Social Influence case study
- Conformity to Social Roles, Zimbardo (1973)
Procedure (AO1)
- Took place in in a mock prison in Stanford Uni
- They selected 21 male volunteers and randomly assigned them a guard or prisoner
- They were encouraged to conform to their social role through uniform and
instructions
- Prisoners wore a loose smock and a cap, they were identified by a number, but the
guards had handcuffs and mirrored shades
- These uniforms created de-individuation for the prisoners
- Prisoner and guards were encouraged to act how they thought they should
Findings (AO1)
- Guards took up their role enthusiastically and treated the prisoners harshly
- They punished and harassed them
- The prisoners became anxious and depressed and psychological disturbance
- The experiment ended after 6 days instead of 2 weeks
Conclusions (AO1)
- Social roles can heavily influence people especially in a prison setting
High Control (Strength) (AO3)
- Zimbardo had control of all variables, such as selection of participants to create little
difference between participants
- This increased internal validity so confidently draw conclusions about conforming to
social roles
Lack of Realism (Limitation) (AO3)
- SPE did not have the realism of a true prison as its argued that participants were
merely play acting rather than conforming
- Prisoners also based their actions on prison stereotypes and not real life
- This decreases reliability of findings as conformity was not true because it wasn't a
real prison
Exaggerated role power (Limitation) (AO3)
- Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
- For example, ⅓ of the guards believed in brutal power and another ⅓ believed in fair
rules and the rest tired to support the prisoners
- This suggested that Zimbardo overstated his view that the participants were
conforming to social roles and less dispositional (personality) factors
Ethical Issues (Limitation) (AO3)
- Many participants experienced psychological damage and depression which is
against ethical guidelines
- Zimbardo should debrief the participants and give them a right to withdraw when they
want to, and provide support after the stabilise the prisoners
- This will maintain the experiments reputation when comparing it to others
- Conformity to Social Roles, Zimbardo (1973)
Procedure (AO1)
- Took place in in a mock prison in Stanford Uni
- They selected 21 male volunteers and randomly assigned them a guard or prisoner
- They were encouraged to conform to their social role through uniform and
instructions
- Prisoners wore a loose smock and a cap, they were identified by a number, but the
guards had handcuffs and mirrored shades
- These uniforms created de-individuation for the prisoners
- Prisoner and guards were encouraged to act how they thought they should
Findings (AO1)
- Guards took up their role enthusiastically and treated the prisoners harshly
- They punished and harassed them
- The prisoners became anxious and depressed and psychological disturbance
- The experiment ended after 6 days instead of 2 weeks
Conclusions (AO1)
- Social roles can heavily influence people especially in a prison setting
High Control (Strength) (AO3)
- Zimbardo had control of all variables, such as selection of participants to create little
difference between participants
- This increased internal validity so confidently draw conclusions about conforming to
social roles
Lack of Realism (Limitation) (AO3)
- SPE did not have the realism of a true prison as its argued that participants were
merely play acting rather than conforming
- Prisoners also based their actions on prison stereotypes and not real life
- This decreases reliability of findings as conformity was not true because it wasn't a
real prison
Exaggerated role power (Limitation) (AO3)
- Zimbardo exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
- For example, ⅓ of the guards believed in brutal power and another ⅓ believed in fair
rules and the rest tired to support the prisoners
- This suggested that Zimbardo overstated his view that the participants were
conforming to social roles and less dispositional (personality) factors
Ethical Issues (Limitation) (AO3)
- Many participants experienced psychological damage and depression which is
against ethical guidelines
- Zimbardo should debrief the participants and give them a right to withdraw when they
want to, and provide support after the stabilise the prisoners
- This will maintain the experiments reputation when comparing it to others
