3. zimbardo - social roles Flashcards
ZIMBARDO wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - was it because they have
sadistic personalities or was it their social role (as a prison guard) that created such behaviour.
dispositional vs situational explanation
THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT (SPE) - PROCEDURE
Zimbardo et al set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University.
They selected 24 men (student volunteers) who tested as emotionally stable.
The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner and were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
ZIMBARDO - PROCEDURE
how did uniforms affect conformity to social roles?
The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, and they were identified by number (their names were never used). The guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with wooden club, handcuffs, and mirror shades.
These uniforms created a loss of personal identity (called de-individuation) and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role.
ZIMBARDO - PROCEDURE
how were the participants encouraged to conform to their social roles?
instructons about behaviour
The prisoners were further encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures. For example, rather than leaving the study early, prisoners could ‘apply for parole’.
The guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners.
What were the findings of the SPE?
who identified with their role more closely?
The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers.
The guards harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers.
The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments.
After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed, and anxious.
One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance.
Two more were released on the fourth day.
One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in the hole, a tiny dark closet.
The guards identified more and more closely with their role their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners.
Zimbardo ended the study after
6 days instead of the intended 14.
What did Zimbardo conclude?
supports which explanation?
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour.
The guards became brutal, and the prisoners became submissive.
Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants.
Supports the situational explanation -> social roles affect behaviour.
AO3 - strength of Zimbardo’s SPE
control over key variables
Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.
The most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of prisoner or guard. This rules out individual differences as an explanation of the findings as if the guards and prisoners behaved differently and were in the roles were only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.
This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
AO3 - limitaton of Zimbardo’s SPE
lack of realism / play acting - Mohavedi (Cool Hand Luke)
One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison.
Movahedi argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participants’ performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did.
This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
AO3 - limitaton of Zimbardo’s SPE
exaggeration - Fromm (undermines the effect of dispositional factors)
Fromm accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation and minimising the role of personality factors.
For example, only a minority of the guards (about a third) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third was keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. The differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate that they were able to exercise their own belief of right or wrong, despite the social pressure of conforming to a role.
This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional influences.
