Conformity to Social Roles : Zimbardo Flashcards
(7 cards)
What was Zimbardo’s aims in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
-Investigate whether ‘ordinary’ people would conform to roles as prisoners or guards when in a prison environment.
-To test the hypothesis that saw prison violence as either due to dispositional factors (sadistic personalities of guards) or situational (brutal conditions of prison.)
What were the procedures in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
-Basement of Psych department at Stanford Uni.
-Volunteer sample, selected those deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological testing.
-75 male students replied, 24 chosen - 2 reserves, 1 dropped out.
-Randomly assigned prison or guard, 10 G, 11 P.
-To heighten realism, arrested from their home by local police.
-Dehumanised by being blindfolded , strip-searched, deloused, issued uniform and ID number.
-Wore numbered smocks, nylon stoking caps, chain around 1 ankle.
-Daily routines heavily regulated, allowed 3 meals, 3 supervised toilet trips a day, 2 family visits.
-16 rules to follow enforced by guards, 3 at a time shifts. Never used prisoner’s names.
-9 prisoners placed 3 to a cell.
-Guards had khaki uniform, wooden club, handcuffs & mirror shades to prevent eye contact. Told to complete power over prisoners.
-Zimbardo took role of prison superintendent.
-Study planned to take to run for 2 weeks.
What were Zimbardo’s findings with the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
-First few days they grew increasingly tyrannical & abusive - woke them in the night and forced them to clean toilets with bare hands + other degrading activities - some guards volunteered more hours.
-Employed the ‘divide and rule’ tactics by playing prisoners off against each other. Harassed them - e.g. frequent head counts.
-Created opportunities to enforce rules and punish smallest misdemeanour.
-Identified more closely with their role, appeared to enjoy power.
-Attempted to force-feed a prisoner on hunger-strike, punished by ‘the hole’, a tiny dark closet.
-Their behaviour became a threat to prisoners’ physical and psychological health.
What were Zimbardo’s findings with the prisoners in the Stanford Prison Experiment?
-Within 2 days they rebelled, ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers.
-After rebellion put down, they were subdued, depressed, anxious.
-1 prisoner released 1st day - showed signs of psychological disturbance, 2 more on 4th day.
-1 prisoner went on a hunger strike, shunned by prisoners.
-5 prisoners released early because of extreme reactions (e.g. crying, rage, acute anxiety) - appeared after 2 days.
What were the conclusions of the Stanford Prison Experiment?
It revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. All participants & researchers conformed to role.
-Guards increasingly cruel and sadistic.
-Prisoners increasingly passive and accepting of their plight.
Easily took on roles, even volunteers - e.g. ‘prison chaplain’.
What is one strength of Zimbardo’s study?
High levels of control over participant variables:
-Only emotionally stable people chosen randomly assigned roles - tried to rule out individual differences as an explanation of the findings - their behaviour must have been due to pressures of the situation.
Increases the internal validity, we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on behaviour.
What are 3 limitations of Zimbardo’s study?
Lacks realism and, in turn, ecological validity:
-Critics have argued participants were, merely pay-acting rather than actually conforming & their performances were based on stereotypes.
-e.g. 1 guard claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Had Luke.
-Explains the prison riots - stereotype.
A form of demand characteristics, a huge problem for the external validity of the findings as they can’t be generalised to real-life. The study didn’t measure what it claims to.
Criticised due to ethical constraints:
-Zimbardo acknowledges that perhaps the study should have been stopped earlier due to their emotional distress. He attempted to make amends for this by carrying out debriefing sessions for several years and concluded there were no lasting negative effects.
-Also criticised for his ‘dual-role’ e.g. a student wanted to leave, he spoke to him in his role of superintendent - more worried about running of prison rather than being researcher.
Over-involvement leads to a decreased level of objectivity from Zimbardo. Research decisions clouded by his role of superintendent which affected ethics.
Zimbardo underplayed the role of dispositional influences:
-Fromm (1973) accused him of exaggerating power of situation to influence behaviour - minimises role of personality factors.
-e.g. only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, another keen fair rules, the rest actively tried to support and sympathise, offering cigarettes.
Suggests his conclusion may be overstated. The differences in the guards’ behaviour indicate they were able to exercise right and wrong choices, despite pressures.
