1 Social Influence- Conformity P2 Flashcards
what study investigated conformity to social roles?
the 1971 Phillip Zimbardo study
-The Stanford Prison Experiment
what year did the prison experiment occur?
1971
what type of conformity did the Stanford prison experiment look at?
identification
-behaving in a way they think is expected of them
what was the aim of the Stanford prison experiment
to investigate whether the brutality reported among guards in America prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards or had more to do with the prison environment
(dispositional or situational)
what did Zimbardo predict about why people conform?
the situation made people act the way they do rather than their disposition (personality)
-they conform to social roles they are assigned to and change their behaviour to fit this
procedures of the Stanford prison experiment
controlled participant observation simulating a prison in the basement of Stanford University
-participants knew they were being watched
what sampling method was used for the Stanford prison experiment?
volunteer
how were the ppts assinged to their roles?
random allocation
-rules out investigator bias
-could spread participant variables out
what were ppts assessed for prior to starting the study?
they checked to see if they were psychologically fit and healthy to participate, and didn’t have any abnormalities
-controlled for ppt variables
-to ensure there were no natural predispositions
what were the guards briefed about prior to the study?
‘to maintain law and order’
‘you can create a sense of fear in them and a notion that their life is totally controlled’
‘you can’t use physical violence’
how did they try to make the experience as realistic as possible for the prisoners
-they were arrested outside of their home and did not know about it
-wore very white degrading outfits
-guards wore uniforms with reflecting glasses so they can’t see eyes
-prisoners had names replaced with numbers
how did the guards conform to their roles?
-started getting angry and made prisoners do cruel activities to show their authority
-they kept escalating level of dominance and authority
-guard created his own role ‘John Wayne’
-insulted prisoners even if it went against their moral conscious
how did the prisoners conform to their roles?
-felt hopeless and out of control
-hunger strikes and rebellions
-eventually they accepted their submissive role, refusing to challenge the authority guard figures
name 5 of the relevant details from the BPS ethical guidelines
harm to participants
informed consent
deception
right to withdraw
debrief
what does Can Do Can’t Do With Participants stand for?
Consent
Deception
Confidentiality
Debrief
Withdrawal
Psychological/ Physical harm
informed consent in the Stanford prison experiment
+ ppts were told the aim of the study and gained informed consent beforehand
- were not told about being arrested at the start from their homes
- were not explictly told it was a study about conforming to social roles
debrief in the Stanford prison experiment
+ they were debriefed after the 6 days when the study ended
-ended the study after 6 days as the conditions were unaccpetable
right to withdraw in the Stanford prison experiment
+ they were all given the right to withdraw
- they felt pressured to stay and one prisoner spread fake information that they could not leave
harm in the Stanford prison experiment
+ there was no physical harm, guards were told they cannot harm the prisoners- symbolic sticks
- ‘John Wayne’ guard felt guilty and disgust about how he behaved towards prisoners
- verbal abuse and insults said to the prisoners
-prisoners accepted their submissive roles as they felt hopeless and out of control
deception in the Stanford prison experiment
+ they knew the aim
+ knew it was a prison stimulation study
+ knew all procedures and agreed to it
- were not told about being arrested form their homes
were participants given a debrief at the end?
yes
-they came together at the end to reflect on what had happened
-Zimbardo explained the study results and findings
-but conditions were unacceptable and extremely and was unethical in the moment- guidelines were followed
what was Reicher and Haslam (2006) study?
they conducted a replication of zimbardo’s study
-funded by the BBC
-their findings were inconsistent as the prisoners dominated over the guards
what does Reicher and Haslam (2006) study tell us about the reliability of Zimbardo’s study?
it is low in reliability
-the guards failed to identify with their roles, they were reluctant to impose their authority, eventually becoming overcome by the prisoners.
was Zimbardo’s findings generalisable?
no, the sample was male students from Stanford University (androcentric)
-low population validity
-not representative of the wider population
was Zimbardo’s findings reliable?
no, not reliable
-Reicher and Haslam found his research was inconsistent
-guards did not conform to social roles
-the method could not be repeated, even using a similar design and procedures
are there any practical applications of Zimbardo’s research?
-situational variables cause these behaviours
-his findings have been highly useful in helping us to understand how such behaviour can occur and therefore what steps can be taken to prevent it
did Zimbardo’s research have internal validity?
yes. random allocation was used to be assigned roles, and ppts were assessed previously for any psychological abnormalities
-control for participant variables
-clear cause and effect
but, how could Zimbardo’s research lack internal validity?
Zimbardo took on the superintendent role in the study
-potential investigator bias
-his research may actually tell us very little about the true extent to which participants conformed to social roles
