To social roles

• What did Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment set out to test?

  If the high level of aggression observed in American prisons is due to conformity to social roles
• What was the method of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment?

  21 male volunteers and 3 backups assessed as mentally stable were assigned prisoners and guards

  Prisoners were given a realistic arrest at home And fingerprinted, stripped, devoured and given prison uniforms with a number.

  Guards were given complete control along with uniforms, mirrored shades, a wooden club and handcuffs
• What were the finding’s of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment?

  Prisoners and guards conformed to their social roles quickly

  However after 2 days the prisoners revolted against their poor treatment

  The study was ended after 6 days instead of the intended 14
• What were the conclusions of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment?

  Situational environments like prisons can radically alter the behaviour of previously stable individuals.

  This is due to individuals changing to conform to socially defined roles
• How long was Zimbardo’s study planned to take?

  14 days
• When was Zimbardo’s study cancelled and why?

  Cancelled after 6 days due to concerns about the participant’s mental health
• What was Reicher and Haslam’s (2001) Stanford prison experiment replication?

  Replicated for TV

  Findings were inconsistent with Zimbardo

  Prisoners were very disobedient and guards resisted showing authority
• Why do Zimbardo, Asch and Milgram’s studies duffer from gender bias?

  All 3 only used male participants in their study

  Assuming the same results would be found with women is beta bias

  Women may have responded very differently if tested
• What does it mean to say Zimbardo’s okayed a ‘dual role’ in the Stanford prison experiment?

  Zimbardo’s was both the head investigator and the prison superintendent

  • This resulted in a loss of objectivity and likely resulted in psychological harm for the participants
• What is another explanation for the behaviour observed in the Stanford prison experiment?

  The prisoners and guards were lay-acting according to TV and movie stereotypes of prisoners and guards

  Which could’ve been due to demand characteristics
• What was the film the most aggressive guard may have based his aggressive personality on?

  Cool Hand Luke

  This guard’s behaviour may have been due to acting a role rather than a natural change due to the situation
• Why does Zimbardo’s own data not support his claim that people conform to social roles?

  Only a third of the participants assigned to be a guard displayed aggression and the prisoners attempted a rebellion
• What about American prisons today may mean that Zimbardo’s study may have failed?

  American prisons are still as aggressive today. This means it’s unlikely that the Stanford prison experiment had any real world impact
• What is an alternative explanation for the aggression seen in American prisons?

  Zimbardo argues that aggression is situational due to conforming to social roles.

  However, the aggression may be dispositional, violent offenders bringing aggression to the prison and officers needing to use aggression as a required method of controlling dangerous individuals
• Why is the sample in Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment considered volunteer?

  The participants spotted advertisement in the newspaper and put themselves forward
• Zimbardo’s research is considered unethical; If it was to be repeated, who would authorise a replication and how would they decide?

  An ethics committee like the BPA would need to approve such a controversial replication.

  They would base their decision on a cost-benefit analysis, weighing up harms to potential benefits to society
• The Stanford prison experiment- Procedure


  Zimbardo et al. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford uni psychology department to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity.

  • 21 male student volunteers, emotionally stable- paid $15 a day
  • Randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner

  Uniform

  • prisoners- loose smock, number, stocking cap to cover hair
  • guards- khaki uniform, mirrored sunglasses

  Instructions about behaviour

  • prisoners- told they couldn’t leave and would have to ask for parole
  • Guards- instructed to maintain order
• Stanford prison experiment- findings

  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 prisoners

  After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed

  3 prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance

  1 prisoner went on hunger strike, was attempted to be force fed and put in a tiny dark closet

  study ended after 6 rather than 14 days
• Stanford prison experiment- Conclusions

  Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour

  • most conformed strongly to their role

  Guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive

  Other volunteers also easily conformed to their roles in the prison.

  • e.g. the prison chaplain
• Control over key variables- A03

  Only emotionally stable participants were used

  Random allocation

  • roles were allocated by chance so their behaviour is likely due to the role itself and not their personalities

  Control increased the study’s internal validity

  • so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity
• Lacked the realism of a real prison- A03

  Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975)

  • suggest participants were play acting
  • their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave

  1 guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke

  Prisoners rioted because that’s what they though real prisoners did.

  Suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
• High external validity- A03

  Participants behaved as if the prison was real

  • e.g. 90% of conversations were about prison life, prisoner 416 believed it was a prison run by psychologists

  Suggests the SPE replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just like a real prison
• Power of roles exagerated- A03

  The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated

  only a third of the guards behaved brutally

  Another third applied the rules fairly.

  The rest supported the prisoners

  • offering cigarettes and reinstating privileges

  suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences
• Alternative explanation- A03

  Zimbardo claimed participants naturally took on social roles

  • just having a role meant that participants conformed to expectations associated with it

  But this doesn‘t explain those guards who weren’t brutal

  SIT argues only those who identify with the role of guard conform

  This shows that it’s possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role as long as the individual doesn’t identify with the role
• Investigator effect and researcher bias- A03

  Zimbardo was the one interpreting the data but he was present in the experiment

  • his actions and presence was likely to impact participant’s behaviour

  Zimbardo was the Superintendent

  • he was present
• Low population validity- A03

  Only male, American, undergraduate participants

  • same age, gender and country

  Isn’t universally generalisable
• Never been replicated- A03

  Findings have never been replicated

  • suggests that the findings were effected by other extraneous variables
• Findings supported- A03

  Abu Ghraib prison

  • prisoners were tortured, physically and sexually abused, routinely humiliated and some murdered.

  Real life example of the phenomena Zimbardo’s observed