1/11
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
What were the purposes of Zimbardo’s experiment?
Does a social role influence behaviour?
Obedience + power dynamics between guards and prisoners, abuse of power
What did Zimbardo do before the experiment?
Male student volunteers were tested as ‘emotionally stable’
How was the experiment set up?
Participants randomly assigned to play the role of guard or prisoner
Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to their social roles through their uniforms and behaviour.
Prisoners were arrested, checked and fingerprinted, they had to follow lots of rules, and fulfil various tasks such as push ups.
What were the results of Zimbardo’s experiment?
The guards quickly abused their power - after one day, a guard hit a prisoner.
Within two days, the prisoners rebelled - ripped their uniforms and shouted at guards.
Guards put the prisoners against each other and inflicted constant physical and emotional abuse - their beds taken away, buckets on their heads.
Guards constantly reminded prisoners of the powerlessness of their roles - never referenced by name, only number.
After the rebellion was put down, prisoners became depressed and anxious - one was released early as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance, two released on day 4.
One prisoner went on a hunger strike and the guards tried to force-feed him - this didn’t work so he was put in the ‘hole’, a dark closet.
Guards identified closely with their role, displaying brutal aggressive behaviour, with some enjoying the power they had over prisoners.
Zimbardo ended the experiment after 6 days, instead of the intended 14.
How did Zimbardo control the participants?
The students selected were tested to be emotionally stable and were randomly assigned to their roles
Why does the experiment have high internal validity?
The degree of control over variables
McDermott (2019): participants behaved as if the prison was real to them.
90% of prisoner conversations were about prison life.
Why could individual personality differences be ruled out for an explanation of the results?
If guards/prisoners behaved differently, their behaviour must have been due to the role itself as they were by chance
Why was the prison lacking realism a limitation?
Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975): argued participants were merely play-acting rather than conforming to a role, performances based off stereotypes.
One guard claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’
Prisoners may have rioted because they believed that’s what prisoners do.
Experiment tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
How did Zimbardo exaggerate the power of social roles to influence behaviour?
Only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal manner.
The others tried to enforce rules fairly or helped and supported the prisoners.
Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role - Zimbardo minimised the influence of dispositional factors
How did Zimbardo manipulate the experiment?
The guards received training, their behaviour may not have been natural, but rather just following instructions.
Prisoners didn’t
How can you use SIT to explain the guards’ behaviour?
Reicher & Haslam (2006) argue that the guards had to actively identify with their social roles in order to behave the way they did - it was actively promoted by Zimbardo
How is Abu Ghraib torture similar to Zimbardo’s experiment?
Between 2003-4, US military committed torture, physical and sexual abuse and even murder on Iraqi prisoners.
They were routinely humiliated - prisoner connected to mains supply and would get electrocuted if they did not stand still for hours.
Shows the power of situation and social roles can make seemingly ordinary people do evil things