How institutionalised psychology experiments reflect systemic power imbalances and ethical blind spots in research
Original framing: “Stanford prison experiment: why do controversial psychology studies still have such a hold on us?” — The Conversation - Global
The voices most affected by these experiments—the **participants themselves**, many of whom were working-class men of color, and their families—have been systematically silenced in the retelling. Former guard **David J. Eshelman** later reflected that the experiment’s psychological toll extended beyond the two-week study, yet his testimony is rarely included in mainstream analyses. Similarly, **prison abolitionists** like Angela Davis have argued that the experiment was not just unethical but **complicit in reinforcing carceral logic**, as it treated incarceration as a neutral variable rather than a site of state violence. The original framing also ignores how **women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals** have historically been overrepresented in unethical psychological studies, from the **Guatemala syphilis experiments** (1946–48) to modern-day coercive psychiatric trials. Restoring marginalised voices would require centering **survivor-led research ethics**, such as those advocated by groups like **Critical Resistance** or the **Silent No More Awareness Campaign**.
The Stanford prison experiment and Milgram’s obedience studies are not just flawed psychology but **symptoms of a deeper crisis**: the Western academic-industrial complex’s inability to reckon with its own complicity in systemic violence.
The original framing’s focus on individual researchers obscures how these experiments were **nodes in a network** of institutional power—from Cold War-era state funding to modern-day corporate psychology—where exploitation is rationalised as 'progress.' Restoring Indigenous, historical, and marginalised perspectives reveals that these studies were never about 'human nature' but about **controlling it**, a project that has harmed generations of vulnerable populations. The trickster lens cuts through the solemnity of ethical debates by exposing the absurdity of treating people as variables, while cross-cultural comparisons show how non-Western frameworks—rooted in relationality and collective well-being—offer viable alternatives. The path forward demands **decolonial research ethics, anticipatory harm modelling, and participatory power-sharing**, not just better oversight but a **fundamental reorientation** of what psychology itself is meant to serve.