Zimbardo Study

Question 1

Aim & Procedure

Answer 1

Aim: investigate effect of social roles on conformity.

Procedure:
1) 21 male student at Stanford Uni volunteered to study their psychological ‘stability’.
2) Roles randomly allocated.
3) Were to spend 2 weeks locked in cells & prison guards were to control prisoners but not allowed to use physical force.
4) Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home - stripped, deloused & given prison uniform and number (no names) –> encouraged de-individuation.
5) Prison guards given uniform, sticks, mirrored sunglasses & worked shifts.

Question 2

Results

Answer 2

1) Experiment called off after 6 days.
2) Guards became brutal –> 2 prisoners had nervous breakdowns, 5 prisoners released early due to extreme reactions to situation (e.g. crying, rage, anxiety).
3) Prisoners rebelled within 2 days & guards retaliated.

Question 3

Conclusion

Answer 3

1) Extreme reactions could be from conforming to their social roles - students were given new roles and simply conformed to behaviour of roles.
2) Deindividuation : Guards became so immersed in norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility & prisoners became submissive.

Question 4

Evaluation

Answer 4

Ethical Issues:

1) Psychological harm to pps:
–> he could’ve removed himself from study and become an impartial observer - give stricter intructions.

2) Lack of fully informed consent:
–> arrested unexpectedly & not debriefed on study —> could’ve debriefed pps after study saying what they’d do with findings.

Question 5

Strength of Study

Answer 5

CONTROL OF KEY VARIABLES

1) Emotionally-stable pps were recruited & randomly allocated roles –> roles were by chance so behaviour was due to roles itself & not personalities.
2) Control increased internal validity –> so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about effect of social roles on conformity.

Question 6

Weaknesses of Study

Answer 6

1) Exaggerates power role:
–> only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally.
–> others sympathised with prisoners.
–> most resisted situational pressure so they conformed to a brutal role.
–> suggests Zim overstates views that pps were conforming to social roles & minimised influence of disposition factors (e.g. personality).

2) Lack of Realism:
–> no realism of a true prison
–> argued it was merely play acting rather than conforming to social roles.
–> SPE tells us little about conformity in real prisons.