Social Influence - Zimbardo - Stanford prison experiment Flashcards
When ?
1973
Procedure - Aim
set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford university to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity.
Who ?
21 Male student volunteers.
Selected by psychological testing that showed them to be emotionally stable.
How were the roles of prisoner or guard chosen?
The roles were chosen randomly.
How were the social roles encouraged?
Two routes…
- Uniform - prisoners were stripped, searched and given a uniform and number - this encouraged
deindividuation.
Guards enforced rules and had own uniform with handcuffs etc. - 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.
Findings and conclusions - how did the guards carry out their role?
Enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly.
Findings and conclusions - how did the prisoners act?
The prisoners rebelled within 2 days - ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at guards.
How did the guards react to the prisoners?
The guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners.
Reminder of their powerless role (e.g. frequent headcounts, including at night).
Behaviour threatened the prisoners psychological and physical health, give three examples:
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)
When was the study stopped?
The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14
How did the guards and prisoners act?
Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive.
How did Zimbardo’s observational simulation influence social roles?
social roles are powerful influences on behaviour - most conformed strongly towards their role.
Evaluation - One strength - control over the variables - Emotion
Emotionally - stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of prisoner or guard.
Evaluation - One strength - control over the variables - roles
The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance.
so their behaviour was due to their roles and not their personalities.
Evaluation - One strength - control over the variables - What did this show?
this control increased the study’s internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity.
Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - Bunazizi and Mohavedi (1975)
Suggested participants were play - acting.
Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.
Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - based character off …
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.
Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - What does this show?
This suggests the Stanford Prison Experiment tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
Evaluation - One limitation - lack of realism - Counterpoint
Participants behave as if the prison was real. e.g. 90% of conversations about prison life, prisoner 416 believed it was run by psychologists.
Evaluation - One limitation - exaggerated the power of roles
The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE (from 1973)
Evaluation - One limitation - exaggerated the power of roles - Guards behaviour
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.
Evaluation - One limitation - exaggerated the power of roles - what does this show?
This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences.
Evaluation - alternative explanations - Zimbardo explains social roles.
Zimbardo claimed participants naturally took to their social roles - just having a role meant that participants conformed to expectations associated with it.
Evaluation - alternative explanations - Social identity theory - Reicher and Haslam
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.
Evaluation - alternative explanations - What does this show
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.
