Conformity to Social Roles

• What was the aim of Zimbardo et al (1973)?

  To investigate conformity to social roles
• How many male student volunteers participated in the study?

  21 male student volunteers
• Where did the experiment take place?

  Psychology basement of Stanford University
• What criteria were used to select participants?

  Emotionally stable individuals were chosen
• How were participants assigned to their roles?

  Randomly assigned to either prisoner or guard
• What were prisoners encouraged to do in the study?

  Conform to their social roles
• What uniform did prisoners wear?

  A loose smock and a cap
• How were guards equipped in the study?

  With khaki uniforms, clubs, handcuffs, and shades
• What behavior did some guards exhibit within hours?

  They began to harass prisoners
• What happened within 2 days of the experiment?

  The prisoners rebelled against the guards
• How did guards retaliate against the prisoners' rebellion?

  Used fire extinguishers and divide-and-rule tactics
• What behavior did prisoners adopt during the experiment?

  They became more submissive
• How did the behavior of guards change as prisoners became submissive?

  Guards became more aggressive and assertive
• How long did Zimbardo originally plan for the experiment to last?

  14 days
• Why did Zimbardo end the experiment early?

  Due to the extreme behavior exhibited
• What controls were implemented in the study?

  • Emotionally stable individuals selected
  • Random assignment to roles
  • Ruling out individual personality differences
• What did McDermott (2019) claim about participants' behavior?

  • Participants acted as if prison was real
  • 90% of conversations were about prison life
  • Believed they couldn't leave before sentences ended
• What criticisms were made about the realism of the study?

  • Participants were play-acting
  • Based on stereotypes of roles
  • Findings may not reflect actual prison behavior
• What did Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) argue?

  • Participants were not genuinely conforming
  • Behavior was based on stereotypes
  • Findings tell little about real prison conformity
• How did the behavior of guards vary?

  • ⅓ behaved brutally
  • ⅓ applied rules fairly
  • ⅓ helped and supported prisoners
• What does the study suggest about the power of roles?

  Zimbardo overstated conformity to social roles
• What does the study imply about dispositional factors?

  Most guards resisted situational pressures
• AO3 - What is a strength for Zimbardo’s Research?

  Control

  • Emotionally stable individuals were chosen as participants and were 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 and so the displayed 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 more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
• AO3 - What is a strength for Zimbardo’s Research?

  Realistic for the Participants

  • McDermott (2019) claims that participants behaved as if the prison was real to them, as 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life
  • They discussed how it was impossible to leave the Stanford Prison experiment before their sentences were over
  • This suggests that the Stanford Prison experiment did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity
• AO3 - What is a limitation for Zimbardo’s Research?

  Lack of Realism

  • Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) argued the participants were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role
  • Participants were based on stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave
  • This suggests that the findings of the Stanford Prison experiment tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
• AO3 - What is a limitation for Zimbardo’s Research?

  Exaggerates the Power of Roles

  • Only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal way, while another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly, and the rest tried to help and support the prisoners
  • Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
  • This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that the Stanford Prison experiment participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors