Conformity to Social Roles: Zimbardo's Research Flashcards
Key terms:
Social roles = The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. Everyday examples include parent, child, student, passenger and so on. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role - e.g. caring, obedient, industrious, etc.
Internal validity = A kind of validity, concerned with what goes on inside a study - the extent to which the researcher is measuring what was intended. In an experiment, this includes the control of variables to ensure that changes in the DV are solely due to the IV.
Quantitative data = Data that can be counted, usually given as numbers.
Dispositional factors/influences = Individudal characteristics that influence behaviour and actions in a person.
Procedure
Zimbardo (1971) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. They advertised for students willing to volunteer and selected those deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological testing. The students were randomly assigned the roles of guards or prisoners. To heighten the realism of the study, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested in their homes by the local police and were then delivered to the ‘prison’. They were blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and number.
The social roles of the prisoners and the guards were strictly divided. The prisoners’ daily routines were heavily regulated. There were 16 rules they had to follow, which were enforced be guards who worked in shifts of 3 at a time. The prisoners’ names were never used, only their numbers.
The guards, to underline their role, had their own uniform, complete with a wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirrored shades. They were told they had complete power over the prisoners - for instance even deciding when they could go to the toilet.
What were the findings?
After a slow start, the guards took up their roles with enthusiasm. Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health, resulting in the study being stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14.
Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment - they ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers. The guards employed ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other. They constantly harassed the prisoners, to remind them they were being monitored all the time. E.g. they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes in the middle of the night, when prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers. The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating plenty of opportunities to enforce rules and punish even the smallest disdemeanour.
After their rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. One prisoner was released on the first day because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the fourth day. One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards attempted to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ (a tiny dark closet). Instead of being considered a hero, he was shunned by the other prisoners. The guards identified more and more closely with their role. Their behaviour became brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had.
Conclusions from Zimbardo’s research
The simulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison. These role were very easily taken on by the ppts - even volunteers who came in to perform certain functions (such as ‘prison chaplain’) found themselves behaving as if they were in a real prison rather than a psychological study.
Evaluation of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
+ Zimbardo and his colleagues had some control lover variables which the increases internal validity of the study, so we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on behaviour. The most obvious example of how they had control was through the selection of ppts. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to their role. This was one way in which the researchers tried to rule out individual personality differences - so their behaviour must have been due to the pressures of the situation.
- Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975) argued that ppts were merely play-acting Their performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are ‘supposed’ to behave. For example, one guard claimed he’d based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - because they thought that was what real prisoners did. However, Zimbardo pointed to evidence that the situation was very real to the ppts through quantitative data gathered during the procedure that showed that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life - ‘Prisoner 416’ expressed the view that the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government. So this actually increases internal validity because the situation felt real to the ppts.
- Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour, and minimising the role of personality factors (dispositional influences). Only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third were keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners - sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggest that Zimbardo’s conclusion may be over-stated. The differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate that they were able to exercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational pressures to conform to a role.
