Conformity - social roles

Question 1

social roles

Answer 1

The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behavior in each role - e.g. caring, obedient, industrious.

Question 2

Stanford prison experiment - aim

Answer 2

To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles in a simulated environment, and specifically, to investigate why ‘good people do bad things’.

Question 3

Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo (1973)
Set up/procedure

Answer 3

• Set up a mock prison in the basment of the psychology department at Stanford Uni
• Put up adverts to have volunteers
• Selected 21 men (student volunteers) that were tested as ‘emotionally stable’.
• Students were randomly assigned to play the role of prisoner or prison guard - encouraged to conform to socials roles both through the use of uniforms + instructions about their behavior
• Prison guards - told to wear hats + glasses, identified by numbers and had their own uniform to reflect their status. It created a loss of personality (de-individuation) so more likely to conform to social role.
• Zimbardo played the role of the superintendent

Question 4

Stanford prison experiement - findings

Answer 4

• Guards took up their role with enthusiam - treat prisoners harshly
• Within 2 days the prisoners rebelled - rip uniforms, shouted + swore so the guards used ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing prisoners off against each other. Harassed prisoners constantly - conducted frequent head counts
• The guards highlighted the difference between them by creating opportunities to enforce the rules + adminster punsihments
• 1 prisoner released as showed symptoms psychological disturbance
• 2 more released on the 4th day and 1 prisoner went on a hunger strike - guard tried to force feed him and punished him by putting him in the closet, tiny dark closet

Question 5

Stanford prison experiement - conclusions

Answer 5

• Guards behavior became increasingly brutal + aggressive - some enjoyed their power
• Zimbardo ended the sutdy after six days instead of intended 14
• He was advised by other psychologists that this was unethical (eval)
• Social roles have a strong influence on individuals’ behavior (prisoner - submissive/guard -brutal)
  *

Question 6

Strength

EVAL: Control

Answer 6

One strength of this experiment was that they had control over key variables. E.g. the selection of participants - by selecting emotionally-stable pps and randomly assigning them to roles it would rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If the pps behaved differently it would be to do with the role itself.
* So this degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study - more confidence in drawing conclusions about the influences of roles

Question 7

Weakness

EVAL: Lack of realism

Answer 7

One limitation would be that it did not have the realism of a true prison. Ali Banuazizi and Siamak Mocahedi (1975) argued that the pps were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to their role. These ‘performances’ are based on the stereotypes the pps knew - e.g. one guard said he based his role on a brutal character from the movie** Cool Hand Luke**. Could also explain prisoner behavior.
* Suggests the findings of this experiment tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

Question 8

Strength?

EVAL: Counter to lack of realism

Answer 8

Mark McDermott (2019) - argued that pps did behave as if the prison was real. e.g. 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life. Discussed how it was impossible to leave the experiment before there ‘sentences’ were over. ‘Prisoner 416’ - explained how he believed the prison was a real one but ran by psychologists rather than the government.
* Suggests the experiment did replicate the social roles of prisoners + guards in real life - gives the study a high degree of internal validity

Question 9

EVAL: exaggerates the power of roles

Answer 9

Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behavior (Fromm 1973). e.g. only one-third of guards actually behaved brutally, another third tried to apply rules fairly. The rest tried to help + support the prisoners (sympathised, offered cigs + reinstated privileges). Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.
* Suggests Zimbardo overtstated his view + minimised the inlfuence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)