Social Influence- Conformity To Social Roles: Zimbardo’s Research Flashcards
Name of Zimbardo’s experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment (1973)
Aim of Stanford Prison Experiment
To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life
Procedure of Stanford Prison Experiment
-Advertised for students willing to volunteer to be part of the experiment in the newspaper
-His sample consisted of 24 ‘emotionally stable’ (determined by psychological testing) male Stanford university students, who were randomly assigned to the role of a guard or prisoner
-To increase realism and de-individualise the ps, ‘prisoners’ were arrested by local police in their homes and delivered to the ‘prison’ blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and a number
-The guards were given uniforms, mirror shades, handcuffs and a wooden club. They were instructed not to inflict any physical harm onto prisoners
-The prisoner’s daily routines were heavily regulated. There were 16 rules to follow, enforced by guards working in shifts, three at a time. The experiment was set to run for 2 weeks.
Findings
-the prisoners rebelled within 2 days, which was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards them
-the guards took up their role with enthusiasm and dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role
-the guards behaviour threatened the prisoners’ psychological and physical health: after the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed; these 3 prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance; one prisoner went on a hunger strike; the guards attempted to force feed him and punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’, a tiny dark closet
-the study had to be stopped after 6 days instead of the full 2 weeks.
Conclusion
-Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles
-The simulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their social roles within the prison
-The more the guards identified with their social role, the more brutal and aggressive their behaviour became
-Therefore roles affect behaviour and behaviour is influenced by a loss of identity
Strengths of Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment (AO3)
-high levels of internal validity- before the study began all the ps were screened to ensure that they were emotionally stable and were randomly assigned the roles of prisoner or guard. The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. So their behaviour was due to the pressures of the situation and not their personalities, allowing a cause and effect relationship to be established. This is a strength because it meant Zimbardo could be sure any changes in behaviour were caused by conformity and their roles.
-led to major positive changes within society- following the experiment, the way US prisons are run have been altered. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners (due to the risk of violence against them). On top of this, the harmful treatment of ps led to the formal recognition of ethical guidelines by the American Psychological Association. Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. This is a strength because the experiment pointed out where areas of society needed change by showing how different environments can affect people’s safety and well-being
Limitations of Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment (AO3)
-lack of research support- Reicher and Haslam (2006) replicated the study and found that ps did not conform to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoner’s identified as a group to challenge the guard’s authority, which resulted in a shift of power and a collapse of the prison system. This is a limitation as these results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggests that conformity to social roles may not be automatic
-individual differences and personality- the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour displayed by 1/3 of guards, to a few guards who sympathised with prisoners. This is a limitation as it suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles, and dispositions factors such as personality also play a role, implying that Zimbardo’s conclusion could have been over-stated. Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour
-lacked population validity- Zimbardo only used American male ps in his sample showing a beta bias. Both androcentric and cultural bias. It is therefore likely that his research ignores or minimises the differences between men and women in relation to conformity to social roles and meaning it is unable to conclude whether females conform to social roles in a similar way. Furthermore, America is an individualist culture (where people are generally less conforming) and the results may be different in a collectivist culture (such as Asian countries). This is a limitation as it means the results of the study cannot be generalised to the entire population as females and other cultures may not conform as much or as little as American men.
-breaks many ethical guidelines- for the prisoners the study lacks protection from psychological (distress through chanting, crying, shouting) and physical (hunger strikes, confinement, sleep disturbances) harm. For example on prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger. Multiple ps left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, experiencing incidents of humiliation and distress. Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison experiment. On top of this, prisoners experienced a lack of privacy, as they were strip searched and arrested in their home; lack of informed consent as they did not consent to being arrested at their own homes because the researches wanted the arrest to come as a surprise as supposedly to make the experience more real. However, this was a major breach of the ethics of Zimbardo’s own contract that all the ps had signed. A prisoner asked Zimbardo if they can leave the experiment, Zimbardo made an attempt to make them stay, made the prisoners believe that they couldn’t leave until they had ‘served their sentence’, mirroring the inescapability of a real prison. Zimbardo played a dual role as both the superintendent of the prison and the lead researcher, limited Zimbardo’s ability to protect his so from harm because his two roles conflicted with each other. This is a limitation as it implicates the safety and well being of the ps.
-lacks ecological validity- the student ‘guards’ lacked professional training, and the experimenter’s duration was much shorter than real prison sentences. Furthermore, the ps , who were college students, didn’t reflect the diverse backgrounds typically found in prisons in terms of ethnicity, education and socioeconomic status. None had prior prison experience, and they were chosen due to their mental stability and low antisocial tendencies. The mock prison lacked spaces for exercise or rehabilitative activities. This is a limitation as the study’s findings cannot be generalised to real life, such as prison settings.
-Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) ps were only play acting rather than genuinely conforming to social roles. Performance were based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. A guard admits to base his role off a character in a film ‘cool hand luke’ However 90% of prisoners conversation was about prison life.
