Zimbardo (1973)

What was the aim for Zimbardo's research?

How and why do normal people comform to their social roles

What was the procedure of Zimbardo's research?

- set up a mock prison at the basement of Stanford's Psychology Department

- 21 male volunteered were selected as they were tested as emotionally stable

- students were randomly assigned the roles of a prison guard or prisoner both with separate uniforms and instructions about their behaviour

- prisoners were classed by numbers, not names and guards had separated uniforms to show their status - this created de-individuation

- prisoners were encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures

- guards were told they had complete power over the prisoners

What were the findings of Zimbardo's research?

- guards took up their role enthusiastically and treated the prisoners badly

- within two days, the prisoners rebelled due to the guards sadistic behaviour

- guards used divide and rule tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other

- guards harassed prisoners constantly, even when they sleep

- after the rebellion prisoners became depressed, anxious and submissive

- 1 prisoner left after day 1, 2 left after day 4, and 1 went on hunger strike

What was the conclusion of Zimbardo's research?

- reveals the power of the situation

- guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison

What were some ethical issues of Zimbardo's research?

- no informed consent

- no protection from psychological harm

- didn't tell pps their right to withdraw

- researcher wasn't neutral

- no confidentiality

How does Haslam and Reicher's study challenge Zimbardo's research?

- challenged Zimbardo's point that his pps easily conformed to their roles just because they were given to them

- in their partial recreation, they found that prisoners didn't conform to their expected role and ended up harassing the guards as they shared social identity whereas the guards didn't

- this sense of togetherness between group members increased trust, co-operation and social support

- showed that pps in the Zimbardo study weren't conforming due to the social roles they were given but because they had shared a sense of identity which was likely missing in the prisoners

How do ethical issues impact Zimbardo's research?

- many pps suffered psychological harm during the experiment as they experienced humiliation and distress

- Zimbardo's role as superintendent meant he was unable to be remain objective and his priority of running the prison contrast his actual duty as a researcher of ensuring the welfare of his pps was suitable

- this is unacceptable and won't happen again in modern psychology

How does Zimbardo's exaggeration of the power of the situation act as a limitation of his research?

- made him overlook the effect of dispositional factors

- as only 1/3 of the guards acted in a brutal manner, this would suggest that there must have been factors other than the situation which lead to this behaviour

- thus, we shouldn't ignore the role personality factors played in this experiment

- the difference in the guards behaviour suggests that we can still behave in a way we deem right or wrong despite whatever social roles we are fulfilling

How does Orlando (1973) support Zimbardo's research?

- used hospital staff as pps in the psychiatric unit where they worked

- within a short time, the behaviour of the mock patients was almost identical to that of real patients in the hospital

- some suffered withdrawal, depression and weeping, and others tried to escape

- this supports Zimbardo's suggestion that people will readily conform to the role they are given

How can the atrocities at Abu Ghraib be explained by Zimbardo's findings?

- power of the situation - situational factors, and not individual personalities often drives people's behaviour

- deindividuation - uniforms, loss of identity, and lack of accountability led to people feeling less personally responsible, they are more likely to act in ways they normally wouldn't

- group conformity

- no oversight over the soldiers' actions