Zimbardos prison experiment

Introduction – Conformity to Social Roles

Conformity to Social Roles: An individual adopts a particular behaviour and believe while in a particular social situation.

 E.g. Teachers will adopt the behaviour and beliefs of other teachers as they conform to their social role – this will be different to their behaviour with friends.

Type of Conformity: Identification 

Zimbardo (1971) – Stanford Prison Experiment Background

1960s America: There was a lot of brutality being reported among guards in American prisons.

Zimbardo wanted to know was it due to the

a) Sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e. dispositional, internal) or;

b) The prison environment (i.e. situational, external).

Aim: to measure the extent that people conformed to a social role

Sample: 24 male volunteers were in the study who responded to an advert and were paid $15 per day.

Psychological tests were conducted prior to the study – they were all emotionally stable.Participants were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner.

Procedure: Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University for added realism.

 Social roles were enforced by:

1. Uniform

Prisoners were arrested from their homes,strip searched, delouse, given a numbered smock uniform, chains placed around their ankles, and an identification number.Also blindfolded so didn’t where they were

Guards enforced rules, had a uniform, handcuffs, a baton and dark reflective

sunglasses(can’t see their eyes which loses their humanity) this was to add realism and get them to identify with their role better than if they were wearing normal clothes

Procedure: Social roles were enforced by

2. Instructions about behaviour

Prisoners were told they could not leave but would have to ask for parole.this causes ethical issues as ptts aren’t given the option to withdraw consent.

Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners but should run the prison without physical violence.They used humiliation tactics.Guards figured out the aim of the study and thought they had to prove it right that prisons are brutal places so they should do their part creating demand characteristics 

Zimbardo took the role of Superintendent/Warden.

This was planned to be a two week study.

Findings: All participants quickly identified with their roles

1. Prisoners Rebelled within 2 days (ripped uniforms off and swore at guards) identified with their role as that’s what they thought prisoners would do

2. Guards Aimed to Crush the Rebellion: retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prisoners (frequent head counts, including in the middle of the night)

3. Guards Became Abusive: Prisoners were woken in the night to stop them from sleeping and forced to clean the toilets with their hands among other degrading jobs. Some guards were so dedicated to the study they did unpaid overtime-may have liked the power it had given them

4. Prisoners became increasingly submissive to the guards and identified more with the subordinate role – they gave up.

Conclusions

 5 of the 6 prisoners were let go early due to their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment e.g. uncontrollable crying, anxiety and depression symptoms.

 The study was stopped on day 6 – a fellow postgraduate researcher had to convince Zimbardo that his experiment was cruel and inhumane. He couldn’t see it as he was embedded in the experiment through his role as warden.

1. Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour – most confirmed strongly into their role even if it went against their morals.

2. Guards become brutal, prisoners became submissive – situational factors largely responsible as individuals had never demonstrated these behaviours before

Evaluation

 Strengths (AO3)

 Emotionally-stable participants were in the study and were randomly allocated to either prison OR guard, this is chance. So their behaviour was due to the role itself – not personality.

High control in a lab experiment which increases the internal validity, therefore can conclude the effect of social roles on conformity

Weaknesses (AO3)

 Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggests participants were play-acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to

behave. I.e. prisoners rioted as they believed that’s what happened in real prisons.

 This implies that the study tells us little about conformity to actual prisoners = low external

validity (ecological)

 The power of social roles to influence may have been exaggerated in the Stanford

prison experiment, 1/3 of guards behaved brutally. 1/3 applied the rules fairly. The last

1/3 supported the prisoners (reinstating privileges/offering support/empathy).

 This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles,

dispositional factors such as personality also play a role – he overstated.

Real World Application (AO3)

Stanford Prison Relevance to Abu Ghraib (Iraq war)

The same conformity to social role effect evidenced in Zimbardo's study was also present in Abu Ghraib military prison.

Zimbardo believed the guards who committed the abuses were the victims of situational factors (no accountability to a higher authority/lack of training/boredom) that made abuse more likely.

 Opportunity to misuse power associated with the role of guard led to the abuse of prisoners in both the study and Abu Ghraib.