Zimbardo

• Stanford Prison Experiment - healthy willing men assigned into groups of “ prisoners “ and “ guards ” randomly. Guards were there to keep prisoners under control.
• Prisoners - “ arrested ” from their homes unexpectedly and taken to the university. They were stripped, deloused and given a number to be referred to instead of their names. No individuality.
• Guards - were given uniforms and mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact and emotional connection.
• Prisoners had to stay in their cells for 23 hours a day whereas guards got to go home at the end of their shift
• Zimbardo - the experiment got called off after 6 days instead of two weeks. The guards had become too brutal and the prisoners had become apathetic.
• Zimbardo found that prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles. The prisoners rebelled at first, but quickly submitted to their social role
• AO3. Zimbardo's study broke too many ethical guidelines. There was no protection from harm, the prisoners faced both physical and psychological harm, for example some prisoners had to leave the experiment early because of their reactions to the torment. Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University, he acknowledged that he should have stopped the study earlier.
• AO3. Individual differences and personality also determine how someone conforms to social roles. The behaviour of the guards varied drastically, some were sadistic while some tried to help the prisoners. This suggests that the situational factors are not the only things involved in conformity, but also dispositional factors play a role, and Zimbardo's conclusion could be overstated.
• AO3. There is real life application for Zimbardo's study. In Abu Ghraib, situational factors such as a lack of training, boredom and no accountability with an opportunity to abuse power led to guards abusing prisoners. This shows that situational factors can contribute to a person's likelihood of conforming to a social role, as stated by Zimbardo
• AO3. Zimbardo's study may lack internal validity. Zimbardo was closely involved in the study and played the role of the prison's superintendent. As an authority figure, he influenced the behaviour of the guards, meaning they may have been showing demand characteristics due to his input. Zimbardo should have remained a neutral observer in order to obtain unbiased results from the study