Describe and evaluate the procedure of Zimbardo’s research into social roles [8]
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971, which aimed to examine
whether people would conform to the social roles of a prisoner or a guard in a prison
environment. 24 American men from a student population volunteered to participate in the
trial with 12 being the prisoners, and the remaining 12 being the guards. The participants
were incentivized to participate (they were paid $15 a day – the equivalent, in today’s
money, is well below minimum wage). The prisoners were arrested from their homes by real
police officers and taken to the prison environment blindfolded. They were treated with an
identical procedure to that of real convicts. They were hosed down and deloused and
blindfolded to keep the ‘prisoners’ confused. They also had their personal belongings taken
away from them and they were all given a number and this was what they were referred to
from when they entered the prison itself. These participants were told nothing about the
experiment, other than that they had to fulfill their role as prisoners and follow 16 rules –
for the health and safety of the experiment; no physical abuse, for example. The guards
were briefed before the experiment and instructed that they must not physically abuse
prisoners (as they are not real convicts. They had to fulfill their role as guards, enforcing the
prisoners’ 16 rules. The experiment lasted for two weeks (five participants pulled out of it
due to concerns for their personal health and safety).
One limitation of Zimbardo’s experiment is generalisability. The sample of the study was
(24) American men of a student population. This sample is not representative of people who
do not fit this description – therefore, it is not too useful when looking at prison
environments elsewhere in the world. For example, it is not representative of Chinese old
women in a prison environment. Although the results would be similar, it cannot even
demonstrate how American women of the same age would conform to social roles in a
prison environment – the natural lower testosterone levels in women change the results
dramatically. Although the generalisability of the experiment is poor, it would not be true to
a real experiment if women were also involved in the experiment as a mixed-gender prison
is not true to real life – it would lack mundane realism.
A strength of Zimbardo’s experiment was its external validity. The prison environment of the
experiment itself and the conditions that the prisoners were put under were very true to
real life (they were hosed down and deloused and they had their belongings taken away
from them). The high level of external validity is also supported by evidence. One prisoner
asked for parole as a means to leave the prison environment – it was so true to real life that
this prisoner thought that they were in a real prison, not a psychological experiment on
social roles. Although the experiment had high external validity, the guards were given more
information than the prisoners, therefore some of the guards were able to guess the aims of
the experiment easily and expressed demand characteristics. Some guards were more
verbally abusive and more aggressive than they would have been naturally due to this as
they expected that this is what Zimbardo was trying to measure and they used this
assumption as a means to abuse their given authoritative power.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971, which aimed to examine
whether people would conform to the social roles of a prisoner or a guard in a prison
environment. 24 American men from a student population volunteered to participate in the
trial with 12 being the prisoners, and the remaining 12 being the guards. The participants
were incentivized to participate (they were paid $15 a day – the equivalent, in today’s
money, is well below minimum wage). The prisoners were arrested from their homes by real
police officers and taken to the prison environment blindfolded. They were treated with an
identical procedure to that of real convicts. They were hosed down and deloused and
blindfolded to keep the ‘prisoners’ confused. They also had their personal belongings taken
away from them and they were all given a number and this was what they were referred to
from when they entered the prison itself. These participants were told nothing about the
experiment, other than that they had to fulfill their role as prisoners and follow 16 rules –
for the health and safety of the experiment; no physical abuse, for example. The guards
were briefed before the experiment and instructed that they must not physically abuse
prisoners (as they are not real convicts. They had to fulfill their role as guards, enforcing the
prisoners’ 16 rules. The experiment lasted for two weeks (five participants pulled out of it
due to concerns for their personal health and safety).
One limitation of Zimbardo’s experiment is generalisability. The sample of the study was
(24) American men of a student population. This sample is not representative of people who
do not fit this description – therefore, it is not too useful when looking at prison
environments elsewhere in the world. For example, it is not representative of Chinese old
women in a prison environment. Although the results would be similar, it cannot even
demonstrate how American women of the same age would conform to social roles in a
prison environment – the natural lower testosterone levels in women change the results
dramatically. Although the generalisability of the experiment is poor, it would not be true to
a real experiment if women were also involved in the experiment as a mixed-gender prison
is not true to real life – it would lack mundane realism.
A strength of Zimbardo’s experiment was its external validity. The prison environment of the
experiment itself and the conditions that the prisoners were put under were very true to
real life (they were hosed down and deloused and they had their belongings taken away
from them). The high level of external validity is also supported by evidence. One prisoner
asked for parole as a means to leave the prison environment – it was so true to real life that
this prisoner thought that they were in a real prison, not a psychological experiment on
social roles. Although the experiment had high external validity, the guards were given more
information than the prisoners, therefore some of the guards were able to guess the aims of
the experiment easily and expressed demand characteristics. Some guards were more
verbally abusive and more aggressive than they would have been naturally due to this as
they expected that this is what Zimbardo was trying to measure and they used this
assumption as a means to abuse their given authoritative power.
