conformity to social roles

Question 1

the stanford prison experiment - procedure

Answer 1

procedure - zimbardo set up fake prison, had 21 male students who had tested as ‘emotionally stable’, either played prison guard or prisoner, encouraged to conform to social roles via uniforms and instructions about behaviour

uniforms - loose smock and cap, identified by numbers, uniforms created a loss of personal identity (depersonalisation / deindividuation) and a new social identity, more likely to conform to perceived social role, difference in uniforms separates social groups, guards wore shirt and trousers and glasses to create a physical barrier

instructions on behaviour - rather than leaving study early, prisoners could ‘apply for parole’, guards were reminded that they had complete power over prisoners

Question 2

the stanford prison experiment - findings related to social roles

Answer 2

• guards took roles with enthusiasm, treated prisoners harshly, prisoners rebelled within two days (ripped uniforms, shouted and swore)
• guards played off prisoners against each other, harassed prisoners constantly, overall highlighted differences in social roles by enforcing rules etc.
• prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious, one was released due to psychological disturbance, two more were released and one went on a huger strike
• guards’ behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, some appeared to enjoy power
• zimbardo ended study after 6 days instead of the intended 14

Question 3

the stanford prison experiment - conclusions related to social roles

Answer 3

• social roles have a strong influence on behaviour, guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive
• roles were easily taken on, even extra volunteers who played other roles found themselves behaving as if they were in prison

Question 4

zimbardo evaluation strength - control

Answer 4

• selection of participants was controlled, randomly assigned, ruling out individual differences
• degree of control over variables increases internal validity

Question 5

zimbardo evaluation weakness - lack of realism

Answer 5

• not like a real prison, participants may have been play acting, performances based on stereotypes (one pp claimed he based his behaviour off a movie character)
• findings tell us little about conformity in real prisons
• all males so can’t be generalised

Question 6

zimbardo evaluation weakness - exaggerates the power of roles

Answer 6

• only a third of guards engaged in brutal acts, another third tried to apply rules fairly, the rest tried to help prisoners
• most guards resisted situations pressures to conform to a brutal role

Question 7

zimbardo real life application - abu ghraib

Answer 7

• guards affected similarly by an ‘evil situation’, led them to behave in ways which they would normally reject, just like in zimbardo’s research, they were very creative with their behaviour
• guards likely became deindividuated and lost sight of their moral standards, submerged in group mentality
• they would have been desensitised to violence so would have made it more acceptable