Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment – Phillip Zimbardo
Introduction
Headed by Phillip Zimbardo, the Stanford Prison Experiment was designed with the aim of investigating how readily people would behave and react to the roles given to them within a simulated prison. The experiment showed that the social expectations that people have of specific social situations can direct and strongly influence behaviour. The concepts evident in the Stanford Prison Experiment include social influence, and within that, conformity. The experiment also greatly showed how external attribution can overpower internal attribution of individuals; in this case, the participants behaved in ways extreme as compared to how they would usually behaved as individuals. In one way or another, these concepts are very closely linked and sometimes work hand in hand.
The concept of social influence revolves around the notion that one’s personal thoughts, emotions, and beliefs are affected by the happenings around them, which can take place in the form of social norms and conformity. Conformity is the change in behaviour to go along with a group’s beliefs or behaviour (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) due to the real or imagined influence of others (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969). In social circumstances, people are inclined to worry about rejection, so they reduce the worry by copying the actions of those around them (Giles & Oxford, 1970). Of social influence, three kinds of attitude were identified: compliance, identification, and internalisation (Kelman, 1958). Obedience to authority is also a form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual who is a figure of authority. Obedience involves an order of power in which the lower ranking individual would be obliged to obey the high ranker individual, whereas conformity happens through social pressures such as the norms of the majority (McLeod, 2007)
People tend to use the concept of attribution to
Introduction
Headed by Phillip Zimbardo, the Stanford Prison Experiment was designed with the aim of investigating how readily people would behave and react to the roles given to them within a simulated prison. The experiment showed that the social expectations that people have of specific social situations can direct and strongly influence behaviour. The concepts evident in the Stanford Prison Experiment include social influence, and within that, conformity. The experiment also greatly showed how external attribution can overpower internal attribution of individuals; in this case, the participants behaved in ways extreme as compared to how they would usually behaved as individuals. In one way or another, these concepts are very closely linked and sometimes work hand in hand.
The concept of social influence revolves around the notion that one’s personal thoughts, emotions, and beliefs are affected by the happenings around them, which can take place in the form of social norms and conformity. Conformity is the change in behaviour to go along with a group’s beliefs or behaviour (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) due to the real or imagined influence of others (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969). In social circumstances, people are inclined to worry about rejection, so they reduce the worry by copying the actions of those around them (Giles & Oxford, 1970). Of social influence, three kinds of attitude were identified: compliance, identification, and internalisation (Kelman, 1958). Obedience to authority is also a form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual who is a figure of authority. Obedience involves an order of power in which the lower ranking individual would be obliged to obey the high ranker individual, whereas conformity happens through social pressures such as the norms of the majority (McLeod, 2007)
People tend to use the concept of attribution to
References: American Psychological Association. (2004, June 8). Demonstrating the Power of Social Situations via a Simulated Prison Experiment. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving Organisational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brightman, J. (2006). Asian Culture Brief: Japan. 2. Hawaii, Manoa, United States of America: National Technical Assistance Center. Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 591-621. Cialdini, R., Kallgren, C., & Reno, R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 201-234. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636. Forsyth, D. (2006). Group Dynamics. Thomson Wadworth. (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Giles, H., & Oxford, G. (1970). Towards a multi-dimensional theory of laughter causation and its social implications. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 23(79), 97-105. Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 51-60. Kiesler, C., & Kiesler, S. (1969). The role of forewarning in persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 164(68), 547-549. Kruglanski, A., & Webster, D. (1991). Group members ' reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 212-225. Mann, L. (1980). Cross-cultural studies of small groups. (H. Triandis, & R. Brislin, Eds.) Hand-book of cross-cultural psychology, 5, 155-209. McLeod, S. (2007). Obedience to Authority. Retreived from http://www.simplypsychology.org/obedience.html. Miller, C., & Anderson, P. (1979, December). Group Decision Rules and the Rejection of Deviates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(4), 354-363. Miller, D., & Prentice, D. (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In E. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 799-829). New York: Guilford. Nail, H., MacDonald, T., & Levy, V. (2000). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 454-470. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. Great Britain: Random House, Inc.