6. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment- conformity to social roles and identification

Aims of the study

• test the extent to which ps would adopt the role of prisoner/guard and conform to social roles- even though their roles were determined randomly

• To test the dispositions vs situational hypothesis- are prison guards violent because they have violent personalities or do their roles make them behave that way?

Conformity to social roles

How an individual’s behaviour changes due to their expectation of behaviour in a particular situation

number of ps and who?

21 male student volunteers , all rated as psychologically stable

how were ps allocated guard or prisoner?

random allocation

which role did Zimbardo play?

prison superintendent

where did the experiment take place?

basement in Stanford University was converted into a mock prison

dehumanising prisoners

loose fitting smock, nylon caps, referred to as number

deindividuating guards

wore unifrom and relective sunglasses, referred to as ‘Mr Correctional Officer’

How were they treated?

prisoners arresed at home by local police, taken to ‘prison’. stripped and deloused. Increases realism

How long was it scheduled for and how long did it last?

2 weeks, but 6 days

Instructions given

guards told to keep prisoners in line and no physical violence was allowed.but no other instructions on how to behave was given

Findings

Within a day the prisoners had rebelled and ripped off their numbers. Theguardsrespondedbylockingthemintheircells and taking away their blankets

• As the study progressed, the guards became increasingly sadistic. Prisonerswerehumiliated,deprivedofsleep,made to carry out demeaning tasks (such as cleaning the toilets with their bare hands).

• The prisoners became depressed and submissive. Some

showed signs of serious stress. One prisoner was

released after 36 hours due to fits of crying and

rage. Three more were released with similar symptoms during the next few days.

• The study was called to a halt after six days due to the unforeseen effects on the prisoner

Conclusions

• Supports situational hypothesis- ps adopted the role they were assigned, even though they were randomly determined and they had no psychological abnormalities

• Conforming to social roles leads people to behave differently to how they normally would

AO3- does not fully support situational hypothesis

P- Zimbardo’s Research does not fully support the situational hypothesis

E- it fails to explain why not all the guards behaved equally aggressively towards the prisoners

E- some were reluctant to exercise their authority, whereas one guard in particular was seen as the ringleader- suggests individual differences play a part in the way someone responds to role expectations

L- Zimbardo’s assertion that situations cause people to behave in a particular way cannot be regarded as a stand alone explanation without taking other factors, such as biological predisposition to aggression or past experiences, in to account which combined with the situation may trigger the aggressive behaviour

AO3- lacks reliability

P- Research lacks reliability as others have failed to replicate Zimbardo’s original findings.

E- Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s original experiment on the BBC and their findings were very different to Zimbardo’s. The guards were unwilling to impose authority and the prisoners rapidly took charge if the prison. Following the breakdown of authority in the prison both groups attempted to establish a fair and equal social system. When this failed a small group of prisoners took control and the study was called off.

E- this could suggest that Zimbardo’s findings may have been a ‘one-off’ and caused by flaws in the methodology or his study may lack temporal validity, perhaps people are now less likely to conform to a role of it leads to negative outcomes for others. Maybe social roles are less rigidly defined now than in the past

L- decreases validity if Zimbardo’s research

AO3- ethical issues

P- there are many ethical issues with the way Zimbardo carried out his research

E- he has been criticised for not accurately assessing the potential impact on his participants and failing to fall off the procedure soon enough when it became clear that some of the participants were experiencing psychological harm. This was partly due to Zimbardo taking on the role of prison superintendent and therefore failing to create enough distance from the procedure to maintain professionalism in his role as psychologist - failed in his duty to protect from harm

E- also Zimbardo’s involvement in the study could have had an influence on the behaviour of the participants. He could have unknowingly cued them to behave in a particular way (investigator effects). The artificiality of the situation could have led to a change in behaviour due to demand characteristics, making the results invalid