Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo

• What year was Zimbardo's research in?

  1973
• Where was his study done?

  Mock prison made in the basement of Stanford University
• Who was his sample?

  21 males, Canadian and American
• How were participants assigned roles in Zimbardo's study?

  Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of prisoner or guard.
• How long was the Stanford Prison Experiment supposed to last, and how long did it actually last?

  It was planned to last 2 weeks but was stopped after just 6 days due to extreme psychological and emotional reactions.
• What behaviours did the guards display during the experiment?

  The guards became increasingly abusive, enforcing punishments, using humiliation, and displaying authoritarian behaviour, even though they were told not to use physical violence.
• What behaviours did the prisoners display during the experiment?

  Prisoners became passive, anxious, and depressed. Some showed signs of severe emotional distress, and one had to be released after just 36 hours.
• What conclusion did Zimbardo draw from his study?

  People readily conform to social roles, especially when those roles are strongly stereotyped and supported by the environment, suggesting that situational factors heavily influence behaviour.
• Who acted as the prison superintendent in the experiment?

  Philip Zimbardo himself acted as the prison superintendent, which later raised concerns about objectivity and ethical oversight.
• What ethical issues were raised by the Stanford Prison Experiment?

  Psychological harm, right to withdraw, Zimbardo's dual role.
• How were they deindividuated?

  Guards were given uniforms and reflective glasses, prisoners were given smocks.
• How were participants paid?

  They were given $15 every day of the experiment.
• What tasks were the prisoners made to do by the guards?

  degrading tasks like cleaning the toilet with their bare hands
• A strength of Zimbardo’s research is its real-life application, particularly in explaining the events at Abu Ghraib prison. In the early 2000s, American soldiers were found to have abused Iraqi prisoners in ways that were very similar to the behaviour shown by guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment, such as using humiliation, threats and physical punishment. Zimbardo argued that the soldiers’ actions were influenced by the situation they were placed in, including a lack of supervision, the power given to them and the dehumanisation of the prisoners. This supports the idea that people conform to social roles and that situational factors can lead ordinary individuals to behave in extreme ways. Therefore, the study is useful in helping us understand how certain environments can influence behaviour in real-world settings.
• What real-life event supports Zimbardo’s findings?

  The abuse of prisoners by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in the early 2000s.
• How does Abu Ghraib relate to the Stanford Prison Experiment?

  The behaviour of the soldiers, such as humiliation and physical punishment, was similar to the behaviour of the guards in Zimbardo’s study.
• What situational factors did Zimbardo argue influenced the soldiers’ behaviour at Abu Ghraib?

  Lack of supervision, power over prisoners and the dehumanisation of inmates.
• Why is Zimbardo’s research considered useful based on real-life application?

  It helps explain how people can conform to situational factors, leading to abuse of power.
• A limitation of Zimbardo’s research is that it has been contradicted by later studies, such as the BBC Prison Study by Reicher and Haslam (2006). In their replication, participants did not automatically conform to their assigned social roles. The guards did not display abusive behaviour, and the prisoners eventually took control of the prison, showing resistance and group cohesion. This challenges Zimbardo’s conclusion that people passively conform to roles in a given situation. Reicher and Haslam argued that social identity and group norms played a stronger role in behaviour than simply the power of the situation. This suggests that conformity to social roles is not automatic and may depend on personal and group factors, reducing the validity of Zimbardo’s original findings.
• What study contradicts the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?

  The BBC Prison Study by Reicher and Haslam (2006).
• How did the behaviour of participants in the BBC Prison Study differ from Zimbardo’s study?

  The guards did not become abusive, and the prisoners eventually took control of the prison.
• What does the BBC Prison Study imply about the validity of Zimbardo’s findings?

  It reduces the validity, as it shows different outcomes when similar conditions are replicated.
• A major limitation of Zimbardo’s study is that it caused significant psychological harm to participants. Some of the prisoners experienced extreme emotional distress, with one having to be released after just 36 hours due to uncontrollable crying and anxiety. The guards also showed disturbing changes in behaviour, becoming increasingly aggressive and cruel. Although participants gave consent, they were not fully prepared for the emotional impact of the study, and Zimbardo, acting as prison superintendent, did not step in quickly enough to protect them. This raises serious ethical concerns, as researchers have a duty to protect participants from harm. Therefore, the study is often criticised for violating ethical guidelines related to psychological well-being.
• What ethical issue is a major limitation of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?

  Psychological harm to participants.
• What evidence shows that prisoners experienced psychological harm in the study?

  One prisoner had to be released after 36 hours due to severe emotional distress, including uncontrollable crying and anxiety.
• Why is the consent given by participants considered ethically problematic?

  Participants were not fully aware of the emotional harm they might experience, so their consent was not fully informed.
• What ethical guideline did Zimbardo fail to uphold as both researcher and superintendent?

  The duty to protect participants from harm and withdraw them from the study when necessary.