Conformity to Social Roles: Zimbardo's Research Flashcards
What was the name of Zimbardo’s research?
The Stanford prison experiment.
What was the procedure in Zimbardo’s’ SPE?
Set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. They advertised for volunteers and selected 24 people deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological testing. Random allocation of guards and prisoners. Prisoners arrested at their home, given a uniform and ID number. Social roles of both groups strictly divided. prisoners had 16 rules to follow, enforced by guards who worked in 3’s at one time. The prisoners were referred to by their number, not name. Guards had own uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. They had complete power over the prisoners (even the toilet).
How did the guards in Zimbardo’s SPE take up their role?
With enthusiasm.
How long did the study last? How long should it have lasted?
Behaviour became threat to prisoners physical/ psychological health, study stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14.
What were the findings of Zimbardo’s SPE?
First few days, guards grew increasingly tyrannical and abusive towards the prisoners. They forced the prisoners to do degrading activities (clean toilets with bare hands). When 1 prisoner had enough, they asked for parole not to withdraw. 5 prisoners were released early because of extreme reactions, symptoms started after just 2 days. After 6 days, Zimbardo was reminded it was just a psychological study and it did not justify the abuse. Both demonstrated conforming to their social role. Guards became increasingly sadistic and prisoners became increasingly passive.
What was the conclusion from Zimbardo’s SPE?
Revealed the power of the situation to influence peoples behaviour. Guards and prisoners conformed to their social roles and this was taken on very quickly.
Evaluation of Zimbardo- What did Haslam and Reicher’s 2006 BBC prison study find?
Lack of research support. This study had very different findings to Zimbardo’s. The prisoners took control of the mock prison and disobeyed/ harassed the guards. They used social identity theory to explain the outcome. Its argued that because the guards failed to develop a shared social identify as a cohesive group, but the prisoners did. They identified themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned role.
Evaluation of Zimbardo- Control of variables?
A strength is that Zimbardo had some control over the variables. Most obvious example- selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals chosen and randomly assigned prisoner or guard. This tried to stop individual personality differences- if prisoners and guards behaved differently, but roles were by chance, that must have been due to the pressures of the situation. Controlled variables= increased internal validity which means we can be more confident drawing conclusions.
Evaluation of Zimbardo- Lack of realism?
Banuazizi and Mohavedi argued ppts were merely play acting based on stereotypes. E.g. one guard claimed he base his character off of a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why prisoners rioted. But Zimbardo had evidence to suggest it was very real. 90% prisoner conversations were about prison life. ‘Prisoner 416’ believed it was a real prison bur run by psychologists rather than the govt. Real to ppts= high internal validity.
