Conformity to social roles (3)

Who conducted the Stanford prison experiment?

Zimbardo

Who were the participants in Zimbardo’s study?

21 American male undergraduate students who were tested as ‘emotionally stable’

What was the procedure of Zimbardo’s study?

• The basement of Stanford university was converted into a simulated prison

• The students were randomly assigned to play the role of a prison guard or prisoner

• Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles

• Behaviour was observed

What 2 things were the prisoners and guards given for the experiment?

1. Uniforms

2. Instructions about behaviour

What uniforms were they given?

• Prisoners - Loose smock to wear, Identified by their number

• Guards - Had their own uniform (reflecting high status), wooden club, handcuffs

What was the point of the uniforms?

Loss of personal identity (de-individuation)

What instructions about behaviour were they given?

They were encouraged to identify with their role

E.g. instead of leaving the study early, prisoners could ‘apply for parole’

What were the findings of Zimbardo’s study?

• Identification occurred fast → prisoners and guards adopted their new roles

• Guards began to harass and torment prisoners in harsh and aggressive ways E.g. guards used ‘divide and rule’ tactic to play the prisoners off against each other.

• Prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms, shouting + swearing at guards

• After the rebellion, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious

• 1 was released due to psychological disturbance

• 1 prisoner went on hunger strike → The guards tried to force-feed him and punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ (tiny, dark closet)

• Guards identified more and more with their role, becoming more aggressive so Zimbardo had to end the study after 6 days instead of the intended 14.

What were the conclusions of Zimbardo’s study?

Social roles have a strong influence on behaviour

The roles were easily taken on by all participants → Guards became brutal and prisoners submissive

What is a strength of the Stanford prison experiment?

Control over key variables

E.g. Zimbardo’s selection of participants → Emotionally stable people were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner.

This ruled out individual personality differences.

This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study

What is a limitation of the Stanford prison experiment?

Lacks the realism of a true prison

Banuazizi and Movahedi argued the PPs were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role.

PPs performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.

E.g. one guard claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke.

This explains why the prisoners rioted → they thought that was what real prisoners did

This suggests that the findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

COUNTERPOINT

McDermott argues that the PPs did behave as if the prison was real to them.

E.g. 90% of the prisoner’s conversations were about prison life. They discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were over.

Prisoner 416 said he believed the prison was real.

This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles in a prison → HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY

What is another limitation of the Stanford prison experiment?

Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour

E.g. only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally

1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly

1/3 tried to help and support prisoners. They sympathised + offered cigs

Most guards resisted situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.

This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that participants would conform to social roles + minimised the influence of dispositional factors e.g personality