socal influence -> conformity: Stanford Prison Experiment

Question 1

Who did research into conformity to social roles?

Answer 1

Zimbardo et.al (1973)

Question 2

What are social roles?

Answer 2

A “socially defined pattern of behaviour that is expected of persons who occupy a certain social position or belong to a particular social category”

Question 3

What does conformity to social roles represent?

Answer 3

Identification
-> where a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs but only while they are in a particular social role

Question 4

What was the aim of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?

Answer 4

• To examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner when placed in a mock prison environment
• To also examine whether behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, or external situational factors

Question 5

What was the procedure/methodology of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?

Answer 5

1) Zimbardo’s sample consisted of 21 male university students volunteered in response to newspaper advert
2) The participants were selected from 75 volunteers on the basis of their physical mental stability and were each paid $15 a day
3) Each participant as randomly assigned to one of two roles, prisoner or guard
4) Zimbardo created a simulated prison environment set up in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
5) Prisoners experienced unexpected arrests at home, were deloused, given prison uniforms and ID numbers, with chains placed around their ankles
6) The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses, handcuffs and a truncheon -> led to de-individualisation, making them more likely to conform to the perceived social role
7) The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence and was set to run for two weeks
8) Zimbardo oversaw the experiment in the roles of the chief prison superintendent and lead investigator

Question 6

What were the results of Zimbardo’s experiment?

Answer 6

• Prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles
• Within 2 days, the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners
• The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands
• The prisoners become increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role
• One prisoner was released on the first day because he showed signs of psychological disturbance

Question 7

What were the conclusions of Zimbardo’s experiment?

Answer 7

• Revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour
• Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their social roles within the prison
• Will conform even when the role goes against their moral principles
• Situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour demonstrated
• Zimbardo concluded that social roles and situational forces determined the behaviour more than disposition

Question 8

Evaluation: Some control of variables -> strength

Answer 8

• For example, the selection of participants
• The guards and prisoners were selected using testing and checks to ensure that they were emotionally stable
• They were then randomly allocated to the role of either prisoner or guard
• This was to rule out extraneous variables such as individual personality differences
• if the guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, this suggests that their behaviour is due to the situation rather than their disposition
• This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity

Question 9

Evaluation: the ethics of the study were a serious concern -> limitation

Answer 9

• Zimbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm
• Several prisoners showed signs of extreme emotional disturbance e.g. humiliated, caused short term distress - at least one ‘prisoner’ appeared to have a serious emotional breakdown and was allowed to leave the study and with possible long-term effects
• Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment
• Despite having the right to withdraw, the experiment’s immersive nature made it psychologically difficult for them to exercise that right
• Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledged that the study should have been stopped earlier but it has been suggested that he was responding more in the role of superintendent of the prison rather than the researcher with responsibility for his participants

Question 10

Counterpoint for ethical issues as a limitation:

Answer 10

However, because the findings are very significant and have many real-world applications e.g. to improve the US prison system, this might justify the harm caused to the participants

Question 11

Evaluation: Too simplistic -> limitation

Answer 11

• Exaggerates the power of the situation on behaviour, and minimises the role of personality/ disposition
• For example, only a minority of guards (1/3) behaved in a brutal manner
• The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstated privileges (Zimbardo 2007)
• One guard in particular (Dave Eschelmen aka John Wayne) appeared to generate much of the behaviour
• Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
• This suggests that the differences in the guard’s behaviour was as much due to dispositional factors as well as situational factors, implying that Zimbardo’s conclusion could have been overstated