conformity - to social roles (zimbardo)

Question 1

when was the stanford prison experiment (SPE) conducted

Answer 1

zimbardo et al. (1973)

Question 2

aim

Answer 2

whether people will conform to new social roles

Question 3

procedure

Answer 3

• zimbardo set up mock prison in basement of psych department at stanford university
• selected 24 male students via a volunteer sample from a newspaper advert
• tested students for emotional stability
• randomly allocated role of guard/prisoner
• prisoners arrested at home (unexpectedly) & taken to university
• they were stripped, sprayed & given prison uniform/number
• 24 hours a day locked in cells

Question 4

uniform of prisoners/guards
–> significance

Answer 4

prisoners:
- loose smock & cap

guards:
- own uniform with wooden club, handcuffs & sunglasses (reflect status of role)

significance = created loss of personal identity (deindividualization)

Question 5

examples of instructions regarding behaviour given to prisoners/guards

Answer 5

prisoners = several ways eg. they could ‘apply for parole’ if wanted to leave study early

guards = encouraged to adhere to role by being reminded they had complete authority over prisoners

Question 6

results (prisoners)

Answer 6

• held rebellion near beginning
• damaged prisoners wellbeing - eg ‘burning up inside’
• became subdued, depressed & anxious
• hunger strike by 1 = locked in hole
• forgot true nature (distorted reality & loss of identity)
• 2 tried to escape
• some prisoners released

Question 7

results - guards

Answer 7

• violent
• ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics (eg. obedient ones received good food)
• used fire extinguisher to force prisoners out of cells if refused
• enthusiastic
• guards became more sadistic

Question 8

when did study end

Answer 8

after 6 days instead of 14

Question 9

conclusion for SPE by zimbardo in 1970s

Answer 9

all of the participants conformed to their roles (even volunteers, eg. prison chaplain, did when inside the prison) which many had perceived from external media sources

Question 10

AO3 +) control over key variables

Answer 10

E:
- selected emotionally-stable participants & randomly assigned to role of guard or prisoner
- enabled researchers to eliminate individual personality differences as an explanation for findings

T: increased internal validity of study as researchers had control over key variables, allowing them to draw confident conclusions about influence of roles on conformity

Question 11

AO3 -) lacked realism of true prison
+) counterpoint

Answer 11

E:
- Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) argued participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to role
- performances were based on stereotypes of how they believed prisoners and guards should behave
- eg. one guard based his performance on brutal character from film ‘cool hand luke’

T: suggests findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

HOWEVER: McDermott (2019) argues participants behaved as if the prison was real as 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life, and ‘prisoner 416’ later admitted to believing the prison was real but run by psychologists (not the government)

Question 12

AO3 -) zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles on behaviour (fromm 1973)

Answer 12

E:
- only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal manner
- another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly
- the rest of the guards actively tried to help/support the prisoners, such as sympathising, offering cigarettes and reinstating priviliges (zimbardo 2007)
- most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role

T: zimbardo overstated his view that the participants were conforming to social roles & minimised the influence of dispositional factors