Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo

• What was Zimbardo's procedure?

  Zimbardo et 01. (1973) set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University to investigate the effect of social roles on conformity

  21 male student volunteers were involved in the study— selected by psychological testing that showed them to be 'emotionally stable'. They were randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner.
• How were the social roles encouraged by two routes?

  Uniform

  Prisoners were strip-searched, given a uniform and number (no names), this encouraged de-individuation. Guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs, etc.

  
  

  Instructions about behaviour

  Prisoners were told they could not leave but would have to ask for parole. Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners.
• What were the findings of Zimbardo's study?

  The guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly. The prisoners rebelled within two days — they ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards. The guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed the prisoners —reminder of their powerless role (e.g. frequent headcounts, including at night).

  The guards' behaviour threatened the prisoners' psychological and physical health. For example:

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

  2. Three prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance.

  3. One prisoner went on hunger strike the guards attempted to forcefeed him and punished him by putting him in 'the hole', a tiny dark closet. The study was stopped after six days instead of the planned 14 days.
• What did Zimbardo conclude?

  Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour— most conformed strongly to their role. Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive. Other volunteers also easily conformed to their roles in the prison (e.g. the 'chaplain').
• What is a strength of the stanford prison experiment? (key variables)

  P - One strength of the SPE is the control over key variables.

  E - Emotionally-stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard or prisoner

  E- The guards and prisoners had those roles only by chance. So their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities.

  L - This control increased the study's internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity.
• What is a limitation of the stanford prison experiment? (realism)


  P - One limitation is that the SPE lacked the realism of a true prison.

  E - Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) suggest participants were play-acting. Their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.

  E- One guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did.

  L - This suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.

  C - Participants behaved as if the prison was real, e.g. 90% of conversations about prison life, Prisoner 416 believed it was a prison run by psychologists. This suggests the SPE replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as in a real prison, increasing internal validity
• What is a limitation of the stanford prison experiment? (power of roles)

  P - Another limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles.

  E - The power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE (Fromm 1973).

  E- Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges.

  L - This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (e.g personality).