Social Influence- Stanford Prison Experiment Flashcards
Social influence
Stanford prison exp
Procedure
Mock prison,basement psycology department,Stanford uni,male student volunteers,physically,psychologically screened, 24most stable,randomly assigned roles.loose smock,cap to cover hair,identified by N.o,Arrested in home,by police,guards wore wooden club handcuff ,shades,mirrored,
Social ingluence stanford prison exp
Findings
Uniform =deindivination, loss identity,zimbardo=superintendent,guards abusive in few days,headcounts (at night also-stand in line call out number ) harrased prisoner =subdued ,angry,anxious.forgot just was study,ended after 6 days,not 14,
Social influence stanford prison exp
Conclusion
Social roles have a high influence on individuals behaviour
Social influence stanford prison exp
Controlled environment
High control, emotionly stable allocated randomly=control personality differences,confident no extraneous increase interna validity
Social influence stangord prison exp
Low ecological
Do not reflect mundane life realism,cus it was 2 weeks long,lack abuse ,racism,participant could withdrawl,banuazizi(1975) ppl play acting,performance based on stereotypes of what they think prison life is,difficult to generalise
Social influence stanford prison exp
Comterpoint to low eco
McDermott 2019
90% comvo on prison life,when prisoners talk to priest they introduced themselves as prison N.o,some asked priest for lawyer
Social influence stanford prison exp
Low pop
American ,male ,not reflective ,males may differ to others,hard to generalise,females/non student ppl don’t apply to conclusion,low external validity.
Social ingluence stanford prison exp
Ethics
Issues despite following Stanford uni commitee
Prisoners=physical /psychological harm,deception,not told about arrested at home,no informed,not BPS ethical guidlines,
Social influence stangord prion exp
Counterpoint to ethics
Reflected mundane realism,nessacary deception,demand characteristics limited,valid
