I often use his "experiment" as an example of bad science. He had plenty of good experiments, but that one ain't one of them.
They knew it having problems by day 2, he didn't call off the experiment until day 5. It didn't follow a ton of best practices, even for the time. The only silver lining is the wealthy white college kids got to roleplay getting arrested in front of their families, which while not good science, is a pretty funny prank.
The Stanford Prison Experiment had major ethical issues, but it did result in Zimbardo testifying to congress that what happened at Abu Ghraib prison was not a "bad apples" situation, but the inevitable result of putting a bunch of soldiers in charge of a prison with no real rules.
A quote from his book The Lucifer Effect (I haven't read it, I got this from Wikipedia when I looked him up to see if I could get a quote from him talking to congress, which I couldn't.):
"Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, self-destructive, antisocial, and mindless ways when they are immersed in 'total situations' that impact human nature in ways that challenge our sense of the stability and consistency of individual personality, of character, and of morality."
Please, look up the experiment. Also read Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy. If it doesn't change your views on the U.S. prison system, then nothing will.
Was just reading about the failures of his “experiment” yesterday. Someone said he lied about the conditions, invalidating the results. I haven’t looked into that claim. What timing.
The book Humankind by Rutger Bregman goes into the details and is a fascinating read. Psychologists Haslam and Reicher did a follow-up "BBC Prison Study" in 2002 to test some of Zimbardo's findings, and they didn't find any of the really problematic behaviors that Zimbardo found (many of which were more or less coached or coerced). So it's not necessarily that the results were invalidated, per se, and more that Zimbardo's conclusions are not as ironclad as he made them out to be in his original paper. They simply weren't repeatable once basic ethical safeguards were put into place for the safety of the participants. It kinda speaks to the wild west era of psychological research in the mid 20th century where there were no rules and people were free to do all manner of fucked up things that researchers could never get away with today. In some ways that period is useful because they allowed us to test some of our more fundamental understandings without the limitations placed on us by modern liability and psychiatric/psychological protection, but it can't really be overstated how much damage was done to some of the subjects of those studies. Our modern system has matured in such a way that findings can more systematically and rigorously be tested because standardized practices are the norm and study subjects have basic safeguards across various disciplines.
For what it's worth, Haslam, Reicher, and Zimbardo put out a joint statement that addressed some of the controversy surrounding their more or less conflicting results which essentially boiled down to the conclusion that both experiments are valid, though each has significant differences and limitations.
once basic ethical safeguards were put into place for the safety of the participants
That's kind of the point, isn't it?
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.