How did Zimbardo deceive participants?
There was no deception; all subjects were told in advance that if prisoners, many of their usual rights would be suspended and they would have only minimally adequate diet and health care during the study” (4).
How was Zimbardo experiment unethical?
The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being 'arrested' at home.
What error did Zimbardo make in his research?
One mistake was his taking on the role of prison superintendent. Instead of simply observing from a neutral location or reviewing the data later, Zimbardo made himself an authority figure, which meant he was part of the experiment.
What did Zimbardo tell the participants?
ABOUT THE GUARDS
The guards were given only a brief orientation telling them to maintain law and order, avoid physical violence, and prevent prisoner escapes.
How did Zimbardo allocate the participants to each group?
These boys were arbitrarily divided into two groups by a flip of the coin. Half were randomly assigned to be guards, the other to be prisoners. It is important to remember that at the beginning of our experiment there were no differences between boys assigned to be a prisoner and boys assigned to be a guard.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (Summary + Lessons)
Did Zimbardo debrief his participants?
Despite the ethical issues, Zimbardo did debrief his participants in an attempt to overcome the deception of the aim of the experiment and any harm caused. A second limitation of Zimbardo's research is that there was a lack of supporting evidence.
Why did Zimbardo put the prisoners in dresses?
Why did Zimbardo put the prisoners in dresses? He wanted to strip them of their individuality.
What was Zimbardo's hypothesis?
Phillip Zimbardo and his team wanted to test the hypothesis that the personality traits of prisoners and guards are the main cause of abusive behavior in prison.
How did Zimbardo control over his variables?
E: For example, Zimbardo had high control over several variables, including the selection of participants. Zimbardo was able to screen for emotionally stable individuals and randomly assign them to the roles of guards and prisoners. E: This is a strength because this method ruled out individual personality differences.
Is Zimbardo's study reliable?
On evaluation of Zimbardo's study there was research carried out by the BBC prison study that indicates that the results from Zimbardo's study are not reliable.
Why was the monster study unethical?
Wendell Johnson was the speech pathologist that conducted this study to find the cause and cure for stuttering. This study violated a lot of ethical issues because the children were psychological harm, informed consent was not given and the subjects were deceived.
What are the ethical issues with the Little Albert experiment?
This experiment is considered very unethical. The researchers failed to decondition Albert to the stimuli he was afraid of, which should have been done after the experiment. Albert ended up passing away at the age of six due to hydrocephalus, a condition that can lead to brain damage.
Who was prisoner 819?
#819. The only prisoner who did not want to speak to the priest was Prisoner #819, who was feeling sick, had refused to eat, and wanted to see a doctor rather than a priest. Eventually he was persuaded to come out of his cell and talk to the priest and superintendent so we could see what kind of a doctor he needed.
What is the white powder thrown on prisoners?
It was delousing powder to prevent parasites.
Is prisoner 8612 faking it?
Doug Korpi admitted that his breakdown was fake but Phillip Zimbardo believes that he may not have the same feelings about the experiment as he did back in the actual prison, ultimately altering his memory of the experience — creating a false memory.
What happened to prisoner 8612 after the experiment?
The First Prisoner Released
#8612 was then given the offer of becoming an informant in exchange for no further guard harassment.
Why do they spray prisoners?
HUMILIATION. Each prisoner was systematically searched and stripped naked. He was then deloused with a spray, to convey our belief that he may have germs or lice – as can be seen in this series of photos.
Did Little Albert experiment have informed consent?
Unethical aspects are informed consent, the monkeys were not in a state to give consent they were to young and did not understand what was happening to them, Protection of participants, in this case the participants are the baby monkeys, they were taken away from their mother and in some cases had not seen another ...
Was there confidentiality in the Little Albert experiment?
Confidentiality. Written form of all aspects of the experiment. Must be signed by subject. Albert's mother Arvilla Merritte would have needed to give consent.
Did the Little Albert experiment which showed that fear can be a conditioned response demonstrate that emotions can be a conditioned response?
The Little Albert Experiment demonstrated that classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, that is out of proportion to the danger. In this experiment, a previously unafraid baby was conditioned to become afraid of a rat.
What happened to the children from the Monster Study?
Results of The Monster Study
Remember, not all of these children actually had a stutter – they were just told that they had a stutter. Of the six children that were falsely chastised for their speech, five developed speech problems. Reports show that these children became withdrawn and some stopped speaking altogether.
Was the Monster Study approved?
The experiment was kept hidden for fear Johnson's reputation would be tarnished in the wake of human experiments conducted by the Nazis during World War II. Because the results of the study were never published in any peer-reviewed journal, Tudor's thesis is the only official record of the details of the experiment.
How old were the children in the Monster Study?
These children, ranging in age from 5 to 15, were to be told that their speech was not normal at all, that they were beginning to stutter and that they must correct this immediately.
Was the monster study ethical or unethical?
Many speech experts and therapists agree the experiment was highly unethical by today's standards, but not necessarily by the standards of the day. And they say the case has done little to diminish Johnson's pioneering achievements.
What is the Cookie Monster Study?
“A new science of power has revealed that power is wielded most effectively when it's used responsibly by people who are attuned to, and engaged with the needs and interests of others.” People in power may also be messier eaters, according to what Keltcher and other researchers call the “Cookie monster study.”