constitutes a breach in the provision of informed

consent. After all, these teachers were pushed into making adverse decisions as the learners

purposefully offered false answers that warranted electrical shocks. Therefore, the teachers

were unwitting participants. Milgram’s experiment also involved the administration of harm

to the learners. Despite being part of Milgram’s team, the learners constitute participants of

the study. They were subjected to intense levels of pain, which were exhibited in the form of

screaming and agonizing protests. However, Milgram considered the electrical shocks within

acceptable ranges and ensured that they would receive a complete debrief upon completion.

Nevertheless, these individuals were exposed to harmful situations deliberately. Finally,

unlike Zimbardo’s experiment, Milgram did not offer an option for withdrawal among the

participants. The prompts offered to the teachers involved an escalation of the orders to

motivate compliance but did not offer an option for the participant to refrain from

administering the shocks (Packer, 2008). As such, the experiment violated the right to

withdraw from research (Schaefer & Wertheimer, 2010).

Conclusion

The Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s Obedience studies fail to meet ethical

thresholds required for research today. Zimbardo’s experiment failed to offer fully informed

consent and also facilitated or tolerated the infliction of physical and psychological harm to

the participants. Similarly, Milgram’s experiment failed to provide informed consent and

actively deceived the participants on their roles and their colleagues’ identities. Furthermore,

the experiments actively encouraged physical harm on the participants designated as learners.

Finally, the prompts or orders that the experimenter provided did not offer an option for

withdrawal among participants who did not feel comfortable with inflicting pain. Instead, he
Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S
EXPERIMENTS 6
intensified the instructions for compliance. Overall, ethical behavior in research is crucial in

the protection of the welfare of human subjects. Therefore, researchers need to develop

excellent ethical standards for studies that involve human subject research.
Running Head: UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN ZIMBARDO AND MILGRAM’S
EXPERIMENTS 7
References

Kulig, T. C., Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2017). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment:

A case study in organized skepticism. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(1),

74-111.

Manson, N. C., & O'Neill, O. (2007). Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge

University Press.

Menikoff, J., Kaneshiro, J., & Pritchard, I. (2017). The common rule, updated. New England

Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 613-615.

Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram's obedience

experiments: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4),

301-304.

Schaefer, G. O., & Wertheimer, A. (2010). The right to withdraw from research. Kennedy

Institute of Ethics Journal, 20(4), 329-352.