Stanford Prison Experiment -Zimbardo

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

Investigate whether people would conform to new social roles (i.e. prisoner or guards)

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

• A mock prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford
University
• Male student volunteers were psychologically and physically screened/tested and the 24 most stable and healthy of these were randomly assigned to either play the role of ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’ (coin flip).
• The prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home and on entry to the ‘prison’ they were booked in, given a prison uniform and assigned an ID number.
• Prisoners were allowed certain rights, including three meals and three supervised toilet trips a day and two visits per week.
• Participants allocated the role of guard were given uniforms, clubs, whistles and wore reflective sunglasses (to prevent eye contact). Zimbardo himself took the role of Prison Superintendent/Supervisor.

Question 3

Findings

Answer 3

Over the first few days of the study the guards grew increasingly tyrannical (using power in a cruel way) and abusive toward the prisoners.
• They woke prisoners in the night and forced them to clean the toilets
with their bare hands and made them carry out other degrading
activities.
• Some guards volunteered to do extra hours without pay.
• The participants appeared at times to forget that this was only a psychological study and that they were merely acting.
• Five prisoners had to be released early because of their extreme reactions (e.g. crying, rage and acute anxiety) – symptoms that had
started to appear after just two days.
• The study was finally terminated after only six days.

Question 4

Conclusion

Answer 4

The guards and prisoners conformed to their social roles.
The guards became increasingly cruel and sadistic and the prisoners
became increasingly passive and accepting of their plight.

Question 5

Ethical issues 1

Answer 5

• P - A weakness of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is that it may be seen as
unethical
• E - Participants experienced great emotional distress. For example, the guards woke
prisoners in the night and forced them to clean the toilets with their bare hands.
Some prisoners had to be released early because of their extreme reactions (e.g.
crying, rage and anxiety).
• E - This matters because Zimbardo did not protect the participants from physical or
psychological harm as the participants didn’t leave the experiment in the same way
they entered.
• L - Therefore, there were ethical issues during the study and the costs may have
outweighed the benefits.

Question 6

Ethical issues 2

Answer 6

• P - A weakness of the SPE that it may be seen as unethical
• E - Participants did not have a full understanding of the experiment’s
aim and procedure. For example, the prisoners did not consent to
being ‘arrested’ at home (Zimbardo wanted it to be a surprise).
• E - This matters because Zimbardo did not gain the participants’ full
informed consent as they were unaware that they would be arrested
at home.
• L - Therefore, there were ethical issues. However, there were no long
term effects and many of the prisoners were glad they took part.

Question 7

Ecological validity

Answer 7

• P – A weakness of the SPE is that the findings cannot be generalised to real life.
• E – Zimbardo created a mock prison in the basement of the psychology
department at Stanford University and the guards and prisoners were simply
playing a role (they weren’t real guards or prisoners). A real life prison
environment differs greatly e.g. in a prison, there are lots of prisoners with real
convictions.
• E – This matters because their behaviour may not be influenced by the same
factors which affect behaviour in real life.
• L – Therefore, the study has low ecological validity.

Question 8

Conformity is not automatic

Answer 8

• P - A weakness of SPE is that conformity to roles is not automatic.
• E – In Zimbardo’s study, they found that participants conformed automatically
to their assigned role. However, in Reicher and Haslam’s study, they found that
participants did not conform automatically. The guards failed to identify with
their role, which made them hesitate when imposing authority on the
prisoners.
• E - This matters because this contradicts Zimbardo’s conclusion that the guards’
drift automatically into sadistic behavior. Reicher and Halsam’s research
suggested that the guards chose how to behave, rather than blindly conforming
to their social role.
• L - Therefore, conformity is not automatic as Zimbardo thought.