First, students could have received detailed information about the research and its procedures in advance. However, Dr. Zimbardo himself was not aware of how individuals would react in a given situation, making it difficult for him to give details about the study. This information could have been included in the consent forms and repeated before the experiment began, so that participants could understand what they were getting into. Dr. Zimbardo should have appointed a research assistant to act as prison director to avoid conflicts of interest. The guards should have been trained before starting the experiment and informed of the daily tasks they had to perform. This would have ensured a controlled experimental environment. Participants should have been debriefed after the experiment and referred to a counselor to ensure their psychological well-being. I think the sum of all these approaches would certainly have improved the experience and minimized any harm to participants. We cannot isolate the best approach among those listed above, as each plays an important role in the experience. These approaches should be implemented with extreme caution, as the reputation of institutions associated with the research would be at risk..