Conformity to social roles- Stanford prison

What was the aim of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

To investigate whether prison guards behave brutally due to sadistic personalities (dispositional factors) or if it is the situation (situational factors) that leads to such behaviour — i.e., whether people conform to social roles.

Who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment and when?

Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues conducted the experiment in 1971 at Stanford University.

What was the procedure of the Stanford Prison Experiment?

A mock prison was set up in Stanford's psychology department basement.

21 male volunteers (psychologically screened as emotionally stable) were selected from 75 applicants.

Participants were randomly assigned to roles of guard or prisoner.

Prisoners were arrested at home, blindfolded, strip-searched, given uniforms and ID numbers.

Guards were given uniforms, wooden clubs, handcuffs, keys, and mirror sunglasses to de-individualise them and reinforce power.

What happened during the experiment?

Prisoners and guards identified with their roles quickly.

Within two days, prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms and barricading themselves.

Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers, divide-and-rule tactics, and harsh punishments.

Prisoners experienced severe emotional distress; one released after 1 day, two more after 4 days.

A prisoner went on a hunger strike and was punished with solitary confinement ("The Hole").

The study was terminated after 6 days (planned 14), due to concerns raised by Zimbardo's partner, Christina Maslach.

What was the conclusion of the experiment?

Participants conformed to social roles even when it conflicted with their morals.

→ The situation (social roles and environment) can cause people to act in brutal or extreme ways — not necessarily personality.

Evaluation - Ethical Issues

❌ Psychological harm - Participants experienced extreme stress, anxiety, and emotional breakdowns.

❌ Lack of informed consent - Some procedures (e.g., home arrests) were not fully disclosed.

Zimbardo's response:

✅ Participants were psychologically screened beforehand.

✅ The study was stopped early once ethical concerns arose.

Evaluation - Lack of Generalisability

❌ The sample included only American male students.→ Findings may not generalise to females or individuals from other cultures.

Counterpoint:

✅ Can help explain real-world events of brutality, such as Abu Ghraib prison abuses.

Evaluation - Lack of Ecological Validity

❌ Demand characteristics - Participants may have acted how they believed guards/prisoners should act.→

Behaviour may have been role play, not genuine conformity.

Zimbardo's response

:✅ 90% of conversations were about prison life → suggesting participants saw it as realistic.

✅ Emotional reactions were intense and genuine

Evaluation - Zimbardo's Dual Role

❌ Zimbardo acted as both researcher and prison superintendent, possibly affecting objectivity.→ Investigator effects may have influenced the study outcome.

Real-Life Application

✅ Helps us understand how social roles and the power of the situation can lead to inhumane behaviour.

✅ Relevant in explaining institutional abuses (e.g., military prisons).