Conformity To Social Roles As Investigated By Zimbardo

What are social roles?

The ‘parts‘ people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.

What was the aim of Zimbardo’s study?

To know why prison guards behave so brutally - if it’s because they have sadistic personalities or because their social role created such behaviour.

What is the SPE?

The Stanford prison experiment.

How did Zimbardo set up the prison?

He set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University.

How many participants were selected?

21 men.

How were the participants selected?

They volunteered.

From the volunteers they had available, how did they select the actual participants?

Volunteers were tested for emotional stability.

How were the prisoners encouraged to conform to social roles?

The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, and they were identified by number (their names were never used)

How did the prisoner uniforms encourage social roles?

They created a loss of perosnal identity (deindividualisation).

How were the guards encouraged to conform to social roles?

They had their own uniform relfecting the status of their role, a wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades.

How were the prisoners further encouraged to identify with their roles?

Rather than leaving eary, prisoners could ‘apply for parole‘.

How were the guards further encouraged to identify with their roles?

They were reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners.

What were the findings of the guards behaviour?

• The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly.

• They used ‘divide-and-rule‘ tactics by playing the prisoners off against one another.

• They harrased the prisonsers to remind them of the powerlessness of their role (frequent headcounts, making them stand in line at night)

How did the guards highlight the difference in social roles?

They created opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments

What happened within two days?

The prisoners rebelled: they ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the gaurds, who retaliated with fire extinguishers.

What happened to the participants after their rebellion was shut down?

They became subdued, depressed and anxious.

Were any participants released?

• One was released because he showed symtoms of psychological disturbance.

• Two more were released on fourth day.

How did one prisoner rebel?

He went on a hunger strike: the gurds tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’, a tiny, dark closet.

What happened to the guards behaviour as time went on?

• They identified more and more closely with their role.

• Their behaviour became increasingly aggresive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners.

When did zimbardo end the study?

After six days insead of the intended 14.

What were the findings of the prisoners behaviour?

They became more submissive over time.

What were the conclusions in relation to social roles?

Social roles appeared to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour. The guards bceame brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Such roles were taken on by all participants. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study.

What is the strength of the SPE?

Zimbardo had control over key variables, such as the selection of participants.

How is control a strength of the SPE?

It ruled out individual differences. The degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.

What are the limitations of the SPE?

• Lack of realism.

• Exaggerates the power of roles.

Why is lack of realism a limitation of the SPE?

It did not have the realism of a true prison. Ali Banuazizi and Siamak Mavahedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role . Participants’ performnaces were based on their stereotypes of how priosoners and guards are supposed to behvae. For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brital character from a film. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that’s what real prisoners did.

What does the lack of realism in the SPE sugggest?

That the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles.

In contrast to the lack of realim, what did Mark McDermott (1973) argue?

He argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them. For exapmple, 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life. Amongsts themselves, they discussed how it ws impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were due. Prisoner 416 later explained how he belived the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government.

What does Mark McDermott’s arguement suggest?

That the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.

How is the exaggeration of the power of roles a limitation of the SPE?

Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour: (Fromm 1973). For example, only one third of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner. Another third tried to apply the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners. They sympathised, offered ciggarettes and reinstated privilleges. Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.

What did Zimbardo argue for the prisoner’s and guards behaviour?

Zimbardo's explanation for the guards' (and prisoners) behaviour was that conforming to a social role comes 'naturally' and easily. Being given the role of guard means that these participants will inevitably behave brutally because that is the behaviour expected of someone with that role.

What is an alternate explaination to the guard and prisoner’s behaviour?

However, Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam (2006) criticise Zimbardo's explanation because it does not account for the behaviour of the non-brutal guards. They used social identity theory (SIT) instead to argue that the guards' had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did.