Informed consent is also another area Zimbardo has been critisied about. According to the APA, informed consent must inform the participant of the risks involved within the experiment.*** Again, Zimbardo and his team had no idea that the experiment would turn out as it did. As the essay**** indicates, human’s are highly unpredictable creatures and don’t always act as predicted.
The only ethical implication that Zimbardo blatantly neglected outright, was that of ‘the right to withdraw’. Several of his participants requested withdrawal numerous times, but he discouraged this and almost forced them to carry on.
Zimbardo’s experiment has since gone on to become world famous in providing us with the true facts about this kind of situation. In that respect, the ends have completely justified the means in all the knowlegde we now hold about conformity and social roles. The implications have had enormous effects on the psychological understanding of the Nazi’s during WW2 and can even be somewhat applied to nowadays attrocities, such as the Abu Ghraib prison. The participant’s of Zimbardo’s study in their debrief all stated that although rough, not many wish that they hadn’t taken part, realising the such influential effect the experiment was going to have in psychology.
In conclusion, Zimbardo’s prison experiment was extremely controversial within the ethical boundaries, but I would say that the ends justified the means.