SOCIAL INFLUENCE - conformity to social roles + Zimbardo's research Flashcards
what are social roles?
the parts people play as members of social groups. eg parent,child,student,passenger.
They come with expectations of what is appropriate behaviour for that role.
what was Zimbardo’s hypothesis?
Zimbardo argues that it is the situation that makes people act the way they do, rather than their disposition (characteristics)
Zimbardo et al (1973) - the Stanford prison experiment
- mock prison set up in the basement of psychology department in Stanford uni
- 21 male student volunteers - emotionally stable
- random allocation used to assign role of prisoner or guard
-prisoners and guards were given uniforms = created a loss of personal identity - de-individuation SO more likely to conform to social role - P and G given instructions ab behaviour: to identify with their role
eg. Guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had control and power pver Prisoners
What were the findings of SPE?
- guard took on their roles with enthusiasm and punished prisoners harshly
- 2 days later - prisoners rebelled, ripped uniforms, shouted
- guards harassed prisoners to constantly remind them of their powerlessness. eg frequent head count
- guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce punishment + rules
- prisoners were subdued, depressed, anxious
1 P released- showed signs of psychological disturbance
2 P released on day 4
1 P went on hunger strike - guards force fed - guards identified more and more closely with their roles- behaviour more brutal
- zimbardo ended study on day 4 instead of intended 16
what are the strengths of Zimbardo’s study?
- Z + colleagues had control over key variables
eg= emotionally stable Ps selected so researchers ruled out personality differences + randomly assigned to roles of P+G. Increased Internal validity due to the control of variables.
if P+G had different behaviours it was due to their role, not personality
-McDermott (2019) argues that Ps behaved if prison was real to them - 90% of prisoners conversations was about prison life which shows that they identify with their role and conform.
eg. prisoners 416 explained he was in a real prison
Therefore there is high INTERNAL VALIDT as this replicates social roles.
what are limitations of Zimbardo’s study?
- Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argue that it is not realistic of true prison. They argue that Ps are merely play acting rather than conforming to the role.
Ps behaviour based on stereotypes of how P+G would behave.
SO findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons. - exaggerates power of social role to influence behaviour
eg.1/3 G behaved brutally
another 1/3 applied to rules fairly
Rest of the guards tried help + support the Prisoners by offering cigarettes.
SUGGESTING…Z overstated his view that SPE Ps were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors.
what is Zimbardo’s explanation for the behaviour of G+P?
conforming to social roles comes ‘naturally’ and easily. Being given the role of a guard means the Ps will inevitably behave brutally because that is the behaviour expected of someone with that role.
who criticises Zimbardo’s explanation and why?
Reicher and Hasalm (2006) - Zimbardo’s explanation does not account for the behaviour of non brutal guards. They used social identity theory to argue that the guards had to actively identify with their social roles act.
