CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES: ZIMBARDO'S RESEARCH

Question 1

PROCEDURE

Answer 1

• mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University
• advertised for students willing to VOLUNTEER and selected those who were ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological testing
• students randomly assigned roles of GUARDS or PRISONER
• prisoners arrested in their homes and taken to the prison –> blindfolded, strip-searched and issued a uniform and number
• social roles strictly divided, 16 rules the prisoners had to follow
• prisoners names never used, only numbers –> DEINDIVIDUATION
• guards had uniform, handcuffs and complete control over prisoners

Question 2

FINDINGS

Answer 2

• guard’s behaviour became a serious threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health
• study stopped after 6 days, instead of the intended 14
• guards harassed prisoners constantly, prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment
• after the rebellion, prisoners became depressed and anxious.
• one prisoner was released on the first day due to symptoms of psychological disturbance
• 2 more released on the 4th day
• guards attempted to force feed a prisoner who went on a hunger strike
• guards identified more and more closely with their role, they became more brutal –> enjoyed the power

Question 3

CONCLUSIONS

Answer 3

• simulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour
• guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles

Question 4

AO3: CONTROL

Answer 4

• strength –> Zimbardo and colleagues had some control over variables
• obvious example = selection of ppts –> emotionally stable individuals were randomly assigned to roles –> rule out individual personality differences as an explanations
• due to the roles being due to chance, the behaviour must have been due to the pressures of the situation
• HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY
• more confident about drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on behaviour

Question 5

AO3: LACK OF REALISM

Answer 5

BANUAZIZI AND MOHAVEDI (1975) argued the ppts were merely play-acing rather than genuinely conforming to the role.
- performances were based on a stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave
e.g. one guard based his role on the film COOL HAND LUKE –> explains why prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did
BUT qualitative data was gathered during the procedure –> 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life
- on balance, seems that the situation was real to the ppts, which gives the study a HIGHER DEGREE OF INTERNAL VALIDITY
I&D –> ETHICAL ISSUES: harm to ppts, right to withdrawal –> one ppt asked to leave the study, was not allowed

Question 6

AO3: ROLE OF DISPOSITIONAL INFLUENCES

Answer 6

FROMM (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour, and minimising the role of personality factors (dispositional factors)
- only a minority of the guards behaved in a brutal manner
- some actively helped the prisoners, giving them cigarettes and reinstating privileges
- suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusions - ppts were conforming to social roles - may be over-stated
- the differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate they were able to exercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational pressures to conform to a role.