Conformity to Social Roles

• Aims of Research Study

  Zimbardo, 1970s, conducted a study to identify why prison guards behave so brutally- was it because they have sadistic personalities, or was it their social role that created such behaviour?
• The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

  Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University. They selected 21 male student volunteers who were tested as 'emotionally stable'. They were then randomly assigned to play the role of guards or prisoners.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

  They were encouraged to conform to their roles through: Uniform

  Prisoners- given a loose smock, a cap covering their hair, identified by a number (names were never used).

  Guards- uniform reflected the status of their roles; wooden club, handcuffs, and mirrored shades.

  The uniforms creates a sense of a loss of personal identity- de-individuation, and meant they were more likely to conform to the roles.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

  They were encouraged to conform to their roles through: Instructions about Behaviour

  Prisoners- they were further encouraged to identify with their role as instead of leaving the study early, they would have to 'apply for parole'.

  Guards- encouraged to play their role by being remined that they had complete control over the prisoners.
• Findings Related to Social Roles: Prisoners

  Guards took their roles with enthusiasm, treating prisoners harshly- within 2 days, prisoners rebelled by ripping their uniforms, shouting at guards who then retaliated with fire extinguishers. After the rebellion, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious. 1 was released after showing signs of psychological disturbance. 2 more were released on the 4th day. 1 went on a hunger strike, so guards tried to force-feed him and placed him in the 'hole'.
• Findings Related to Social Roles: Guards

  They harassed prisoners constantly to remind them of their powerlessness (headcounts at night). They highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules and administer punishments. Guards identified more closely with their role; their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive- with some appearing to enjoy the power they had over prisoners. The study ended after 6 days, rather than the intended 14.
• Conclusions Related to Social Roles

  Social roles appear to have a strong influence over individuals' behaviour- guards became more brutal, and prisoners more submissive. Such roles were taken on easily by all p's, even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (like prison chaplain), they found themselves behaving as if they were in an actual prison- not a psychological study.
• AO3: Control

  A strength is Zimbardo had control over key variables. Selection of P's- only emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to roles. This then ruled out the possibility of individual differences as an explanation for findings. If guards and prisoners behaved differently, but in these roles by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the roles itself. Giving the study high internal validity.
• AO3: Lack of Realism

  It doesn't have the realism of a true prison. Banuazizi and Movahedi argued p's were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. P's performances were based on stereotypes- for example, one guard claimed he based his role on the brutal character from the film 'Cool Hand Luke'. This may also explain why prisoners rebelled; they thought that real prisoners riot. Therefore, the study tells us little about conformity to social roles in real-life prison.
• AO3: Counterpoint to Lack of Realism

  McDermott argues that p's did behave as if the prison was real. For example, 90% of prisoners' conversations were about prison life. They discussed how it was impossible to leave SPE before their 'sentences' were done. This gives the study a high degree of internal validity.
• AO3: Exaggerates the Power of Roles

  Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour. Fromm found that only 1/3 of guards behaved in a brutal manner, another 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly. and the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners (sympathising, offering cigarettes, reinstating privileges). Most guards were able to reduce situational pressures to conform to a brutal role- suggesting conclusions were overstated, Zimbardo minimises the influence of dispositional factors which could explain the individual differences.
• AO3: Alternative Explanation

  Zimbardo claimed that conformity to their social role came naturally and easily; so guards being given their roles would inevitably become brutal as it is expected behaviour. However, Reicher and Haslam criticise this as it doesn't explain the behaviour of the non-brutal guards. They use the Social Identity Theory (SIT), arguing guards had to actively identify with their social roles to act the way they did. They needed to form a cohesive group in order to develop the 'expected' shared social identity.
• AO3: Ethical Issues

  A major ethical issue arose from Zimbardo's dual roles in the study. E.g. a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as superintendent. The whole conversation was conducted on the basis that the student was a prisoner in the prison, asking to be 'released'. Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent, rather than a researcher worried about his responsibilities towards his participants. He couldn't fulfil his ethical responsibility- failing to protect their welfare, and exposing them to the risk of psychological harm. Lack of objectivity.