conformity to social roles

social roles

the parts people play as members of various social groups, accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviours in each role

aim of Zimbardo's 1970s prison study

he wanted to explore how ordinary people would act if placed into a fake prison environment and given the role of either prisoner or guard

Stanford prison experiment- how were they recruited?

• Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford psychology department

• he recruited male volunteers and psychologically and physically screened them, the 24 most 'emotionally stable' were selected and paid $15 a day for 14 days

• they were randomly assigned prisoner or guard

Stanford Prison Experiment- how were prisoners treated?

• they were arrested at their homes without warning, charged, warned of their legal rights, spread eagled against the police car, searched and blindfolded

• they were taken to the basement and then stripped, sprayed with disinfectant, gven smocks to wear and a number to be referred to as their number

• they were allowed 3 meals and 3 supervised toilet trips a day and 2 visits per week

Stanford Prison Experiment- how were guards treated?

• they were given khaki uniforms , reflective sunglasses and carried wooden batons and whistles

• 3 guards worked each shift and were told to avoid physical aggression

• Zimbardo was the prison superintendent

Stanford Prison Experiment- prisoner findings

• they rebelled within 2 days, ripping their uniform, swearing at guards, shouting, this failed making them anxious and depressed

• one prisoner went on hunger strike and was punished by being put in a dark closet, he was released from the study on day 4 due to signs of psychological disturbance

• 5 prisoners were released early due to extreme reactions and it was forced to end after 6 days instead of 14

Stanford Prison Experiment- guard findings

• guards were enthusiastic, volunteering for unpaid shifts-they used fire extinguishers and eventually batons to maintain order

• they harassed prisoners using head counts, even at night, and punishments like chores

Stanford Prison Experiment- conclusions

• the participants seemed to forget it was a study and conformed to their role even when they were unaware of being watched eg one prisoner asked for parole when he wanted to leave

• its the situation not the personality that causes behaviour, the prison environment was important in creating the guards brutal behaviour

• people will readily conform to social roles

what does conformity research tell us about the importance of role?

• Zimbardo and Milgram's research suggests that situation can make people commit evil acts against their morals

• the role someone plays may be more important in determining behaviour than personality

strength of Stanford Prison Experiment- control

• Zimbardo could control key variables as selecting emotionally stable participants rules out any psychopathological reason for behaviour and randomly assigning participants to roles ruled out the role of personality in behaviour

• means that their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities

• this increases the internal validity so we can draw accurate conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity

weakness of Stanford Prison Experiment- lack of realism

• lacked realism of a real prison, Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) suggested participants were acting not conforming to a role, one guard said he based his role of a film character, prisoners rioted as they thought it was what real prisoners did

• these stereotypes may be what participants acted on not what they would really do in that role, demand characteristics

• tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

strength of stanford prison experiment- lack of realism counterpoint

• McDermott (2016) participants did behave as if the prison was real, 90% of prisoners conversations were about prison life (how to leave), prisoner 416 still thinks the prison was real but run by psychologists nit the government

• SPE may have replicated the roles of prisoners and guards well increasing internal validity

weakness of stanford prison experiment- exaggerating power of roles

• Fromm (1973) Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour

• only 1/3 guards showed brutal behaviour while 1/3 applied rules fairly and others tries to help prisoners by giving them privileges eg cigarettes

• suggests the could resist the pressure of conforming to the brutal role of guard, SPE overstates the guards were conforming to brutality and minimises dispositional influences

weakness of stanford prison experiment- alternative explanation

• Zimbardo suggested participants conformed because it comes naturally, those as guards would inevitably become brutal because its what we expect of the role.

• Reicher + Haslam (2006) suggested Zimbardo's explanation doesn't account for non brutal guards, social identity theory could explain it better as the guards had to identify with their social roles to act brutally

• shows its possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual doesn't identify with it

weakness of stanford prison experiment- ethics

• participants provided informed consent but didn't know what they were signing up for

• they were unaware of the arrest, brutality, rules and lack of opportunity to leave, Zimbardo became wrapped up in the study losing objectivity

• suggests the findings may not have been worth it as multiple participants showed signs of extreme emotional distress