Conformity to social roles

Question 1

What were the key procedures of the Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 1

• 24 male student volunteers (mentally stable) were randomly assigned to play prisoner or guard
• Basement of Stanford University
• prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home, fingerprinted, strip searched and smocks +ID numbers
• Guards given uniforms, reflective sunglasses and batons
• Zimbardo was prison superintendent

Question 2

How long was the Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 2

Supposed to be 2 weeks but terminated after 6 days due to extreme psychological distress + unethical behaviour

Question 3

What did Zimbardo find in his study?

Answer 3

Both guards and prisoners quickly adopted to their roles
- guards: increasingly tyrannical + abusive using humiliation and punishments
- prisoners: passive, anxious and depressed (some showed signs of emotional breakdown)
One prisoner had to leave after 36 hours due to extreme emotional distress
Deindividuation was observed : guard hid behind uniforms, prisoners lost personal identity

Question 4

What were Zimbardos conclusions?

Answer 4

Situational factors are powerful - people conform social roles even if it means harmful behaviour
Uniforms and roles led to deindividuation + loss of personal identity

Question 5

What are two strengths of the Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 5

1) high in ecological validity (to an extent) - Realistic setting (real arrests, uniforms, prison layout) Participants behaved as if it were real, 90% of prisoner conversations were about prison life
2) practical implications - informed prison reforms, explains real life events e.g. Abu Ghraib (military prison notorious for torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners - Zimbardo concludes due to situational factors)

Question 6

What are four issues with the Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 6

1) ethical issues - Psychological harm, humiliation, stress
Blurred line between researcher and role (Zimbardo as superintendent)
Right to withdraw unclear
2) demand characteristics/lack of realism - Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975): participants were acting roles, not truly conforming
3) Individual differences - not all guards were abusive (demonstrates role of personality)
4) Zimbardos lack of objectivity - Took part in the study → lost scientific neutrality, allowed unethical behaviour to go on too long

Question 7

What alternative research demonstrates that Zimbardos findings are not necessarily accurate?

Answer 7

Reicher & Haslam (BBC Prison Study, 2006)
Tried to replicate Zimbardo’s study — didn’t find same results
Guards didn’t automatically conform - chose how to behave rather than blindly conforming to social role
Prisoners rebelled — contradicts Zimbardo’s conclusions