conformity to social roles

• ZIMBARDO (1973) - CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES

  • white, male Americans - tested before the experiment to find a baseline for typical behaviours
  • Stanford university
  • randomly assigned roles
• PRISONERS IN ZIMBARDOS STUDY

  • went through process of being arrested
  • stripped by guards
  • given a number
  • de-liced and sprayed
• GUARDS IN ZIMBARDOS STUDY

  • given uniform
  • given mirrored sunglasses (de-individualises them)
  • referred to as “mr correctional officer”
• DAY 1 ZIMBARDO

  • almost ended the experiment because “nothing was happening”
  • ethical issue - he was emotionally invested in a certain outcome
• DAY 2 ZIMBARDO

  • prisoners attempted rebellion
  • therefore first to conform to their social role
  • scenario de-individualised people
  • Guards responded with force - stripped, dragged out of cells, solitary confinement, bed linen rubbed in dirt and nettles, put against a wall
  • as a result of prisoners conforming, guards conformed
  • 36 hours for first prisoner to have a psychological breakdown
• LAST DAYS OF ZIMBARDO

  • guards got more violent and abusive (no physical violence as it wasn’t allowed)
  • created punishments
  • counting out pressups for other prisoners
  • cleaning toilets
  • bed linen in dirt and nettles
  • first 5 days - 5 prisoners had to be released
  • study stopped after 6 days
  • originally intended to be 2 weeks
• ZIMBARDO CONCLUSIONS

  • supports situational hypothesis
  • conforming to social roles leads to unusual behaviour
• ZIMBARDO EVALUATION - ARRESTING PRISONERS

  • no informed consent
  • not confidential
  • not protected from harm
  • lack of respect for participants
• ZIMBARDO EVALUATION - PRISONERS ON ARRIVAL

  • not protected from harm (psychological or physical)
  • no fully informed consent
  • not respected
  • right to withdraw was not immediately respected
  • research interests were put before ppts
  • ETHICAL CODE WAS CREATED AS A RESULT
• REICHER AND HASLAM (2002)

  • wanted to revisit main questions of ZImbardos study, but differently
  • wanted to understand what tyranny is, and what makes groups resist
• REICHER AND HASLAM SETTING UP

  • volunteer participants
  • all underwent psychological testing
  • sorted into psychologically similar groups of three
  • one guard and two prisoners
  • set up inequality (e.g. food quality) not power like zimbardo
  • had to create realistic situation without harming people
• DATA COLLECTION METHODS - REICHER AND HASLAM

  THREE forms of data used triangularly to confirm observations

  • observational (looks) - acting, mood, look - QUALITATIVE
  • psychometric (self-reports) - questionnaires about feelings (QUANTITATIVE)
  • physiological (biology) - cortisol, monitored by collecting saliva - QUANTITATIVE
• EARLY DAYS OF REICHER AND HASLAM

  • researchers met with guards and explained their role
  • prisoners arrived similarly to Zimbardo - immediate discontent
  • ppts given opportunity for one prisoner to become a guard
  • potentially led to pro-social behaviour - need to behave “appropriately”
  • guards acted very differently to Zimbardos
  • some very conscious of their position and abusing their power
  • some actively tried to give away power e.g. giving away leftovers
  • guards were not acting as a group
  • prisoner was promoted, groups became permanent
  • only option for improvement was to work together
• DAY 5 REICHER AND HASLAM

  • introduced trade unionist as extra prisoner
  • to see if individual would change situation, or vice-versa
  • he ended up trying to unify guards and prisoners against researchers
• LAST DAYS OF REICHER AND HASLAM

  • prisoners stole guards keys, power imbalance
  • trade unionist attempted making a plan, researchers removed him, plan fell apart - prisoners break out & take over guards quarters
  • attempted to make a commune
  • mostly enthusiastically working
  • after some time, some didn’t want to anymore - commune fell
  • STUDY ENDED A DAY AND A HALF EARLY ON DAY 8
• REICHER AND HASLAM MAIN CONCLUSIONS

  • individuals don’t automatically take up roles they’re given
  • only if they agree with them (depends on dispositional factors too)
  • but ppts were surveyed and personalities were well matched - minimised effects of dispositional variables
  • necessity for a common identity - can work together and agree
  • groups are a necessity for individuals to work collectively to achieve
  • if groups fail it’s very bad psychologically for members