Philip Zimbardo: Conformity to Social Roles (1973: Stanford Prison Experiment)

Aim: 1. To test conformity to social roles in a mock prison environment;

2. To see whether behavior displayed in prisons is caused by: A. Internal disposition all
factors (people themselves); or B. External situational factors (environment and conditions of
the prison).

Set-up: 21 male university students randomly assigned: prisoners vs. guards;

To make it real: 1) basement of the SU—> mock prison; 2) “prisoners” were arrested
by real police; 3) “prisoners”: ngerprinted, shaven, stripped, given a number, chains;
“guards”: uniforms, dark re ective sunglasses, handcu s, truncheons.

Duration: set to run for 2 weeks (in reality ended by the sixth day, 5 prisoners released early)

Procedure: volunteering for the experiment (newspaper ads.) - book & holding cells - the
arrest - constructing the experiment - humiliation - enforcing the law - asserting
independence (rebellion, the 2nd day) - putting down the rebellion - special privileges-
prisoner # 8612 - a visit from parents - stepping things up (enlist help from Palo Alto Police
Department) - an informant in the prison - falling further from reality (a catholic priest) -
prisoner #819 - back to reality - the end (Christina Maslasch: questioning the morality of the
experiment)

Conclusion: 1. Conformity to social roles ( even when the roles goes against their moral
principles); 2. Situational factors were largely responsible for the behavior demonstrated
(none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviors previously).

Evaluations:

• Reliability: not replicable (Reicher & Haslam (2006) contradictory ndings (15 males)))
#1. No automatic conformity to the social roles: guards did not identify with roles
and authority; shift of power & collapse of the prison system.
#2. Individual di erences & personality as determinants

• Ethical Issues: protection from harm

ff
fl
fi
ff
fi