Conformity to social roles Flashcards
What was the aim of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?
To investigate the effects of social roles on conformity.
Where was the study conducted?
In the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department.
How many participants were involved?
21 male student volunteers.
How were participants selected?
Through psychological testing to ensure they were emotionally stable.
How were participants assigned roles?
Randomly allocated as either guards or prisoners.
How were social roles encouraged?
Through uniforms and specific instructions on behavior.
How did uniforms contribute to the study?
Prisoners were strip-searched, given uniforms, and referred to by numbers (de-individuation).
Guards wore uniforms, carried handcuffs, and enforced rules.
What instructions were given to prisoners?
They could not leave and had to request parole.
What instructions were given to guards?
They had complete power over the prisoners.
How did the guards initially behave?
They played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly.
How did the prisoners react at first?
They rebelled within two days, shouting, swearing, and ripping their uniforms.
How did the guards respond to the rebellion?
They used fire extinguishers, harassed prisoners, and reinforced their power.
How did prisoners’ behavior change after the rebellion?
They became subdued, anxious, and depressed.
Why were three prisoners released early?
They showed signs of psychological disturbance.
How long did the study last?
It was stopped after six days instead of the planned 14 days.
What did the study conclude about social roles?
Social roles have a powerful influence on behavior—guards became brutal, and prisoners became submissive.
strength of SPE social roles
One strength of the SPE is the control over key variables.
Emotionally-stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard or prisoner.
The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. So their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities.
This control increased the study’s internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity.
limitation (1) of SPE social roles
limitation is that the SPE lacked the realism of a true prison.
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest participants were play-acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.
One guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did.
This suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
limitation (2) of SPE social roles
limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles.
The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE (Fromm 1973).
Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and
reinstating privileges
This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (eg personality)
