Conformity to social roles

• Social roles

  = parts people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.
• Zimbardo 


  = wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally- was it because they have sadistic personalities or was it their social role.
• Stanford prison experiment

  Zimbardo set up a mock prison in basement of university.

  • selected 21 emotionally stable male students
  • randomly assigned to play role of prisoner and guard.
  • both encouraged to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
• Uniforms 


  -prisoners given a loose smock and a cap. Identified by a number.

  -guards had own uniform reflecting status and role, with a wooden club, handcuffs and mirrored shades.

  • these uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individuation) and meant they would be more likely to conform to the perceived social role
• Instructions about behaviour

  -prisoners further encouraged to identify with their role. Eg: rather than leaving study early prisoners could apply for parole

  -guards reminded they had complete power over the prisoners
• findings

  • guards took up role with enthusiasm, treating prisoners harshly. Within 2 days prisoners rebelled= ripped up uniforms and shouted at guards.
  • guards used divide-and-rule tactic by playing prisoners off against each other.
  • they harassed prisoners constantly to remind them of the powerlessness of their role. They highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rule and administer punishment
• Findings continued

  • prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious.
  • 1 released due to psychological disturbance and 2 more released on day 4.
  • One prisoner when on hunger strike who was then put in a dark and tiny closet.
  • guards identified more closely with role. Their behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive
  • ended study after 6 days instead of 14.
• Conclusions related to social roles

  =social roles appear to have a strong influence on Individuals behaviour. -guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive
• Evaluation- control

  Strength= Zimbardo had control over key variables

  • eg: selection of participants= emotionally stable individuals chosen and randomly assigned roles
  • this ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved differently but roles given by chance then behaviour must be due to the role itself
  • this degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study so can be confident about conclusions
• Evaluation- lack of realism

  Limitation= did not have realism of true prison.

  • some argue participants were play acting rather than genuinely conforming.
  • participants performances based on their stereotypes of how prisoner and guards are supposed to behave
  • explains why prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real prisoners did.
  • suggests findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
• Evaluation-Counterpoint

  McDermott argues the participants did behave as if prisons was real to them.

  • 90% of prisoners conversations were about prison life- amongst themselves they discussed how it was impossible to leave the experiment before their sentence was over.
  • one prisoner thought the prison was real but was just run by psychologists rather than the government
  • suggests that the experiment did replicate social roles of prisoners and guards in real prisons giving high internal validity
• Evaluation- exaggerates the power of roles

  Limitation= exaggerated the power of social roles on influence behaviour

  • eg: only 1/3 of guards actually behaved in a brutal manner, 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly and the rest actively tried to help and support prisoners
  • most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to brutal roles
  • suggests zimbardo overstated his view the participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (personality)