Paper 1- Conformity to Social Roles as Investigated by Zimbardo
In 1973, Philip Zimbardo undertook a highly controversial study, the Stanford Prison Experiment, aiming to scrutinise the extent to which individuals would conform to the assigned social roles of a prison guard or prisoner within a simulated prison environment.
His broader objective was to discern whether the observed behaviours in prisons stemmed from internal dispositional factors within individuals or external situational factors related to the prison environment.
Zimbardo recruited a sample of 21 male university students who responded to a newspaper advertisement. These participants, selected based on their physical and mental stability, received $15 per day for their involvement. Randomly assigned to either the role of prisoners or guards, they entered a meticulously crafted mock prison in the basement of Stanford University.
To heighten the realism, 'prisoners' were subjected to a realistic arrest by actual local police, complete with fingerprinting, stripping, and being given numbered smocks and ankle chains. On the other hand, 'guards' were equipped with uniforms, reflective sunglasses, handcuffs, and a truncheon. The guards were instructed to manage the prison without resorting to physical violence, and the experiment was intended to run for two weeks.
Results revealed a swift identification of both prisoners and guards with their assigned roles. Within days, a rebellion among the prisoners was crushed by the increasingly abusive guards, leading to dehumanisation practices such as waking prisoners during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands. The prisoners, in turn, became submissive, further embracing their subordinate role.
The experiment took a dark turn, leading to the early release of five prisoners due to severe adverse reactions, including crying and extreme anxiety. Originally planned for two weeks, the study was abruptly terminated after just six days when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach persuaded Zimbardo that the conditions had become inhumane. (Maslach later became Zimbardo’s wife).
Zimbardo's key conclusion was that individuals conform rapidly to social roles, even when these roles conflict with their moral principles. Furthermore, he asserted that situational factors largely drove the observed behaviours, as none of the participants had previously exhibited such behaviours.
Evaluation of Zimbardo
A later replication by Reicher and Haslam (2006) contradicted Zimbardo's findings. Randomly assigning 15 men to the roles of prisoners or guards, this study did not observe automatic conformity to social roles. Guards refused to impose authority, and prisoners collectively challenged the guards, resulting in a shift of power and the collapse of the prison system. These results directly challenged Zimbardo's assertions, suggesting that conformity to social roles may not be automatic, as initially implied.
Moreover, individual differences and personality emerged as crucial factors determining the extent of conformity to social roles. Zimbardo's original experiment showcased dramatic variations in guard behaviour, from extreme sadism to acts of kindness. This implies that situational factors alone do not account for conformity, and dispositional factors also contribute to the observed behaviours.
Ethical criticisms have also plagued Zimbardo's experiment, particularly concerning protection from harm. Early termination due to adverse reactions and reports of anxiety and guilt among the guards highlighted the potential psychological impact. Although Zimbardo followed Stanford University's ethical guidelines and conducted debriefing sessions, he conceded that the study should have been halted sooner.
