SI - Zimbardo

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To investigate the effect of social roles on conformity

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

-> 21 male student volunteers
-> Psychological test showed they were “emotionally stable”
-> Randomly allocated role of guard/prisoner
-> Prisoners: strip-searched, given number, de-individualised
-> Guards: enforced rules, given uniform, had complete power over prisoners

Question 3

Guards/Prisoners Behaviour

Answer 3

-> Guards played roles enthusiastically, treated prisoners harsh
-> Prisoners rebelled within 2 days, ripped uniform, shouted/swore at guards

Question 4

How did the guards behaviour threaten the prisoners psychological & physical health?

Answer 4

-> After rebellion put down prisoners became subdued/depressed
-> 3 released early - showed signs of psychological disturbance
-> 1 went on hunger strike, guards attempted to force-feed, put in “the hole” as punishment
-> stopped after 6 days instead of planned 14

Question 5

Strength: control over key variables

Answer 5

Emotionally stable participants recruited & roles randomly allocated - so behaviour was due role & not personalities. Increases internal validity.

Question 6

Limitation: SPE lacked realism of real prison

Answer 6

Banuazizi & Mohavedi: suggested participants were play-acting. Performances reflected stereotypes. One guard based his role on film: ‘Cool Hand Luke’. Prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what they were meant to do. Tfore SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles.

Question 7

Limitation: Zimbardo exaggerated power of roles

Answer 7

Only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally. 1/3 applied rules fairly & 1/3 supported prisoners, e.g. offered them cigarettes. SPE overstates view that guards conformed to role & minimises dispositional factors - e.g. personality