Conformity to Social Roles - Zimbardo (1971) Flashcards
(11 cards)
What are Social Roles?
Social roles are a socially defined pattern of behaviour that is expected of persons who occupy a certain social position or belong to a particular social category, e.g., doctor, teacher or police officer.
What is Identification?
Identification is the process of individuals adopting the behaviour of a group that they value and want to belong to. These roles provide a social identity, an individual’s sense of who they are. By conforming to these social roles (the ‘socially defined pattern of behaviour’), individuals feel a stronger connection to the group.
Stanford Prison Experiment
Zimbardo was concerned about the intense aggression within the US prison system and thought the reason for this aggression was not dispositional (the personality of the guards or prisoners) but rather situational (the environment of the prison itself and conformity to the social roles created by the prison environment). He designed the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) to explore conformity to social roles in a simulated prison environment. The SPE aimed to understand the psychological impact of situational forces by observing how typical, healthy individuals would conform to assigned social roles of guards (oppressive) and prisoners (submissive).
Aim
To investigate conformity to social roles by role-playing as either a prisoner or a guard and to find out if the conforming behaviour was due to the nature of the person (dispositional factors) or the prison context (situational factors).
Procedure
- Controlled observation.
- Sample of 24 American, male, undergraduate volunteers.
- The participants were receiving $15 per day for the duration of the study.
- After psychological assessments to ensure they were stable and healthy, they were randomly allocated the role of a prisoner or a guard.
- The ‘prisoners’ were unexpectedly arrested at their homes and taken to the police station before being transferred to the prison. Once at the mock prison, they were deloused, issued with a prison uniform, and an ID number which they were then addressed by. They were also given a list of rules to follow and limited rights, such as 3 meals a day, supervised toilet trips and visits.
- The ‘guards’ were also issued with uniforms, clubs, whistles and reflective sunglasses to establish authority. They worked 8-hour shifts, after which they were allowed to leave the sight. They were given 16 rules, which they were asked to enforce to maintain a reasonable degree of order - allowing them to manage the prison without harming the prisoners.
- Zimbardo oversaw the experiment in the roles of the chief prison superintendent and lead investigator.
- Interactions between prisoners and guards, mood state, self-perception, and coping behaviour were observed as indicators of conformity.
- Data collected via videotape, audiotape, direct observation, questionnaires, and interviews.
Findings
- Participants quickly lost their personal identities and displayed an extremely high level of conformity to social roles.
- Guards, empowered by their status and anonymity, conformed to a sadistic role, e.g., readily issuing punishments for misbehaving prisoners. Initially, punishment involved loss of privileges, but later punishments included food and sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and humiliation, e.g., cleaning the toilet with their bare hands.
- After initial resistance, prisoners became passive, excessively obedient, showed a flattered mood, and a distorted perception of self.
- 5 prisoners were released early due to extreme emotional disturbance.
- The study stopped on the 6th day instead of running 2 weeks as planned due to the ethical concerns raised by the intense reactions.
Conclusion
This research demonstrates the strength of conformity as a form of social influence. Reports after the study showed that participants felt that they had acted out of character, and personality tests even indicated no significant differences between the prisoners’ and guards’ personality. People who were considered ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ before the experiment engaged in abusive or submissive behaviours as a result of their assigned social roles and the prison environment. Therefore, the findings support a situational explanation of conformity to social roles rather than a dispositional one.
Strength
Point: A methodological strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is its high level of control over key variables.
Evidence: Zimbardo carefully selected participants through a screening process, ensuring that they were psychologically and emotionally fit despite them being volunteers. Furthermore, participants were randomly assigned to their roles as either prisoners or guards, preventing the likelihood of bias as a result of pre-existing personality and behavioural traits, ensuring that the study solely reflected the nature of the social roles they were placed in.
Justification: Such random allocation of roles minimises individual differences as a confounding variable and guarantees that situational factors alone were responsible for the extreme behaviours observed instead of dispositional factors. In addition, since all participants had similar psychological profiles at the start and didn’t have any criminal records, the dramatic changes in behaviour during the investigation can be attributed to the powerful influence of social roles and the prison environment.
Implication: This increases the internal validity of the study, as it provides strong evidence that people conform to the roles that they are given due to situational pressures rather than inherent personality traits. The high level of experimental control also makes it easier to replicate in future studies, reinforcing its reliability.
Counterargument: However, Zimbardo’s study contained the potential for researcher bias.
Evidence: Zimbardo himself played the role of the prison superintendent, which may have affected how the study unfolded. His involvement may have unintentionally influenced participants’ behaviour, particularly by failing to intervene when the guards began acting aggressively, thus encouraging the escalation of their roles.
Justification: This dual role, as the principal investigator and prison superintendent, may have led to subjective decision-making and compromised objectivity, as Zimbardo became too involved in the study and failed to maintain a neutral stance as a researcher. His role may have reinforced the prison narrative instead and shaped how the participants responded, especially the guards.
Implication: Therefore, even though variables were controlled, the researcher’s involvement introduces a significant source of bias, which threatens the internal validity and makes it harder to claim that behaviour changes were solely due to social roles and not researcher influence.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is that it did not fully replicate a real-life prison environment.
Evidence: The experiment was conducted in a mock prison, which did not have the traditional structure of an actual prison. For example, the guards did not have formal training, and the prisoners had not committed real crimes, meaning they lacked the guilt and psychological burden that would have been felt by real inmates. Additionally, although the guards were assigned uniforms and roles, their behaviours were influenced by the artificial nature of the setting rather than genuine authority dynamics.
Justification: Due to this staged and temporary situation, participants may have been acting in ways that they thought was expected, rather than behaving as real prisoners and guards would. This means that the results may be more reflective of demand characteristics rather than actual conformity to social roles.
Implication: As a result, this lowers the internal validity of the study as the findings don’t measure what it actually intends to measure, which is conformity to social roles, however ecological validity is also reduced as the findings may not provide a truly accurate explanation of how social roles influence behaviour in a real-life setting.
Counterargument: However, the participants’ behaviour suggests that they were not simply play-acting, but genuinely identifying with their roles as prisoners and guards.
Evidence: If the prisoners had only been acting, they would not have displayed such severe emotional distress, yet many showed extreme anxiety and even breakdowns, leading to the study stopping on the 6th day instead of running 2 weeks as originally planned. 5 prisoners were even released early due to the extremity of the psychological disturbance they had felt. Similarly, the guards’ aggression escalated over time, suggesting that their behaviour was not simply an act but rather a genuine internalisation of their roles.
Justification: This suggests that each participants’ social roles strongly influenced their behaviour. The fact that their actions intensified over time suggests that they were immersed in their roles, rather than just performing based on stereotypes.
Implication: This increases the internal validity of this study as such internalisation could have meant that the study was assessing what it intended to instead of being influenced by demand characteristics, but this also increases its ecological validity, as it demonstrates that the power of social roles can genuinely shape behaviour, especially in institutions where individuals are encouraged to conform to harsh or submissive roles.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is that it lacked ethical consideration on multiple aspects.
Evidence: Participants were not fully informed about key aspects of the study, such as being arrested at their homes, which may have caused anguish. Additionally, participants were subjected to intense psychological harm, with prisoners experiencing emotional breakdowns through severe humiliation and deprivation, and guards becoming increasingly aggressive to the point that 5 prisoners had to be released early. This ultimately means that the participants weren’t protected from harm and so Zimbardo, as the principal investigator and prison superintendent, failed to intervene readily to protect his participants. Furthermore, there was no thorough, personal debriefing immediately after the study to address the aim of the study and what the participants had endured.
Justification: This lack of adequate safeguarding meant that participants were susceptible to severe psychological and emotional harm, violating the ethical principle of protection from harm. Additionally, whilst Zimbardo obtained general consent, participants were not fully aware of some of the procedures that would occur, i.e. getting arrested at their houses as well as the inevitable psychological effects that accompanied the investigation, which could have evoked feelings of distrust. Moreover, although participants had the right to withdraw, the fact that they were getting paid (around $15 per day) may have pressured them to continue.
Implication: This raises concerns about the ethics of the study as it fails to meet the fundamental moral precepts that are required to be met amongst psychological research by failing to provide fully informed consent, a personal debrief and protecting participants from harm. As a result, Zimbardo’s study would likely not be approved under modern ethical standards, highlighting the need for stricter guidelines in psychological research.
Counterargument: Despite this, Zimbardo defended the Stanford Prison Experiment, claiming that ethical issues were minimised as much as possible.
Evidence: He obtained written informed consent from all participants before the study began, ensuring they were aware of the general nature of the experiment. Additionally, after the study ended, Zimbardo provided a full debriefing (not personal) to help participants process their experiences and maintained contact with them for a year to monitor and compensate for any long-term psychological effects.
Justification: These measures suggest that Zimbardo made an effort to uphold ethical standards, even if some harm was caused during the experiment. The fact that participants were at the least given a general debrief and had given some consent, suggests that Zimbardo took it upon himself to minimise potential distress.
Implication: This restores the psychological value of Zimbardo’s study as he enforces some degree of ethical responsibility and demonstrates awareness of participant welfare, despite the controversial nature of the findings.
Strength
Point: A key strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment is its insightful real-world application in understanding how social roles can influence behaviour in institutional settings.
Evidence: The findings from the study help explain real-life events, such as the abuse of prisoners by American guards at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War. Like in Zimbardo’s study, guards in Abu Ghraib engaged in dehumanising and violent acts, which appeared to result from the power of the roles they were assigned and the lack of proper oversight.
Justification: This supports the idea that situational factors - such as anonymity, group norms, and authority structures - can have a powerful influence on behaviour, even among psychologically healthy individuals. Zimbardo’s research provided understanding into how quickly people can conform to negative social roles, particularly in environments with little accountability.
Implication: As a result, the study has influenced practical changes, including improved training programs, tighter supervision within the military, prisons, and other law enforcement settings. These efforts aim to reduce the likelihood of abuse by addressing the situational pressures that can lead to harmful behaviour.
