Discuss research into conformity to social roles (16 marks)
Zimbardo and his colleagues wanted to investigate whether prison guards behave brutally because
of their sadistic personalities or the situation in which may create this behaviour. A social role is
where an individual adopts a particular behaviour, whilst in a particular situation.
Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford
University. They advertised for students willing to volunteer and selected those who were deemed
‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological testing. They recruited 24 emotionally stable
students who were then randomly assigned roles of a guard or prisoner. To increase the validity of
the study, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested in their homes by the police and were then delivered to the
‘prison’. They were blindfolded, strip- searched and given a uniform and a number. The social roles
of prisoners and guards were strictly divided, the prisoners were forced to follow 16 rules and daily
routines were heavily regulated. Guards were given their own uniforms, handcuffs, and mirror
shades to underline their role. They were told that they had complete dominance over the
prisoners- even deciding when they could go to the toilet.
They found within 2 days the prisoners rebelled against conditions by ripping their uniform and
swearing at the guards. This led to the guards retaliating with the use of fire extinguishers:
emphasising the differences in social roles by creating many opportunities to enforce rules even for
the smallest offences They found that the guards brutality increased massively, they liked having
power. The strong amount of aggression led to the study having to stop after 6 days instead of the
initial 14 as the behaviour started to become a threat to the prisoners psychological and physical
health. The study exposed the power of the situation to influence peoples behaviour as guards,
prisoners as they conformed to their social role in prison.
After the rebellion was put down, prisoners became depressed and anxious. Many prisoners were
released before the initial time period due to severe distress and psychological harm. One prisoner
was released on the first day as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance, two more were
released on the fourth day. Guards attempted to force feed a prisoner who went on a hunger strike,
they even punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ ( a tiny, dark closet). The guards became more
attached to their role- enjoying the power over the prisoners and the distress they caused them to
be in. Therefore, roles were easily taken on by the participants, behaving as if they were in a prison
rather than taking part in a psychological study.
A strength of Zimbardo’s study is that there was a high degree of control over some variables. For
instance, emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to roles of guards or
prisoners. This was important as it helped to rule out individual personality differences and that the
prisoners were being arrested at their own homes. As a result, the control of the research increases
the internal validity of the study- therefore, the conclusion drawn from the study are down to the
influence of social roles on behaviour. Also, them behaving in that particular manor is down to the
stress and pressure of the situation. Furthermore, the random assigning of the participants to the
role ensures that there is no systematic bias between the groups
A limitation of Zimbardo’s study is that is lacks realism. Banuazizi and Mohavedi et al (1975) argued
that the participants were acting rather than conforming to their roles. They based their
performance on the stereotype of how guards/ prisoners are expected to act. For instance, one of
the participants based his role from a fictional character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would
also explain why the prisoners rioted: they assumed that the real prisoners did. However, Zimbardo
stated that the situation was very realistic; the quantitative data collected during the methodology
revealed that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were based on prison life. One prisoner, prisoner
416, stated that the prison was a real prison but ran by psychologists rather than the government.
Zimbardo and his colleagues wanted to investigate whether prison guards behave brutally because
of their sadistic personalities or the situation in which may create this behaviour. A social role is
where an individual adopts a particular behaviour, whilst in a particular situation.
Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford
University. They advertised for students willing to volunteer and selected those who were deemed
‘emotionally stable’ after extensive psychological testing. They recruited 24 emotionally stable
students who were then randomly assigned roles of a guard or prisoner. To increase the validity of
the study, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested in their homes by the police and were then delivered to the
‘prison’. They were blindfolded, strip- searched and given a uniform and a number. The social roles
of prisoners and guards were strictly divided, the prisoners were forced to follow 16 rules and daily
routines were heavily regulated. Guards were given their own uniforms, handcuffs, and mirror
shades to underline their role. They were told that they had complete dominance over the
prisoners- even deciding when they could go to the toilet.
They found within 2 days the prisoners rebelled against conditions by ripping their uniform and
swearing at the guards. This led to the guards retaliating with the use of fire extinguishers:
emphasising the differences in social roles by creating many opportunities to enforce rules even for
the smallest offences They found that the guards brutality increased massively, they liked having
power. The strong amount of aggression led to the study having to stop after 6 days instead of the
initial 14 as the behaviour started to become a threat to the prisoners psychological and physical
health. The study exposed the power of the situation to influence peoples behaviour as guards,
prisoners as they conformed to their social role in prison.
After the rebellion was put down, prisoners became depressed and anxious. Many prisoners were
released before the initial time period due to severe distress and psychological harm. One prisoner
was released on the first day as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance, two more were
released on the fourth day. Guards attempted to force feed a prisoner who went on a hunger strike,
they even punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ ( a tiny, dark closet). The guards became more
attached to their role- enjoying the power over the prisoners and the distress they caused them to
be in. Therefore, roles were easily taken on by the participants, behaving as if they were in a prison
rather than taking part in a psychological study.
A strength of Zimbardo’s study is that there was a high degree of control over some variables. For
instance, emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to roles of guards or
prisoners. This was important as it helped to rule out individual personality differences and that the
prisoners were being arrested at their own homes. As a result, the control of the research increases
the internal validity of the study- therefore, the conclusion drawn from the study are down to the
influence of social roles on behaviour. Also, them behaving in that particular manor is down to the
stress and pressure of the situation. Furthermore, the random assigning of the participants to the
role ensures that there is no systematic bias between the groups
A limitation of Zimbardo’s study is that is lacks realism. Banuazizi and Mohavedi et al (1975) argued
that the participants were acting rather than conforming to their roles. They based their
performance on the stereotype of how guards/ prisoners are expected to act. For instance, one of
the participants based his role from a fictional character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would
also explain why the prisoners rioted: they assumed that the real prisoners did. However, Zimbardo
stated that the situation was very realistic; the quantitative data collected during the methodology
revealed that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were based on prison life. One prisoner, prisoner
416, stated that the prison was a real prison but ran by psychologists rather than the government.
