Social Influence - Zimbardo - Stanford prison experiment

Question 1

When ?

Answer 1

1973

Question 2

Procedure - Aim

Answer 2

set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford university to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity.

Question 3

Who ?

Answer 3

21 Male student volunteers.

Selected by psychological testing that showed them to be emotionally stable.

Question 4

How were the roles of prisoner or guard chosen?

Answer 4

The roles were chosen randomly.

Question 5

How were the social roles encouraged?

Two routes…

Answer 5

1. Uniform - prisoners were stripped, searched and given a uniform and number - this encouraged
   deindividuation.
   Guards enforced rules and had own uniform with handcuffs etc.
2. Instructions about behaviour - Prisoners were told they could leave but had to ask for parole
   Guards were told they had complete power over the prisoners.

Question 6

Findings and conclusions - how did the guards carry out their role?

Answer 6

Enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly.

Question 7

Findings and conclusions - how did the prisoners act?

Answer 7

The prisoners rebelled within 2 days - ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at guards.

Question 8

How did the guards react to the prisoners?

Answer 8

The guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners.
Reminder of their powerless role (e.g. frequent headcounts, including at night).

Question 9

Behaviour threatened the prisoners psychological and physical health, give three examples:

Answer 9

After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed.

Three prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance.

One prisoner went on hunger strike; the guards attempted to force feed him and punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ (a tiny dark closet)

Question 10

When was the study stopped?

Answer 10

The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14

Question 11

How did the guards and prisoners act?

Answer 11

Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive.

Question 12

How did Zimbardo’s observational simulation influence social roles?

Answer 12

social roles are powerful influences on behaviour - most conformed strongly towards their role.

Question 13

Evaluation - One strength - control over the variables - Emotion

Answer 13

Emotionally - stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of prisoner or guard.

Question 14

Evaluation - One strength - control over the variables - roles

Answer 14

The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance.

so their behaviour was due to their roles and not their personalities.

Question 15

Evaluation - One strength - control over the variables - What did this show?

Answer 15

this control increased the study’s internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity.

Question 16

Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - Bunazizi and Mohavedi (1975)

Answer 16

Suggested participants were play - acting.

Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.

Question 17

Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - based character off …

Answer 17

One guard based his role on a character from the film cool hand luke.
prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners do.

Question 18

Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - What does this show?

Answer 18

This suggests the Stanford Prison Experiment tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.

Question 19

Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - Counterpoint

Answer 19

Participants behave as if the prison was real. e.g. 90% of conversations about prison life, prisoner 416 believed it was run by psychologists.

Question 20

Evaluation - One limitation - exaggerated the power of roles

Answer 20

The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE (from 1973)

Question 21

Evaluation - One limitation - exaggerated the power of roles - Guards behaviour

Answer 21

only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied by the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigars and reinstating privileges.

Question 22

Evaluation - One limitation - exaggerated the power of roles - what does this show?

Answer 22

This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences.

Question 23

Evaluation - alternative explanations - Zimbardo explains social roles.

Answer 23

Zimbardo claimed participants naturally took to their social roles - just having a role meant that participants conformed to expectations associated with it.

Question 24

Evaluation - alternative explanations - Social identity theory - Reicher and Haslam

Answer 24

However this does not explain those guards who were not brutal.
Social identity theory (Reicher and Haslam, 2006) argues only those who identify with the role of guard conform.

Question 25

Evaluation - alternative explanations - What does this show

Answer 25

This shows that it is possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual does not identify with that role.