Zimbardo conformity to social roles (AO3)

Question 1

Strength 1

Answer 1

[Control over key variables] - Emotionally stable participants were used and allocated roles were random. Because of this, behaviour was due to role and not personality as it was random. This increased the study’s [internal validity, so we can more accurately draw conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity]

Question 2

Limitation 1

Answer 2

[Lacked realism of a true prison] - Banuazizi and Mohadevi (1975) suggested the participants were play acting, as they knew they were in an experiment and reflected stereotypes. One guard based his character on someone from a film. Prisoners rioted because they thought thats what prisoners did. [this suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons]

Question 3

Counterpoint to limitation 1

Answer 3

Participants behaved as if the prison was real, with 90% of conversations being about prison life. [this suggests the SPE replicated roles of guards and prisoners just as in real prisons, increasing internal validity]

Question 4

Limitation 2

Answer 4

[Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles] - The power of social influence may have been exaggerated. 1/3 Brutal, 1/3 Moderate and 1/3 Kind guards, this suggests the SPE [overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (eg personality)

Question 5

Evaluation - alternative explanation

Answer 5

Zimbardo claims participants naturally took on their social roles, just having it caused them to conform to expectations that came with it. Reicher and Haslam argue that only those who identify with the role of guard conform (explaining the 2/3 guards who weren’t brutal). This suggests it is [possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual doesn’t identify with the role