Social Influence - Conformity to Social Rules Flashcards
AO1
- Social Rules – 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 other have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role, for example caring, obedient, industrious, etc.
AO3
– A strength of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that they had control over key variables
- For example, the participants that were selected were based off of emotionally-stable individuals and their roles were given at random.
- This is a strength as they made sure not to come in contact with the participants and observed them from afar, as well as making sure the participants were able to handle this to make sure there was no investigator bias or extraneous variables affecting the results
- However, it could be argued that there are still extraneous variables as the participants were aware that they were not in a real prison as well as the fact that they were aware that they were in a study which could take away from the controlled aspect of the approach as they could have changed their behaviour to suit the study, invalidating the results.
- Despite this, the 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
- Thus increasing the internal validity of Zimbardo’s research
- A weakness of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that it did not have the realism of a true prison
- For example, one of the guards claimed he has based his role on a brutal character from a “Cool Hand Luke”. This would explain why the prisoners rioted as they believed that’s what real prisoners did.
- This is a weakness because it shows that the participants performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave, suggesting that their behaviour was biased and changed in order to please the study. Additionally, the social expectations would have changed over time from 1971 to now so the performances would have been different, therefore invalidating the research and reducing the temporal validity
- However, it can be argued that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life, with one of the prisoners believing the prison was real but run by psychologists rather than the government showing that the Stanford Prison Experiment did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.
- Despite this, the participants could have been merely play-acting rather than genuinely.
- Thus decreasing the external validity of Zimbardo’s research
- A weakness of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that it cannot be generalised to everyone
- For example, the participants consisted of 24 male college students in America.
- This is a weakness as we can’t generalise the results to other populations, e.g female students which means we are unable to conclude whether or not female students would have conformed in a similar way to the male students. Additionally, Zimbardo only used Americans in his study, so, different people from other countries may have been less or more likely to conform due to how and the area in which they have been raised. Therefore reducing the usefulness of his study
- However, some psychologists may argue that it was good Zimbardo only used males as in real life men and women are never in the same prison and are always kept separate, if he did mixed both genders it would have been very inaccurate.
- Despite this, Zimbardo’s observation and study are still not reliable due to so much bias.
- Thus decreasing the external validity of Zimbardo’s research.
- Another weakness of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that it is very unethical.
- For example, one of the ethical issues was that there was no informed consent Zimbardo lied to his participants about what they would really undergo in the investigation.
- This is a weakness as due to the ethical issues present, the observation cannot be replicated meaning it can not be carried out again. All of these factors lead to the researcher (Zimbardo) being less credited which in turn means less people will trust the results of his experiment.
- However some psychologists may argue that had Zimbardo been fully transparent about the experiment being about conformity, demand characteristics would have been more present as participants would know about the aim which would have resulted in biased findings making the experiment unreliable.
- Despite this, it was still unethical as deception was present, therefore reducing the credibility of his research
- Thus decreasing the validity of Zimbardo’s research
conformity to social rules
Conformity to social roles refers to how an individual’s behaviour changes according to the expectation of
behaviour in that particular situation. For example, a person may behave very differently depending on
whether they are performing a job, socialising with friends, or looking after their children
zimbardo stanford prison study aims
- To test the dispositional versus the situational hypothesis. Are prison guards violent because they
have violent personalities, or do their roles make them behave that way? - To test the extent to which participants would adopt the role of prisoner or guard, even though the
roles were determined randomly
zimbardo stanford prison study
- The study used a sample of 21 male student volunteers who were all rated as being psychologically
stable - Participants were randomly assigned to the role of either prisoner or guard. Zimbardo played the
role of prison superintendent - The study took place in the basement of Stanford University, which was converted into a mock
prison. To add to the realism of the study, the prisoners were arrested at their homes by the local
police, taken to the ‘prison’, stripped and deloused. They were dehumanised by wearing a loose
fitting smock, a nylon stocking cap (to emulate a shaven head) and were referred to by number
rather than name. Guards were deindividuated by wearing a uniform, reflective sunglasses and being
referred to only as ‘Mr. Correctional Officer’ - The guards were told to keep the prisoners in line, but other than that, no specific instructions were
given about how each group should behave. No physical violence was allowed. The study was
scheduled to last for two weeks
zimbardo stanford prison study findings
Findings:
* Within a day the prisoners had rebelled and ripped off
their numbers. The guards responded by locking them
in their cells and taking away their blankets
* As the study progressed, the guards became
increasingly sadistic. Prisoners were humiliated,
deprived of sleep, made to carry out demeaning tasks
(such as cleaning the toilets with their bare hands).
* The prisoners became depressed and submissive.
Some showed signs of serious stress. One prisoner
was released after 36 hours due to fits of crying and
rage. Three more were released with similar symptoms during the next few days.
* The study was called to a halt after six days due to the unforeseen effects on the prisoners
zimbardo stanford prison study conclusions
The study supports the situational hypothesis, rather than the dispositional hypothesis. This is
because participants adopted the behaviour associated with the role they were assigned, even though
those roles were randomly determined, and no psychological abnormality was found to be present in
the participants before the study began
* Conforming to social roles leads people to behave differently to how they normally would
evaluation of Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social rules
Evaluation point 1
P: Zimbardo’s research does not fully support the situational hypothesis
E: This is because it fails to explain why not all of the guards behaved equally
aggressively towards the prisoners.
E: Some were reluctant to exercise their authority, whereas one guard in
particular was seen as the ringleader. This suggests that individual differences
play a part in the way someone responds to role expectations.
L: Therefore Zimbardo’s assertion that situations cause people to behaviour in
a particular way cannot be regarded as a stand-alone explanation without taking
into account additional contributory factors such as biological predisposition to
aggression or past experience, which combined with the situation may trigger
the aggressive behaviour
Evaluation point 2
The research lacks reliability as others have failed to replicate Zimbardo’s original findings. Reicher & Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s study in 2002, and this replication was broadcast by the BBC. The findings were very different to Zimbardo’s. The guards were unwilling to impose authority over the prisoners, who
rapidly took charge of the prison. Following the breakdown of authority in the prison, both groups attempted to establish a fair and equal social system. When this failed, a small group of prisoners took control and the study was called off. This could suggest that Zimbardo’s findings may have been a ‘one off’, and caused by flaws in the methodology of the original study. It could also suggest that Zimbardo’s study lacks temporal validity and
that people are now less likely
to conform to the demands of
a role if it leads to a negative
outcome for others. It may
also be that social roles are
less rigidly defined now than
they were in the past.
Evaluation point 3
There are many ethical issues with the way Zimbardo carried out his research. He has been criticised for
not accurately assessing the potential impact on his participants, and failing to call a halt to the procedure
soon enough when it became clear that some of those taking part were experiencing psychological harm.
Partly this was due to Zimbardo taking on the role of
prison superintendent, and therefore not creating
enough distance from the procedure to be able to
maintain professionalism in his role as psychologist.
This means that Zimbardo failed in his duty to protect
the welfare of his participants. Furthermore,
Zimbardo’s involvement in the study could have had an
influence on the behaviour of the participants. He
could have unknowingly cued them to behave in a
particular way (investigator effects). The artificiality of
the situation could have led to a change in behaviour
due to demand characteristics, making the results of the study invalid
