Conformity to Social Roles

Who investigated conformity into social roles

Zimbardo4

SPE procedure

• Mock prison set up in basement of Stanford University

• 24 most stable physically & psychologically screened American male University student volunteers participated

  • Randomly assigned prisoner or guard

• Prisoners unexpectedly arrested at home, were put thru normal prisoner procedure upon entry; given prison uniform, & ID no.

• Prisoners allowed certain rights (3 meals & supervised toilet trips a day, 2 visits a week)

• Guards had uniforms, clubs, whistles

• Zimbardo was Prison Superintendent

• Planned to last 2 weeks

SPE Findings

• First few days, guards became increasingly abusive 

  • Made prisoners carry out degrading activities 

  • Few were ‘good guards’

• Participants conformed to roles, even when unaware of being watched 

• 5 prisoners released early due to extreme reactions (acute anxiety, rage, crying) post 2 days

• Study terminated after 6 days 

SPE conclusion

Study demonstrated guards & prisoners conformed to their social roles

• Guards became increasingly sadistic & cruel

• Prisoners became increasingly passive & accepting 

DIS1: Ethical issues

P: Zimbardo’s study is criticised for being unethical, despite the fact it followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee that has approved it.

(Ev)Ex: Despite this, Zimbardo acknowledges that the study should’ve been stopped earlier as so many participants were experiencing emotional distress. He attempted to make amends by carrying out debriefing sessions for several years afterwards & concluded that there were no long lasting effects.

L: Recognising the potential for harm, Reicher & Haslam used the same basic set-up as Zimbardo, but took steps to minimise the potential harm to their participants. Created a situation that was harsh & testing, but not harmful. 

AD1: Internal Validity

P: Zimbardo attempted to control extraneous variables

Ev: Selection process of participants by ensuring participants that were emotionally & physically stable were assigned prisoner or guard

Ex: This is how effect of individual differences was trying to be removed.

L: It could be argued the study has good internal validity because Z could be more sure it was the situation that caused the behaviour displayed.

DIS2: Demand characteristics

P: Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) argued the behaviour of participants was a consequence of demand characteristics rather than conformity to roles.

Ev: Presented some details to large sample of students who hadn’t heard of the study.

Ex: Majority correctly guessed the purpose was to show that ordinary people assigned role of guard or prisoner would act like real ones, also predicted correctly how guards & prisoners would act

L: Suggests behaviour of Z’s guards & prisoners wasn’t due to their response to a ‘compelling prison experiment’, but was a response to demand characteristics

DIS3: Opposing research

P: Reicher & Haslam replicated research, assigned 15 men to role of prisoner or guard. Participants didn’t conform to social roles automatically

Ev: Guards didn’t identify w. status & refused to impose authority, prisoners identified as group to challenge guard’s authority, resulted in shift in power & collapse of prison system

Ex: Supports social identity theory. Not to mention, in SPE, there were few guards who didn’t degrade or harass prisoners.

L: Results contradict Z’s. Conformity to social roles not automatic, as Z suggested. Guards chose how to behave.