Specification: Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.

Conformity to social roles is when an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social situation. For example, whilst at school your teacher adopts the behaviour and beliefs of a ‘teacher’, which may be very different to the behaviour and beliefs they adopt with their friends at the weekend. This type of conformity represents identification, where a person changed their public behaviour and private beliefs but only while they are in a particular social role.

People learn how to behave in certain situations by observing the social roles of others and conformity to this behaviour. Therefore, a new teacher will quickly adopt the behaviours and beliefs of other teachers in their school as they conform to this social role.

Key Study: Zimbardo (1973)

Aim: To examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner when placed in a mock prison environment. Furthermore, he also wanted to examine whether the behaviour displayed in prisons was due to internal dispositional factors, the people themselves, or external situational factors, the environment and conditions of the prison.

Method: Zimbardo’s sample consisted of 21 male university study who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert. The participants were selected from 75 volunteers on the basis of their physical and mental stability and were each paid $15 a day to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two social roles.: prisoner or guard.

Zimbardo wanted to make the experience as real as possible, turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison. Furthermore, the ‘prisoners’ were arrested by real local police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smock to wear, with chains placed around their ankles. The guards were given uniforms, dark reflective sunglasses; handcuffs and a truncheon. The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for two weeks.

Results: Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles. Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners. The guards dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night and forcing them to clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role.

Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, for example, crying and extreme anxiety. Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just six days, when fellow postgraduate students Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in his experiment were inhumane.

Conclusion: Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles. Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously.

Evaluation of Zimbardo

A recent replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment, carried out by Reicher and Haslam (2006), contradicts the findings of Zimbardo. Reicher and Haslam replicated Zimbardo’s research by randomly assigning 15 men to the role of prisoner or guard. In this replication, the participants did not conform to their social roles automatically. For example, the guards did not identify with their status and refused to impose their authority; the prisoners identified as a group to challenge the guard’s authority, which resulted in a shift in power and a collapse of the prison system. These results clearly contradict the findings of Zimbardo and suggest that conformity to social roles may not be automatic as Zimbardo originally implied.

Furthermore, individual differences and personality also determine the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo’s original experiment the behaviour of the guards varied dramatically, from extremely sadistic behaviour displayed by around one-third of the participants in that role, to a few guards who actually helped the prisoners by offering support, sympathy, offering them cigarettes and reinstating any privileges lost. This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles, and dispositional factors such a personality also play a role, implying that Zimbardo’s conclusion could have been overstated.

Zimbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines, in particular, protection from harm. Five of the prisoners left the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment. Furthermore, some of the guards reported feelings of anxiety and guilt, as a result of their actions during the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although Zimbardo followed the ethical guidelines of Stanford University and debriefed his participants afterwards, he acknowledges that the study should have been stopped earlier but it has been suggested that he was responding more in the role of superintendent of the prison rather than the researcher with responsibility for his participants.

An intended benefit of Zimbardo conducting his Stanford Prison Experiment was to provide real-world applications to improve the US prison system. Initially, there were some beneficial reforms in the way that some prisoners were treated, for example, juvenile detainees. However, Zimbardo considers his research to have been a failure in meeting this overall objective, since prison conditions in America are arguably worse now than when he conducted his study several decades ago. 

Possible exam questions

1. 1. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrated… (1 mark)

a) Obedience

b) Independent Behaviour

c) Normative Social Influence 

d) Conformity to Social Roles 

1. 2. Define what is meant by conformity to social roles. (2 marks)

   3. Identify which two of the following statements about Zimbardo's prison study are correct. Only shade two boxes. (2 marks) Zimbardo’s study showed how….

a) Individuals obey authority figures 

b) Social roles affect human behaviour

c) Individuals conform due to group pressure

d) Behaviour is affected by a loss of identity

e) Unanimity affects behaviour

1. 4. The Stanford Prison Experiment used the participant observation method as Zimbardo played the role of Prison Superintendent. Evaluate the use of this observational technique. (4 marks)

   5. Outline the procedures and findings of Zimbardo's research into conformity to social roles. (4 marks)

   6. There was a notorious guard in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment who earned the nickname John Wayne from the prisoners. When he was interviewed later he explained that his behaviour was inspired by a character from a film called Cool Hand Luke. This media portrayal shows the role of a prison guard as being extremely tough and aggressive towards prisoners.

Using your knowledge and understanding of conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo, explain how demand characteristics could be used to explain the behaviour of this notorious prison guard. (4 marks)

1. 7. Many people have criticised Zimbardo’s Standford Prison Experiment. Identify and briefly discuss two reasons why people have criticised Zimbardo’s research. (6 marks) 

   8. Outline and evaluate research into conformity to social roles. (16 marks)