Social learning : Conformity to social roles Flashcards
Describe the Stanford Prison experiment
- Zimbardo el al. set up mock prison in the basement of psych depart. at Stanford Uni
- 21 male student volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable’ were selected and randomly assigned to the roles of prisoners/guards
- Students were encouraged to conform to their social roles through their uniforms + the instructions they were given
How did the researchers in the Stanford Prison experiment encourage P.s to conform to their social roles through the instructions they gave them?
Prisoners: encouraged to identify with their roles in many ways, one being that, to leave the study early, they needed to apply for parole
Guards: constantly reminded of their power over the prisoners
How did the researchers in the Stanford Prison experiment encourage P.s to conform to their social roles through uniform?
Prisoners: loose smock, cap covering hair, identified by numbers (no names)
Guards: wooden club, handcuffs, mirror shades
- Uniforms created a loss of personal identity (deindividuation), making the students more likely to conform to their social roles
Briefly describe the findings of the SPE
- Guards treated prisoners extremely harshly.
- Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled (shouting, swearing, ripping uniforms)
- Guards highlighted their status and power over the prisoners by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and hand out punishments.
- After rebellion was put down, prisoners became depressed and submissive - some showed signs of psychological disturbance.
- Behaviour of guards became increasingly brutal and aggressive.
- Zimbardo ended the study early (after 6 days instead of the intended 14)
What is the main strength of the SPE?
✅ Zimbardo et al. had high control over key variables
- eg all P.s had previously been tested as ‘emotionally stable’
- P.s were randomly assigned to roles - researchers removed any individual differences that could explain the findings, ensuring that behaviour was due to social role and not just a result of the P.’s personality
- This means that the study had high internal validity - we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of social roles on conformity from it
What are the main limitations of the SPE?
❌ The SPE lacked the realism of a real prison
- eg Banuazizi + Movahedi argued that P.s were simply play acting instead of genuinely conforming to the role - P.s performances were based on stereotypes of how they believed prisoners and prison guards would act based on movies/media.
- This means that the study may not tell us about conformity to social roles in real life situations and that the study lacks internal and external validity.
COUNTERPOINT : However, McDermott argues that P.s did behave as if they were in a real prison
- 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life
- Some prisoners showed signs of stress and emotional disturbances and study had to be finished earlier than planned
- This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, increasing its internal validity.
❌ Zimbardo may have exaggerated the influence of social roles in his study
- only 1/3 of the P.s behaved violently and brutally, whilst the rest simply tried to apply the rules fairly as show sympathy towards the other prisoners
- most guards successfully resisted the pressures to conform to a brutal role
- this means that the influence of social roles did not exist to the extent suggested by Zimbardo and that natural factors, like personality, do impact behaviour.
Who argued that the P.s in Zimbardo’s SPE were simply play acting instead of actually conforming? Who argued against this?
Banuazizi + Movahedi
McDermott
