Social Influence- Stanford Prison Experiment

Question 1

Procedure

Answer 1

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,

Question 2

Findings

Answer 2

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,

Question 3

Conclusion

Answer 3

Social roles have a high influence on individuals behaviour

Question 4

Controlled environment

Answer 4

High control, emotionly stable allocated randomly=control personality differences,confident no extraneous increase interna validity

Question 5

Low ecological

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Comterpoint to low eco

Answer 6

McDermott 2019
90% comvo on prison life,when prisoners talk to priest they introduced themselves as prison N.o,some asked priest for lawyer

Question 7

Low pop

Answer 7

American ,male ,not reflective ,males may differ to others,hard to generalise,females/non student ppl don’t apply to conclusion,low external validity.

Question 8

Ethics

Answer 8

Issues despite following Stanford uni commitee
Prisoners=physical /psychological harm,deception,not told about arrested at home,no informed,not BPS ethical guidlines,

Question 9

Counterpoint to ethics

Answer 9

Reflected mundane realism,nessacary deception,demand characteristics limited,valid