Zimbardo - Conformity to Social Roles

• Social roles:

  the 'roles' people play in various social groups. We have expectations of what is classes as appropriate behaviour based on these roles.
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Aims:

  • examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner
  • examine whether the behaviours displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors (the people themselves) or external situational factors (environment and conditions).
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Procedure (Part 1):

  • converted basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison.
  • 75 applicants and each got interviewed and tested to eliminate people with psychological problems, mental illness or history of crime and drugs.
  • 24 men chosen to take part
  • Participants were randomly selected prisoner or prison guard. They were issue a uniform, and were referred to be their number only.
  • 10 prisoners, 11 guards
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Procedure (Part 2):

  • Observed the behaviour of the prisoners and guards and also acted as a prison warden.
  • They were paid $15 a day
  • They were meant to spent 2 weeks locked in a cell (3 in a cell)
  • Solitary confinement cell for prisoners who 'misbehaved'
  • Unexpectedly arrested at home
  • 23 hours a day locked in their cells
  • Prison guards - identical khaki uniforms, sticks, mirrored sunglasses (depersonalisation)
  • Guards worked shifts - went home at end whereas prisoners stayed in the prisons.
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Findings (Part 1):

  • Prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behaviour , talked about prison issues and 'told tales' on each other.
  • Taunted with petty orders and insults, given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish, generally dehumanised.
  • A rebellion broke out the morning of the second day, guards retaliated and broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked and took the beds out,
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Findings (Part 2):

  • Prisoner #819 could hear the chanting (bad prisoner) and was sobbing uncontrollably.
  • Experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks but was terminated on the 6th day
  • Within hours of the experiment starting, some guards began to harrass prisoners, awakened from sleep by blasting whistles for first of many 'counts'.
  • Prisoners asked for parole
  • 5 prisoners had to released early due to breakdown.
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Conclusion (Part 1):

  • revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play
  • participants gradually assumed those new identities in a stimulated prison setting, despite their awareness of it's experimental nature
  • Support the situational factors rather than dispositional
• Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment Conclusion (Part 2):

  • none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic techniques before the study
  • Deindividuation - immersed in the norms of the group - lose sense of identity and person responsibility
  • Learned helplessness - prisoners submission to the guards - they had little effect on what happened.
• Evaluation Ethics (Zimbardo):

  • Informed Consent

  The participants did not know the true aims of the experiment and thought they were inside of an actual prison, and the arrests

  This made the results more valid. A debrief will be given to participants to inform them of everything and get their consent for their information/results to be used.
• Evaluations Ethics (Zimbardo):

  • Protection from harm

  Prisoners had breakdowns during the experiment and had to leave, guards tortured the prisoners, humiliated and distressed.

  They offer counselling, interviews and give them a valid understand on conformity.
• Evaluations Ethics (Zimbardo):

  • Right to Withdraw

  Zimbardo persuaded participants who wanted to leave to stay (Prisoner #8612), asked for parole, paid for the experiment

  Allow participants to withdraw their results from the experiment, increased validity and understanding.
• Evaluations Ethics (Zimbardo):

  • Deception

  They thought they were in an actual prison, the aim was to see if people would conform to social roles.

  Results were valid as it reduces demand characteristics, applicable to real life (Navy).
• Strength 1 (Zimbardo):

  • High levels of control

  Zimbardo had high levels of control in his study. The prisoners and prison guards were randomly allocated. He made the environment look like a real proson by prisoners and prison guards having set uniforms and by having 3 prisoners to a cell. Before going into the study, he interviewed and tested the participants in order to eliminate those with psychological problems, mental illnesses or with a history of crime and drugs. This is a strength as it allows us to establish cause and effect and how social roles have an impact on our behaviour.
• Strength 2 (Zimbardo):

  • Applicable

  Another strength is thar it was real world applications as seen in Abu Ghraib (Iraq 2003). The guards were inhumane which shows that the study is valid.
• Limitation 1 (Zimbardo):

  • Demand Characteristics

  One limitation of Zimbardo's prison study is that it was conducted in an artificial environment; the basement of Stanford Uni. Participants may have displayed demand characteristics as they may act how they think Zimbardo wants them to act. This has an effect on internal validity as they were paid $15 a day so may have wanted to play the part more effectively. The results lack ecological validity, so they can't be generalised to everyday life. The results from this study do not tell us much about behaviour and social roles in everyday life.
• Limitation 2 (Zimbardo):

  • Sample

  Another limitation is the sample used in this study contained 123 US male student volunteers paid $15 a day. This means that the sample is androcentric as cannot be generalised to women. Also, it is ethnocentric as it cannot be generalised to non-western cultures, who may not conform to social roles in the same way. Finally, being paid can impact their behaviour because they are more likely to stay in the experiment and act how they think they are expected to act. This means that we don't know if women would conform to social roles in the same way as men.
• Limitation 3 (Zimbardo):

  • Temporal Validity

  An issue with Zimbardo's study is that it is criticised for lacking temporal validity. This was shown in a replication study conducted by Retcher and Haslam for the BBC in 2006. They found that prisoners took over the prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience. The prisoners shared a social identity as a group. This is a limitation as Zimbardo's study can't be applied as conformity to social roles and our cultural understanding of prisons has changed over time. This is shown in the prison system (riots).