Conformity of social roles

• Zimbardo et al. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. They selected 21 men (student volunteers) who tested as 'emotionally table. The students were randomly assigned to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
• Uniforms The prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, and they were identified by number. The guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. These uniforms created a loss of personal identity and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role.
• Instructions about behaviour The prisoners were further encouraged to identify with their role by several procedures. For example rather than leaving the study early, prisoners could apply for parole. The guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners.
• The guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating the prisoners harshly. Within two days, the prisoners rebelled. They ripped their uniforms and shouted and swore at the guards, who retaliated with fire extinguishers. The guards used divide-and-rule tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other. They harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them of the powerlessness of their role.
• For example they conducted frequent headcounts, sometimes at night, when the prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers. The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishments.
• After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. One was released because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the fourth day. One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards tried to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in the hole, a tiny dark closet. The guards identified more and more closely with their role.
• Their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners. Zimbardo ended the study after six days instead of the intended 14.
• Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological study.
• One strength of the Stanford prison experiment (SPE) is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables. The most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. Emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. I
• If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself. This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
• One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participants performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did.
• This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons. However, Mark McDermott (2019) argues that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them. For example, 90% of the prisoners' conversations were about prison life. Amongst themselves, they discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their sentences' were over.
• 'Prisoner 416' later explained how he believed the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government. This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.
• Another limitation is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour. For example, only one-third of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner. Another third tried to apply the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners. They sympathised, offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges (Zimbardo 2007).
• Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role. This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors like personality.