Social Influence – Conformity to Social Rules (Zimbardo)

Zimbardo Case Study

Aim: – wanted to see whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or
prisoner when placed in a mock prison environment

Method: – He used 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert
– Each participant was paid $15 to take part
– Participants were then randomly assigned the social role of a prisoner or prison guard
– He wanted to make the experiment as real as possible, so he turned the basement of
Stanford University into a mock prison. ‘Prisoners’ were arrested by real local police,
where they were fingerprinted, photographed and booked
– When the prisoners’ arrived at the prison, they were stripped naked, had their personal
possessions locked away and were issued prison clothes to wear – they were only
referred to by their number to encourage prisoners to feel anonymous
– All guards were then dressed in identical khaki uniforms, carried a whistle around
their neck and borrowed a billy club from the police
– The experiment was set to run for two weeks, where the guards were instructed to carry
out whatever they believed was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison,
however, no physical violence was permitted
– Prisoners were woken during the night from guards blowing their whistles and were
forced to clean toilets with their bare hands
– Prisoners were also dehumanised; push-ups were a form of physical punishment which
the guards forced them to do. One of the guards stepped on the prisoner’s back while he
did a push-up
– Within days of the experiment, the prisoners rebelled and 5 of them were released from
the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to physical and mental torment
– The experiment terminated just after six days

Conclusion: – The Stanford Prison Experiment revealed that people conform quickly to social roles –
even when the role goes against their moral principles, and especially if the roles are
stereotyped as those of the prison guards
– Situational factors such as the environmental setting and surrounding variables were
largely responsible for the behaviour found
– Deindividuation is another possible explanation for the behaviour of the participants,
especially the guards
– Learned helplessness could also explain the prisoner’s submission to the guards
– Reinforcement is another explanation for the participants’ behaviour as seen
through the escalation of aggression and abuse by the guards they received from the
guards. Negative reinforcement could have also been learnt by the prisoners if they
kept their heads down and abided by the instructions of the guards to avoid
unpleasant experiences

Evaluation: – High levels of control – the experiment quantitative and qualitative results / date
– The research is applicable – it has altered the way US prisons are run
– However, recent application carried out by Reicher and Hassiam (2006) has
contradicted the findings of Zimbardo. This suggests there is a lack of consistency
– Lack of validity – there are other factors which contribute to conformity which have
not been studied in this experiment
– Unethical – the prisoners suffered physical and mental torment as they were
dehumanised
– This experiment cannot be generalised to a wider population as it only used males and
university students (androcentric)
– Low ecological validity – since guards and prisoners were playing a role, their
behaviour may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behaviour in real
life
– Demand Characteristics – most guards claimed they were acting and this could explain
the findings of the study
– However, there is evidence of private conversations between the prisoners’ to suggest
that the participants reacted to the scenario as it they thought it was real