Conformity To Social Roles as Investigated by Zimbardo- Worksheet model answers
01.) Break it down for me
Conformity to social roles refers to the way individuals behave in a manner expected of them based on the social position they occupy. This type of conformity occurs when people adopt the behaviours, attitudes, and norms associated with their assigned roles in society.
Example:
In Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), participants were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards in a simulated prison environment. The guards quickly conformed to their authoritative role, enforcing strict rules and even displaying aggressive behaviour. Meanwhile, the prisoners conformed to their submissive role, becoming passive and obedient. This study demonstrated how people conform to the expectations of social roles, sometimes to extreme levels.
2.) Right or Wrong?
| Statement | True or False? | Corrected Statement (if false) |
|---|---|---|
| A simulated prison was built in the basement of Yale University. | False | A simulated prison was built in the basement of Stanford University. |
| The study’s participants were 21 male volunteers, selected because they were considered ‘emotionally stable.’ | True | - |
| Participants were randomly assigned to the roles of prisoners or guards, and the prisoners were unexpectedly arrested from their homes. | True | - |
| The participants took part in the study without receiving any payment. | False | Participants were paid $15 per day for their involvement in the study. |
| Prisoners had to follow 16 specific rules and were only identified by their surnames. | False | Prisoners had to follow 16 specific rules and were identified by numbers, not their surnames. |
| The study was originally planned to last for two weeks but was terminated after just six days. | True | - |
| Some guards developed aggressive and abusive behaviours, while some prisoners experienced extreme emotional distress. | True | - |
| The study demonstrated that people conform to social roles, even if it leads to behaviours they would not typically display. | True | - |
3.) Explain....
In what way did Zimbardo investigate conformity to social roles?
Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 at Stanford University using a controlled observation. He recruited 21 male participants through a newspaper advertisement, offering them $15 per day. All participants were screened to ensure they were emotionally stable before being randomly assigned to the role of either prisoner or guard.
The study took place in a mock prison constructed in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department. Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested from their homes by real police officers, blindfolded, and taken to the prison, where they were strip-searched, deloused, and given uniforms with identification numbers. They were referred to only by their numbers to dehumanise them. Guards were given military-style uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, batons, and whistles to establish authority. Although physical violence was not allowed, guards quickly began displaying authoritarian behaviour, enforcing strict discipline and humiliating the prisoners.
Zimbardo observed interactions through video recordings, direct observations, and interviews. The study was originally planned to last two weeks but was terminated after six days due to the extreme psychological distress displayed by prisoners and the abusive behaviour of the guards. The research demonstrated the powerful influence of social roles and how individuals conform to the expectations of their assigned roles in specific environments.
What insights does Zimbardo’s study provide about conformity to social roles?
Zimbardo’s study provides significant insights into how individuals conform to social roles, even when those roles require behaviours that contradict their usual personality traits. The experiment demonstrated that situational factors—rather than inherent personality traits—play a crucial role in shaping behaviour. Participants who were assigned the role of guards quickly adapted to their position, becoming authoritarian and abusive, while prisoners became passive and submissive, despite all participants being psychologically screened and deemed emotionally stable before the study began.
One of the key findings was that deindividuation played a major role in the guards' behaviour. Wearing uniforms, sunglasses, and being placed in a position of authority led to a loss of personal identity and a reduced sense of responsibility for their actions. Similarly, prisoners, stripped of their names and assigned numbers, experienced learned helplessness, accepting their roles as inferior and powerless individuals.
The study also highlighted the ethical implications of psychological research. The extreme distress experienced by prisoners and the unchecked abuse by guards raised concerns about protection from harm in experiments. This led to stricter ethical guidelines in psychological research.
Overall, Zimbardo’s study shows how social roles and situational pressures can override personal morals and influence behaviour, often leading individuals to act in ways they never would under normal circumstances.
4.) Strengths and Limitations
Two Strengths and Two Limitations of Zimbardo’s Research into Conformity to Social Roles (Using PBWC)
Strength 1: High Internal Validity
Point: One strength of Zimbardo’s research is its high internal validity.
Because: This is because the study was conducted in a controlled environment, where extraneous variables such as participant characteristics were minimised through random allocation to roles.
Why: This suggests that differences in behaviour between the guards and prisoners were due to the social roles they were assigned rather than individual personality differences. This strengthens the credibility of the findings, as it supports the idea that situational factors can influence behaviour.
Counterargument: However, some researchers argue that participants may have been influenced by demand characteristics, meaning their behaviour was shaped by their expectations of how they should act rather than genuine conformity to roles.
Strength 2: Real-World Applications
Point: Another strength of Zimbardo’s study is its real-world applications.
Because: The findings have been used to understand and address issues in real-life prison environments, such as the abuse of power by prison guards.
Why: This suggests that Zimbardo’s research has practical value in highlighting how situational factors contribute to oppressive behaviour, influencing prison reforms and ethical guidelines.
Counterargument: However, the extent to which the findings can be generalised to real prisons is questionable, as the study was conducted in an artificial setting with participants who were not actual prisoners or guards.
Limitation 1: Ethical Issues
Point: One major limitation of Zimbardo’s study is the presence of serious ethical concerns.
Because: Participants experienced significant psychological distress, with some showing signs of severe emotional distress during the experiment.
Why: This raises concerns about whether participants were adequately protected from harm, which violates ethical guidelines. While Zimbardo argued that debriefing sessions helped address these issues, the psychological impact on participants remains a major ethical drawback.
Counterargument: Despite these concerns, Zimbardo’s study led to greater awareness of ethical issues in psychological research, contributing to stricter ethical guidelines in future studies.
Limitation 2: Lack of Population Validity
Point: Another limitation of Zimbardo’s research is its lack of population validity.
Because: The study only used male, predominantly white, middle-class university students.
Why: This means the findings may not be generalisable to other groups, such as women or individuals from different cultural backgrounds, who may respond differently to social roles. The results may therefore lack external validity.
Counterargument: However, some argue that the study still provides valuable insights into how situational factors influence behaviour, even if generalisability is limited.