Conformity to Social roles Flashcards
Conformity to social roles
A social role refers to the different positions people occupy as members of society in general or through having certain positions within organised groups. We might have the role of parent, student, teacher, prison guard, nurse, patient etc. Each of these roles carries certain expectations of appropriate behaviour and attitudes. For example, a prison guard is expected to be strict, a nurse to be kind. Conformity to these social roles means how much we go along with and perform the expected behaviour once we adopt a particular social role.
Zimbardo’s investigations into conformity to social roles
Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues were motivated by the Attica Prison riots in New York in 1971 when prisoners reacted to the inhumane treatment by prison guards. Many died in the riots. They aimed to find out whether simply occupying the social role of prison guard would change people’s behaviour to conform to the behaviour associated with that role or whether prison guards are simply cruel and sadistic people.
Zimbardo’s research
Procedure:
A mock prison was made in the basement of the Psychology department of Stanford University. An advert asked for students to volunteer to take part in a prison role play for 2 weeks. Volunteers were rigorously assessed and those who were the most emotionally stable were selected to be in the study. They were randomly allocated the role of guard or prisoner.
The “prisoners” were unexpectedly arrested in their homes, blindfolded, strip searched, deloused and given a uniform of a smock and issued with a number. They were subsequently referred to only by their number. The prisoners had rules to follow and their daily routines were heavily regulated by the guards.
The guards had their own uniform with a club, handcuffs, bunch of keys and mirrored dark glasses. They were told that they had absolute power over the prisoners, even deciding when the prisoners could go to the toilet.
Results:
After the first few days, the guards became controlling and abusive towards the prisoners. They woke prisoners in the night, made them clean the toilets with their bare hands and forced them to carry out degrading and humiliating tasks. The prisoners rebelled, tore their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards. The guards responded with increasingly severe behaviour and used the prisoners against each other to regain control.
After the rebellion, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. Five prisoners were released early because of their extreme responses. One prisoner asked if he could have parole rather than asking to withdraw from the study. Another prisoner went on hunger strike.
After 6 days, the role play was terminated. A post graduate student Christina Maslach drew the researchers’ attention to the level of psychological harm that was developing. She reminded them that it was a research study that did not justify the level of abuse that the prisoners were being exposed to.
Conclusion:
The researchers concluded that people readily conform to the social role that they occupy. Behaviour is strongly influenced by social situations and people who behave badly are not necessarily bad people.
Evaluation, Zimbardo, ethical issues
There are serious ethical issues raised by Zimbardo’s research although it followed the guidelines of gaining fully informed consent from the participants and was approved by the ethical committee of Stanford University. The participants were exposed to considerable psychological harm during the study and the study continued even when it became clear that the prisoners were experiencing unacceptable levels of distress. Zimbardo and his colleagues thought very carefully about the ethics of their study but there were some things they overlooked and other things that they did not expect. It shows how difficult it is to anticipate ethical issues before conducting psychological investigations.
Evaluation, Zimbardo strengths
The research was well controlled in its examination of conformity to social roles so it was able to show that the behaviour seen was caused purely by the social roles that were occupied. The participants were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner so the behaviour that they demonstrated could be confidently attributed to their role and not to individual personality differences. This means that we can be confident of the conclusion that people readily conform to social roles.
Zimbardo argued that the prison environment was genuine and seemed like a prison to the prisoners. 90% of their conversations were about prison life and one prisoner said that it was a real prison but run by psychologists rather than the government. This suggests that the experience of being a prisoner was real and therefore we can be confident of the conclusion that people readily conform to social roles.
Another study had the staff of a psychiatric ward take on the role of being patients for a week to investigate conformity to social roles. The results showed that the mock patients became disturbed, cried uncontrollably and some tried to escape. These findings agree with Zimbardo’s research and so lend support to the conclusion that individuals readily conform to social roles.
Evaluation, Zimbardo criticism
Some have challenged the conclusion that people readily conform to social roles. Critics claimed that the participants in the study were showing demand characteristics and play acting rather than actually conforming to the social roles associated with guard or prisoner. They were behaving in response to strong indications within the research situation. This means that we cannot be confident of the conclusion that people readily conform to social roles.
Others say that Zimbardo’s study over-exaggerates the power of a social role because the behaviour of the prison guards varied widely. About a third were sadistic, others were keen to apply the rules fairly and some even tried to help the prisoners and did small favours for them. This suggests that people are able to choose how to behave when they adopt a social role, rather than having their behaved determined by the social role itself. This means that we cannot be confident of the conclusion that people readily conform to social roles.
