Social Influence - Conformity to Social Roles (Zimbardo)

Question 1

Social Role

Answer 1

• Behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a given social position of status

Question 2

Conformity to Social Role

Answer 2

• Extent to which people behave in the expected manners according to their social role

Question 3

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment - Procedure

Answer 3

• Mock prison in basement of Stanford University
• Advertised for volunteers + selected those ‘emotionally stable’
• 24 male students randomly assigned roles of ‘guards + prisoners’
• Prisoners arrested in their homes + delivered to prison
• Were deindividuated as were blindfolded, strip searched, given smock + number
• Daily routines were strict - 16 rules enforced by guards who took shifts - only referred by numbers
• Guards had khaki uniform, sunglasses and truncheon - had complete power over prisoners

Question 4

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment - Findings

Answer 4

• Guards became fully invested in social roles
• Study stopped after 6 days instead of 14 - guards became a threat to prisoners physical + mental wellbeing
• After 2 days, prisoners would rebel against harsh treatment by ripping their uniforms etc.
• Guards would retaliate with aggressive, meaningless commands
• Guards would pit prisoners against one another
• One prisoner released on first day - showed signs of psychological disturbance
• 2 more released on the fourth day, one prisoner began a hunger strike - guards would force feed him

Question 5

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment - Conclusion

Answer 5

• Power of the situation will influence people’s behaviour
• Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison
• Roles easily taken on by ppts
• Even volunteers who came in to act out certain roles found themselves behaving as if they were in a real prison
• Many ethical issues
• Zimbardo was superintendent in the prison - student asked to leave + played into the role, only referring to running of his prison not the real-life concern for the ppt

Question 6

strengths of Stanford Prison Experiment

Answer 6

• Prison reforms occurred in USA
• Emotionally stable individuals were chosen + assigned social roles at random so no bias
• Rules out individual personality differences

Question 7

Limitations of Stanford Prison Experiment

Answer 7

• Lack of realism:
  Banguazizi + Mohavedi - Ppts were play-acting rather than conforming to a role
• Performances based on a stereotype on how prisoners + guards were supposed to behave
• Explain why prisoners rioted - one of guards said his actions were based off movie character
• Zimbardo found that 90% of prisoners convos were about prison life
• Dispositional Influences:
  Fromm - accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation + minimising role of dispositional factors
• Only a minority of guards behaved brutally, 1/3 applied rules fairly, the rest attempted to aid the prisoners
• Zimbardo’s conclusion may be overstated

Question 8

Reicher and Haslam replication

Answer 8

• Replicated Zimbardo’s study in 2006 - BBC study
• Opposite to original study
• Prisoners were the ones who adopted more of a cohesive group behaviour which the guards didn’t
• Prisoners overthrew guards + harassed them
• Social Identity Theory - prisoner shared a social identity as a group who wouldn’t accept their prisoner roles

Question 9

Real-life - Abu Ghraib

Answer 9

• Zimbardo said his study explained behaviour of American soldiers
• ‘The Lucifer Effect’ - good people put into bad situations do bad things
• Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in subsequent trials of a US soldier, highest ranking officer present