3. conformity to soical roles

when and why did zimbardo conduct the SPE

• in the 1970s

• there had been many prison riots in america and zimardo wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - was it because they have sadistic personalities or was it their social role?

what are social roles

the parts people play as members of various social groups ie teachers, students

• accompanied by expectations we and others have on what behaviour is appropriate in that role ie caring, obedient

what was the procedure

• set up mock prison in a basement at stanford uni

• advertised for students willing to volunteer and selected those deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological testing

• students randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard

• prisoners arrested from home and issued a uniform and number

• guards had wooden club, handcuffs and shades

findings

• guards took up roles with enthusiam and treaded prisoners poorly

• within 2 days prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms and shouting/swearing at guards

• guards used divide and rule tactics to play the prisoners off against one another

• guards constantly harassed prisoners to remind of their powerlessness in their role

• prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious - one was released on 1st day showing symptons of mental breakdown, two more on the 4th day

• one prisoner went on hunger strike and had to be force fed and was then punished by being put in ‘the hole’ - tiny dark closet

• study ended on day 6 instead of day 14

conclusions

• social roles have strong influence on behaviour

• guards became brutal and prisoners submissive

• social roles were easily taken on by all participants - even those who came to perform specific functions ie prison chaplain found themselves behaving as if they were in prison and not a psychological study

explanation behind abu ghraib

• there was a power imbalance between the US Army Military and the Iraqi prisoners, similar to the guards and prisoners in zimbardos’s research

• the US Military used this imbalance to be aggressive and treat the Iraqi prisoners poorly by assaulting them - torture, murdered, sexually and physically abused

evaluation of SPE

• control

• lack of realism & COUNTERPOINT

• exaggeration of power of roles

• ethics

control

• key point: zimbardo had control over key variables, which strengthened the study's validity

• supporting evidence: participants were carefully selected for emotional stability and randomly assigned to roles of guards or prisoners

• explanation: this ensured individual personality differences were distributed evenly across roles, meaning behavior was more likely a result of situational pressures rather than personal traits

• application: supports the study's conclusions about conformity to social roles by increasing confidence in its internal validity

lack of realism

• key point: the study lacked the realism of a genuine prison environment

• supporting evidence: banuazizi and mohavedi suggested that participants were merely acting out stereotypical roles they had seen in the media

• explanation: behaviors, such as guards' cruelty, may have been influenced by cultural depictions like the film cool hand luke rather than authentic conformity to social roles

• application: raises questions about the ecological validity of the study and whether findings can be applied to real-life prisons

COUNTERPOINT

• key point: there is evidence that participants believed the prison situation was real

• supporting evidence: 90% of prisoners' conversations were about prison life, and they often referred to themselves as real prisoners, some believing they couldn’t leave the study

• explanation: this shows that the participants internalized the prison environment, supporting the idea that the study replicated the social roles of real prisoners and guards

• application: reinforces the study’s internal validity by suggesting genuine psychological immersion

ethics

• key point: zimbardo’s study faced significant ethical criticisms due to the treatment of participants

• supporting evidence: participants experienced extreme emotional distress, with one prisoner having to leave after only 36 hours due to psychological harm, and the study was terminated early for similar reasons

• explanation: zimbardo acted as both the lead researcher and prison superintendent, creating a conflict of interest that allowed harm to continue longer than it should have, and instead of providing help took photographs

• application: raises serious ethical concerns about participant protection, informed consent, and the responsibility of researchers, questioning whether the study’s findings can ever justify such harm