social influence zimbardo's research (evaluation)

Question 1

what are some strengths of the stanford prison experiment

Answer 1

Zimbado and his colleagues has some control over variables

the most obvious example of this was the selection of participants
- all participants were emotionally stable

Individuals were randomly assigned to the roles of guards and prisoners
- this was one way researchers tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings

Question 2

why is having control over these variables a strength/ important

Answer 2

having such control over variables is a strength because it increases the internal validity of the study. This means we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on behaviour

Question 3

what are some limitations with Zimbardo’s experiment

Answer 3

lack of realism

role of dispositional

ethical issues

Question 4

limitation:

lack of realism

Answer 4

Banuvazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role

performance were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave e.g. one guard claimed they based their role on a brutal character from the film “Cool Hand Luke”

Question 5

what is a counter- argument for the limitation “lack of realism”

Answer 5

Zimbardo pointed to evidence that the situation was real to the participants
-Quantitative data gathered during the procedure showed that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life

-prisoner 416 expressed the view that the view that the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government

This means that the situation was real to the participants which gives the study a high degree of internal validity

Question 6

limitation:

role of dispositional influence

Answer 6

Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour, and minimising the role of personality factors (dispositional influence)

e. g. only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved in a brutal manner
- another third were keen on applying the roles fairly
- the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners

This suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusion- that participants were conforming to social roles may be overstated. The difference in the guards’ behaviour suggest that they were able to exercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational pressures to conform to a role

Question 7

what ethical issue arose in the simulation

Answer 7

a major ethical issue arose due to Ziimbardo’s dual role in the experiment

e.g. on one occasio a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent. The whole conversation was conducted on the basis that the student was a prisoner in a prison, asking to be released

Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants

Question 8

why is Zimbardo’s dual role in the student a problem

Answer 8

-it lead to him to neglect his role as a researcher leading to the participants to be put into harm