I am starting to learn that a researcher needs an Informed Consent for all participants in a research study. In truth, a researcher must tell your participants everything about the study, except for your hypothesis (what you are looking for). Then right after the study, during debriefing - you must tell them that. The human subjects board was a precursor to today's IRB - so Stanford did give the go ahead to Zimbardo.
1). The thing I that I notice in the Stanford Prison Experiment is how Zimbardo answered the questions in this document - do you think he was completely honest?
He ended the study because he was surprised by how evil the "guards" had become, as well as his girlfriend's urging (she was one of his graduate students).
The same kind of thing happened in Stanley Milgram's study, and recently at Abu Ghraib.
2). Any thoughts on human nature?
Welcome sincerely to BM! I offer 200 words of notes to assist. Please rate 5/5 accordingly and ask for me on future Special Requests.
1). As you assess if Zimbardo was completely honest, I personally feel no. I believe that he knew keenly that his experiment was pushing the boundaries ethically since it was so radically revolutionary in his bold action of erecting a prison in his office basement. To me, these actions definitely seemed to ...
This solution contains 200 words of personal brainstorming to briefly validate if Zimbardo was completely honest or not. It also assesses the overall nature of humans briefly.