conformity to social roles - zimbardo Flashcards
1
Q
what are social roles
A
behaviours that society expects from you or others in certain roles
e.g: a student is expected to be obedient
2
Q
aim of zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment
A
- to see if people would conform to the social roles of guards and prisoners
- to see if prison guards behaved brutally because they have sadistic personalities, or was it the situation that created the behaviour (wanted to know after prison riots in America)
3
Q
zimbardo method
A
- set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford university
- selected 21 male university student volunteers from a newspaper advertisement, tested if they were mentally stable
- were “arrested” from their homes
- randomly assigned to role of guard or prisoner
4
Q
method - how were the guards/prisoners encouraged to conform to their social roles
A
- prisoners were identified by numbers, given loose smock and cap to wear
- guards wore uniforms reflecting status of their role, given clubs and sunglasses
- uniforms created loss of personal identity- de-individuation
5
Q
zimbardo results - rebellion
A
- prisoners and guards quickly identified with their new social roles
- within two days prisoners rebelled; they ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at guards
- guards stopped this by using ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing prisoners against each other + harassed them constantly to remind them of their powerlessness
6
Q
zimbardo’s results - brutality of guards
A
- as prisoners became more submissive, guards became more aggressive/ assertive taking on their social roles easily
- one prisoner released as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance
- Guards force-fed a prisoner who went on hunger strike and punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ (dark closet)
7
Q
zimbardo’s results - end of experiment
A
Zimbardo ended the experiment after six days instead of the 14 originally planned
8
Q
zimbardo conclusion
A
- ocial roles had a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour in this study
- people quick to conform to social roles
- situational factors were largely responsible to behaviour as ppts never demonstrated this behaviour previously
9
Q
strength - control over variables
A
- selection of the ppts: tested if they were emotionally stable to take part, randomly assigned to roles of guard/ prisoner
- rules out individual personality differences as guards and prisoners behaved differently, but were due to chance so differences must be due to the roles itself
- increases internal validity, can be more confident of conclusions
10
Q
limitation - lack of realism
A
- didn’t have realism of a true prison
- Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued ppts were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to roles, basing their actions on guard/ prisoner stereotypes
11
Q
limitation - lack of realism proof
A
- One guard claimed he based his character from a stereotypical guard in the film Cool Hand Luke
- reducing the validity of the findings- suggests findings tell us little about conformity as lacks ecological validity
12
Q
Llack of realism - counter argument
A
- Mark McDermott (2019) argued ppts did behave as if prison was real
- e.g 90% of prisoners conversation were about prison life
- one ppts believed prison was real, but run by psychologists rather than the government
- suggests SPE did replicate social roles of real guards/ prisoners, increasing internal validity of study
13
Q
limitation - exaggerated power of roles
A
- From 1973 suggests Zimbardo may have exaggerated power of social roles to influence behaviour
- E.G. Only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly, rest actively tried to help prisoners as sympathised (offered cigarettes)
14
Q
limitation - exaggerated power of roles, what does this suggest
A
- most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform to brutal role
- suggests Zimbardo overstated his view that ppts conformed to social roles and minimised influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)
