conformity to social roles

Question 1

Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

Answer 1

-saw high levels of aggression in American prisons wanted to find out if it was due to guards and prisoners dispositions.

Question 2

procedure

Answer 2

-fake prison Stanford uni basement, 21 male volunteers newspaper ad, randomly selected 10 guards and 11 prisoners, given a realistic arrest, stripped of individuality, strict rules guards in control given uniform, handcuffs, and sunglasses.

Question 3

findings

Answer 3

-within 2 days prisoners revolted as a result of harsh treatment, guards identified closely with their roles, highlighted the differences in social roles by punishment reminding them of how powerless they were

Question 4

evaluation

Answer 4

-lacks mundane realism, Banuazzi & Movahedi, pps play-acting didn’t conform to social roles, based on stereotypes (film, ‘cool hand Luke’) showing aggressive guards. Tells us little about conformity to social roles in prison.

Question 5

evaluation

Answer 5

-exaggerates power of roles to influence behaviour, Zimbardo argued prison makes situation makes guards and prisoners more aggressive, only 1/3 of guards were actually aggressive. Overestimated SPE pps were conforming to social roles, minimized influence of dispositional factors

Question 6

evaluation

Answer 6

-control over variables, ruled out individual personality traits by random allocation as an explanation for the findings. Behaved differently, but assigned by chance, behavior due to the role, increases internal validity