Section 1 : Social Influence - Conformity To Social Roles

Question 1

What are social roles

Answer 1

Behaviours that society expect from you.

Question 2

What is an example of social roles

Answer 2

Mother has to fulfil her role as mother by loving and caring for her child

Question 3

Who set up a study for conformity to social roles

Answer 3

Zimbardo (1973)

Question 4

Zimbrado Aim

Answer 4

to see if people would conform to the assigned roles as prisoner or guard

Question 5

Zimbardo Procedure

Answer 5

A mock prison, Stanford University

21 Male students, volunteers, tested emotionally stable

randomly assigned roles

Zimbardo encouraged to conform to social roles

Social Roles enouraged by:
-Uniform, numbers de-individuation, guards sunglasses and handcuffs
-Instructions about behaviour, guards told had full power over prisoners, prisoners told they had to apply to leave

Z - observed behaviour of prisoners and guards

Question 6

Zimbardo Results

Answer 6

-Guards took on social roles, enforced difference, by assert authority over prisoners, swore, disrupted sleep
-Prisoners stuck together and then became more passive and obedient, hunger strike, depressed
-Experiment was abandoned early because some prisoners were very distressed

Question 7

What can we conclude about Zimbardo’s Prison Study

Answer 7

-Social roles influence individual behaviour, normal men become aggressive
-Concluded - conforming to social roles comes naturally
-Guards and Prisoners quickly adopted their roles.

Question 8

Zimbardo
Why can’t the study be generalised

Answer 8

Because it was an artificial environment meaning it cannot be generalised to real life situations

Question 9

Were there ethical problems with Zimbardo 1973

Answer 9

Yes, prisoners found the experience very distressing

Question 10

Weakness Obserever Bias

Answer 10

Zimbardo’s conclusions may be biased

one third of participants behaved aggressively

two thirds acted fairly (resisting social pressures to conform)

so the validity of his conclusions may be questioned

Zimbardo ran the prison himself and later admitted that he became too personally involved in the situation. The conclusion Zimbardo reached doesn’t expIain why some of the participants acted according to their roles

Question 11

Strength Zimbardo
High levels of control

Answer 11

lab experiment

emotionally stable participants were randomly assigned roles

increases validity as participants behaviour was deu to social roles not personality

random allocation reduces personality acting as an extraneous variable, enabling us to conclude behaviour was due to the situation

Question 12

Zimbardo Weakness
Ecological Validity

Answer 12

Study lacks ecological validity, was not a real prison, participants were aware of this

Question 13

Zimbardo Strength
Behaviour was realistic

Answer 13

McDermott argued behaviour was realistic

e.g. 90%conversations were related to prison life

one prisoner said it was a prison but run by psychologists

meaning social roles were replicated, increasing internal validity

Question 14

Zimbardo Weakness - DC

Answer 14

Demand characteristics - Banuazizi and Mohavedi - playacting not conforming

Question 15

Zimbardo strength - high internal validity

Answer 15

all participants were emotionally stable, conclude more confidently it was a cause and effect relationship

Question 16

Has anyone replicated Zimbardo’s prison study

Answer 16

No. This is down to design problems

Question 17

Have their been similar studies to Zimbardo’s Prison Study

Answer 17

Yes: Reicher and Haslam

Question 18

What was Reicher and Haslam (2006) - The BBC Prison Study

Answer 18

-A controlled observation, in a mock prison which was filmed for tv.
-15 All male participants (5 guards and 10 participants)
-Daily tests for depression, compliance with rules and stress
-Prisoners knew one prisoner chosen at random would become a guard after 3 days
-Ethics committee had power to stop experiment at any time to protect participants

Question 19

What were the results of Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Answer 19

-Guards failed to form a united group and identify with their role
-In the first 3 days, prisoners acted in a way that would get them promoted to a guard
-After one got promoted, they became stronger as no chance of promotion
-Unequal system between guard and system collapsed as unwillingness of the guards and strength of prisoner group.
-Day 6 prisoners rebelled and participants decided to live in democracy - this also collapsed
-Study was abandoned early on the advice of the ethics committee as participants showed signs of distress

Question 20

What is the conclusion of Reicher and Haslam

Answer 20

The participants didn’t fit into their expected social roles, suggesting that roles are flexible

Question 21

What were the evaluations of Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Answer 21

-Contrast in attitudes between prisoners (strong) and guards (weak)
-Criticised for being made for TV - argued that elements of the study were staged and participants played up for the cameras
-Results cannot be generalised - it was artificial situation
-Ethically study was good. Participants weren’t deceived so they were able to give informed consent
-Participants were protected and study abandoned after distressed appeared.