Conformity to social roles

Question 1

Stanford prison experiment procedure

Conformity to social roles

Answer 1

Zimbardo et al set up mock prison in basement of psych department at Standford Uni
21 emotionally stable male student volunteers
Randomly assigned role of guard or prisoner
Guards & prisoners encouraged to conform to social roles
Prisoners given loos smock & cap and were indentified by number
Guards had uniform that relfected status with wooden club, handcuffs & mirror shades
Uniforms created loss of personal identity (de-individuation) - more likely to conform to percieved social role
Instead of leaving study early, prisoners could ;apply for parole’
Guards constantly reminded they had complete power over prisoners

Question 2

Stanford prison experiment findings

Conformity to social roles

Answer 2

Guards took roles w/ enuthusiam
W/in 2 days, prisoners rebelled - ripped uniforms, shouted & swore at guards who retaliated w/ fire extinguishers
Guards harassed prisoners, reminding them of powerlessness - frequent headcounts
Guards highlighted diffs in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules & administer punishments
After rebellion put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed & anxious
1 released after showing symptoms of psychological disturbance
2 more released on day 4
1 went on hunger strike - guards tried to force feed him & then punished him in the ‘hole’
Guards identified more closely w/ their rle - behaviour increasingly agressive
Zimbardo ended study after 6 days (not 14 as intended)

Question 3

Stanford prison experiement conclusions

Conformity to social roles

Answer 3

Social roles have strong influence on individuals’ behaviour - Guards became brutal & prisoners became submissive
Such roles were easily taken on by all ppts
Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions found themselves behaving like they were in a prison, not psychological study

Question 4

Evaluation: Control

Conformity to social roles

Answer 4

Strength - control over key variables
Selection of ppts
Emotionally stable individuals chosen & randomly assigned roles
Researchers ruled out individual personality differences as explanation of findings
Degree of control over variables increased internal validity of study
There4, we’re more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity

Question 5

Evaluation: Lack of realism

Conformity to social roles

Answer 5

Limit - didn’t have realism of true prison
Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) argued ppts were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role
Ppts performances were based on stereotypes of how prisoners & guards were supposed to behave
One guard claimed he based his role on film Cool Hand Luke
There4, findings of SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

Question 6

Evaluation: Lack of realism (Counterpoint)

Conformity to social roles

Answer 6

However, McDermott (2019) argues ppts did behave if prison was real to them
90% of prisoners’ convos were about prison life
Amongst themselves, they discussed how it was impossible to leave SPE before their ‘sentences’ were up
Pisoner 416 later explained he believed SPE was real prison but run by psychologists not government
There4, SPE did replicate social roles of prisoners & guards in real prison, giving study high degree of internal validity

Question 7

Evaluation: Exaggerates power of roles

Conformity to social roles

Answer 7

Limit - Zimbardo exaggerated power of role to influence behaviour (Fromm)
Only 1/3 of guards actually behaved in brutal manner
Another 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly
Rest actively tried to help & support prisoners - sympathised, offered cigs & reinstated privileges (Zimbardo 2007)
Most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
There4, Zimbardo overstated view that SPE ppts were conforming to soical roles & minimised influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)