Editing Stanford prison experiment (section)

== Ethical concerns ==
Some of the guards' behavior allegedly resulted in dangerous and psychologically damaging situations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Conclusion|url=http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-31.htm|website=Stanford Prison Experiment|access-date=December 29, 2008|archive-date=December 19, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219043133/http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-31.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> Ethical concerns about the experiment often draw comparisons to the [[Milgram experiment]], performed ten years earlier in 1961 at [[Yale University]], where [[Stanley Milgram]] studied obedience to authority.<ref name="NewYorker" /> With the treatment that the guards were giving to the prisoners, the guards would become so absorbed into their role as a guard that they would emotionally, physically, and mentally humiliate the prisoners:

{{blockquote|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... Real male prisoners don't wear dresses, but real male prisoners do feel humiliated and do feel emasculated. Our goal was to produce similar effects quickly by putting men in a dress without any underclothes. Indeed, as soon as some of our prisoners were put in these uniforms they began to walk and to sit differently, and to hold themselves differently – more like a woman than like a man.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.prisonexp.org/arrival|title=3. Arrival|website=Stanford Prison Experiment|language=en-US|access-date=April 29, 2019}}</ref>}}

The experiment was perceived by many to involve questionable ethics, the most serious concern being that it was continued even after participants expressed their desire to withdraw. Despite the fact that participants were told they had the right to leave at any time, the researchers did not allow this.<ref name=":0" /> Although there was only limited ethical oversight at the time, some aspects of the study were in contradiction of the contract that was signed with participants.<ref name=":0" />

Since the time of the SPE, [[Guidelines for human subject research|ethical guidelines for experiments involving human subjects]] have become more strict.<ref>{{citation|title=US Department of Health & Human Services Code of Federal Regulations|chapter=Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects|publisher=US Department of Health & Human Services}}</ref><ref>The Belmont Report, Office of the Secretary, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects for Biomedical and Behavioral Research, April 18, 1979</ref><ref>{{citation|title=The Nuremberg Code|publisher=US Department of Health and Human Services}}<!-- This existed before SPE --></ref> The Stanford prison experiment resulted in the implementation of rules to preclude any harmful treatment of participants. Before they are implemented, human studies must now be reviewed by an [[institutional review board]] (US) or ethics committee (UK) and found to be in accordance with ethical guidelines set by the American Psychological Association or British Psychological Society.<ref name=":0" /> These guidelines involve the consideration of whether the potential benefit to science outweighs the possible risk for physical and psychological harm.

A post-experimental debriefing is now considered an important ethical consideration to ensure that participants are not harmed in any way by their experience in an experiment. Though the researchers did perform debriefing sessions, they were several years after the SPE.{{Clarify|reason=Is there any particular reason why they chose to debrief them at that time?|date=January 2022}} By that time, numerous details were forgotten; nonetheless, Zimbardo has concluded from his follow-up research that participants experienced no lasting negative effects.<ref name=":0" />{{Better source needed|reason=This should be sourced directly to him if possible.|date=January 2022}}{{Clarify|reason=Do others agree with his interpretation?|date=January 2022}} The American Psychological Association specifies that the debriefing process should occur as soon as possible to assess any psychological harm that may have been done and to rehabilitate participants if necessary. If there is an unavoidable delay in debriefing, the researcher is obligated to take measures to minimize harm.<ref>{{citation |title=Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct|publisher=American Psychological Association|at=Section 8.07|date=January 1, 2016|url=http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/}}</ref>