Conformity to Social Roles: Zimbardo's research

• Zimbardo's procedure:

  Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. The volunteer students were randomly assigned the roles of guards or prisoners. The 'prisoners' were arrested in their homes by the local police and were then delivered to the 'prison'. They were blindfolded, strip-searched and issued a uniform and number. The prisoners' names were never used, only their numbers. The guards had their own uniform, complete with handcuffs, keys and mirror shades.
• Zimbardo's findings:

  The guards' behaviour became a threat to the prisoners' psychological and physical health, and the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14. Within 2 days, the prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment by the guards. The guards harassed the prisoners constantly, to remind them they were being monitored all the time. After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became depressed and anxious. One prisoner went on a hunger strike. The guards attempted to force-feed him and then punished him by putting him in 'the hole', a tiny dark closet.
• Zimbardo's conclusions:

  The simulation revealed the power of the situation to influence people's behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison.
• AO3 - Control:

  Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoners. This was one way in which the researchers tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. Having such control over variables is a strength because it increases the internal validity of the study.
• AO3 - Lack of realism:

  It has been argued that the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Their performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from a film. This would explain why the prisoners rioted - because they thought that was what real prisoners did.
• AO3 - Role of dispositional influences:

  Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour, and minimising the role of dispositional influences. For example, only a minority of the guards behaved in a brutal manner. Another third were keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners by offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. This suggests that Zimbardo's conclusion - that participants were conforming to social roles - may be over-stated.
• AO3 - Ethical issues:


  A major ethical issue arose because of Zimbardo's dual roles in the study. For example, on one occasion 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 a prison, asking to be 'released'. Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of the prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.