conformity - to social roles (zimbardo)

Question 1

aim

Answer 1

whether people will conform to new social roles

Question 2

procedure

Answer 2

• zimbardo set up mock prison in basement of psych department at stanford university
• selected 24 students via a volunteer sample from a newspaper advert –> tested 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 3

uniform of prisoners/guards
–> significance

Answer 3

prisoners:
- loose smock & cap to cover hair

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

significance = loss of personal identity (deindividualization)

Question 4

examples of instructions regarding behaviour given to prisoners/guards

Answer 4

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 5

results - prisoners

Answer 5

• held rebellion near beginning
• damaged prisoners wellbeing - eg ‘burning up inside’
• towards end: accepted what was happening = subdued
• hunger strike by 1 = locked in hole
• forgot true nature - distorted reality & loss of identity
• 2 tried to escape
• became depressed & anxious

Question 6

results - guards

Answer 6

• violent
• dividing rule tactics (split apart prisoners) eg. obedient ones received good food
• used fire extinguisher to force prisoners out of cells if refused
• enthusiastic
• guards became more sadistic

Question 7

conclusion for SPE by zimbardo in 1970s

Answer 7

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 8

evaluation of SPE (Zimbardo 1970s) AO3

Answer 8

+)
P: control over key variables
E: eg. selection of participants. they chose emotionally-stable individuals & randomly-assigned them to the role of guard or prisoner. this was 1 way that individual personality differences were ruled out as an explanation for the findings.
T: increased internal validity so conclusions can be confidently drawn about the influence of social roles on conformity

-)
P: not have realism of true prison
E: eg. banuazizi & movahedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to role. performances were based on stereotypes - eg. 1 of the guards based their performance off a brutal character from the film ‘cool hand luke’.
T: suggests findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
COUNTERPOINT^
E: mcdermott (2019) argues the participants did behave as if it was a real prison. eg. 90% of the prisoners conversations were on prison life & ‘prisoner 146’ later said how he believed the prison was real but run by psychologists instead of the government
T: suggests the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners/guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity

-)
P: zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
E: eg. only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner. another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly & the reset actively helped the prisoners - they sympathised, offered cigarettes & reinstated privileges (zimbardo 2007). most guards resisted 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 (eg. personality)