conformity to social roles (zimbardo)

• zimbardo: stanford prsion experiment (SPE)

  • set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford university to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity
• SPE procedure

  • 21 male student volunteers (selected by psychological testing that showed them to be 'emotionally stable') - they were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner
  • social roles were encouraged by 2 routes:
  • uniform = prisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform + number (this encourage de-individuation). guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs etc
  • instructions about behaviour = prisoners told they couldn't leave but would have to ask for parole. guards told they had complete power over prisoners
• findings of SPE

  • guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
  • prisoners rebelled within 2 days = ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards - guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners (reminder of their powerless role)
  • after rebellion put down:
  • prisoners became subdued/anxious/depressed
  • 3 prisoners released early (showed signs of psychological disturbance)
  • 1 prisoner went on hunger strike (guards tried to force feed, punished him by putting him in 'the hole')
  • study stopped after 6 days, instead of planned 14
• conclusions of SPE

  • social roles are powerful influences on behaviour - most conformed strongly to their role
  • guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive
  • other volunteers also easily conformed to their roles in the prison (eg the 'chaplain')
• strength of SPE = control over key variables

  • emotionally-stable pps recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard of prisoner
  • guards+prisoners had those roles only by chance => their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities
  • this control increased the study's internal validity => we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity
• limitation = SPE lacked realism of a true prison

  • Banuazizi and Mohavedi = suggested pps were play-acting. their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners + guards are supposed to behave
  • one guard based his role on a character from Cool Hand Luke, prisoners rioted because they though that is what real prisoners did
  • suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
• counterpoint

  • pps did behave as if the prison was real:
  • 90% of conversations about prison life
  • prisoner 416 believed it was a prison run by psychologists
  • suggests SPE replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as in a real prison, internal validity
• limitation = zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles

  • once 1/3 of guards behaved brutally
  • 1/3 applied the rules fairly
  • rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges
  • suggests SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (eg personality)
• alternative explanation (extra evaluation)

  • zimbardo claimed that pps naturally took on their social roles - just having a role meant that pps conformed to expectations associated with it
  • BUT this doesn't explain those guards who were not brutal:
  • Reicher and Haslam = social identity theory argues only those who identify with the role of the guard conform
  • shows that it is possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual does not identify with that role