Conformity and Obedience in real life (background information only)
Abu Ghraib
They handcuffed me and blindfolded me and put a piece of white cloth over my eyes. They bundled me into a Humvee and took me to a place inside the palace. I was dumped in a room with a single wooden chair. It was extremely cold. After five hours they brought my sister in. I couldn't see anything but I could recognise her from her crying."
"The US officer told us: 'If you don't confess we will torture you. So you have to confess.' My hands were handcuffed. They took off my boots and stood me in the mud with my face against the wall. I could hear women and men shouting and weeping. I recognised one of the cries as my brother Mu'taz. I wanted to see what was going on so I tried to move the cloth from my eyes. When I did, I fainted."
Identification
This happens because we learn expectations of how we should behave in certain situations and then conform to these expectations when that situation arises. As I write this (August 2014) this study and area of social influence seems to be out of favour with AQA. However, be warned, identification is due for a return on the post 2015 specification!
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation (1973)
Again, in the unlikely event that the question asks for a description of the study, assume its party time but try to stick to the key details such as the way the guards were empowered by their dress (khaki uniform, dark glasses etc.), and the way the prisoners were humiliated by being strip searched.
In the more likely case of the question asking for findings:
Mention the effects on the prisoners who showed signs of ‘Pathological prisoner syndrome’ in which disbelief was followed by an attempt at rebellion and then by very negative emotions and behaviours such as apathy and excessive obedience. Many showed signs of depression such as crying and some had fits of rage. Zimbardo put these effects down to depersonalisation or deindividuation due to loss of personal identity and lack of control. The remaining prisoners became passive, dependent and had flattened emotions. Zimbardo suggested that there were a number of processes that contributed to the pathological prisoner syndrome:
The loss of personal identity – the prisoners were de-individuated by being stripped of their individuality, their name, dress, appearance, behaviour style, and history. Living among strangers who do not know your name or history, dressed like all the other prisoners, all led to the weakening of self-identity among the prisoners.
The arbitrary control exercised by the guards - on post-experimental questionnaires, the prisoners said they disliked the way that the way they were subjected to the arbitrary and changeable decisions and rules of the guards as this made life unpredictable and unfair. For example, smiling at a joke could be punished in the same way that failing to smile might be. As the environment became more unpredictable, the prisoners’ behaviour showed signs of learned helplessness. ·
Dependency and emasculation - the prisoners were made to be totally dependent on the guards for commonplace functions such as going to the toilet, reading, lighting a cigarette and this emasculated them. The smocks, worn without underwear, lessened their sense of masculinity. This was taken to the extent that when the prisoners were debriefed they suggested that they had been assigned to be prisoners because they were smaller than the guards. In fact there was no difference in average height between the prisoners and guards, and the perceived difference was a response to the prisoners’ perception of themselves and their lack of power.
Mention also the effects on the guards who conversely showed the ‘Pathology of power.’ They clearly enjoyed their role; some even worked unpaid overtime and were disappointed when the experiment was stopped. Many abused their power refusing prisoner’s food and toilet visits, removing their bedding etc. Punishment was handed out with little justification. Most notable was the way in which the ‘good guards’ never questioned the actions of the ‘bad guards.’ The guards were given control over the lives of other human beings and did not have to justify their displays of power as they would normally have to in their daily lives. They started to enjoy this power very earlier on in the study (pathology of power) as demonstrated that even after the first day all prisoner rights became redefined as privileges, and all privileges were cancelled.
Evaluation
This happens because we learn expectations of how we should behave in certain situations and then conform to these expectations when that situation arises. As I write this (August 2014) this study and area of social influence seems to be out of favour with AQA. However, be warned, identification is due for a return on the post 2015 specification!
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation (1973)
Again, in the unlikely event that the question asks for a description of the study, assume its party time but try to stick to the key details such as the way the guards were empowered by their dress (khaki uniform, dark glasses etc.), and the way the prisoners were humiliated by being strip searched.
In the more likely case of the question asking for findings:
Mention the effects on the prisoners who showed signs of ‘Pathological prisoner syndrome’ in which disbelief was followed by an attempt at rebellion and then by very negative emotions and behaviours such as apathy and excessive obedience. Many showed signs of depression such as crying and some had fits of rage. Zimbardo put these effects down to depersonalisation or deindividuation due to loss of personal identity and lack of control. The remaining prisoners became passive, dependent and had flattened emotions. Zimbardo suggested that there were a number of processes that contributed to the pathological prisoner syndrome:
The loss of personal identity – the prisoners were de-individuated by being stripped of their individuality, their name, dress, appearance, behaviour style, and history. Living among strangers who do not know your name or history, dressed like all the other prisoners, all led to the weakening of self-identity among the prisoners.
The arbitrary control exercised by the guards - on post-experimental questionnaires, the prisoners said they disliked the way that the way they were subjected to the arbitrary and changeable decisions and rules of the guards as this made life unpredictable and unfair. For example, smiling at a joke could be punished in the same way that failing to smile might be. As the environment became more unpredictable, the prisoners’ behaviour showed signs of learned helplessness. ·
Dependency and emasculation - the prisoners were made to be totally dependent on the guards for commonplace functions such as going to the toilet, reading, lighting a cigarette and this emasculated them. The smocks, worn without underwear, lessened their sense of masculinity. This was taken to the extent that when the prisoners were debriefed they suggested that they had been assigned to be prisoners because they were smaller than the guards. In fact there was no difference in average height between the prisoners and guards, and the perceived difference was a response to the prisoners’ perception of themselves and their lack of power.
Mention also the effects on the guards who conversely showed the ‘Pathology of power.’ They clearly enjoyed their role; some even worked unpaid overtime and were disappointed when the experiment was stopped. Many abused their power refusing prisoner’s food and toilet visits, removing their bedding etc. Punishment was handed out with little justification. Most notable was the way in which the ‘good guards’ never questioned the actions of the ‘bad guards.’ The guards were given control over the lives of other human beings and did not have to justify their displays of power as they would normally have to in their daily lives. They started to enjoy this power very earlier on in the study (pathology of power) as demonstrated that even after the first day all prisoner rights became redefined as privileges, and all privileges were cancelled.
Evaluation
|
|
Method The experiment was a role play so it lacks realism with participants behaving as they think they should behave. However, there is evidence for the guards not just simply role playing, for example their brutal behaviour wasn’t there at the start but developed over the first few days and they did not play up to the cameras as might be expected. In fact their behaviour was worse when they knew they weren’t being observed. This link is to a 30 minute documentary on the SPE. Youtube does have shorter versions if you want an abridged viewing. |
Real l
Ethics
The right to withdraw was denied to one participant for a short time: “Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to fool us into releasing him.” “When our primary prison consultant interviewed Prisoner #8612, the consultant chided him for being so weak, and told him what kind of abuse he could expect from the guards and the prisoners if he were in San Quentin Prison. #8612 was then given the offer of becoming an informant in exchange for no further guard harassment. He was told to think it over.“. “During the next count, Prisoner #8612 told other prisoners, "You can't leave. You can't quit."
Other issues
Deindividuation
This is loss of self identity and was evident in Zimbardo’s Prison Simulation when the guards wore dark, reflective glasses.
Zimbardo thought it was responsible for the behaviour he observed in a study he carried out in 1969. He found that female participants were more likely to administer electric shocks to other women if they were wearing lab coats and hoods that partly covered their faces.
Role play
Zimbardo believes that the study demonstrate the powerful effect roles can have on peoples’ behaviour. Basically the participants were playing the role that they thought was expected of, either a prisoner or prison guard. (It is in fact a simulation of what we expect prison life to be, rather than what it is, as none of the participants had previously been in prison as a guard or prisoner).
Johnson & Downing (1979) disagreed with Zimbardo. They felt that Zimbardo’s participants were dressed like the Klu Klux Klan and were behaving accordingly, i.e. conforming to expectations. They got participants to dress as nurses and found that despite the deindividuation that resulted that participants were less likely to deliver shocks. They were conforming to the caring image of nurses.
Real Life example:
Ethics
The right to withdraw was denied to one participant for a short time: “Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to fool us into releasing him.” “When our primary prison consultant interviewed Prisoner #8612, the consultant chided him for being so weak, and told him what kind of abuse he could expect from the guards and the prisoners if he were in San Quentin Prison. #8612 was then given the offer of becoming an informant in exchange for no further guard harassment. He was told to think it over.“. “During the next count, Prisoner #8612 told other prisoners, "You can't leave. You can't quit."
Other issues
- Consent was obtained in advance and participants were told the nature of the research!
- But, participants were not told that they would be arrested by real police officers and strip searched.
- Participants were clearly subjected to physical and psychological harm.
- There is still a debate as to whether the experiment should have been stopped sooner, which brings into question Zimbardo’s dual role as researcher and self appointed ‘prison governor.’
- However, in defence of Zimbardo you can mention the therapeutic debrief given to all those who took part.
Deindividuation
This is loss of self identity and was evident in Zimbardo’s Prison Simulation when the guards wore dark, reflective glasses.
Zimbardo thought it was responsible for the behaviour he observed in a study he carried out in 1969. He found that female participants were more likely to administer electric shocks to other women if they were wearing lab coats and hoods that partly covered their faces.
Role play
Zimbardo believes that the study demonstrate the powerful effect roles can have on peoples’ behaviour. Basically the participants were playing the role that they thought was expected of, either a prisoner or prison guard. (It is in fact a simulation of what we expect prison life to be, rather than what it is, as none of the participants had previously been in prison as a guard or prisoner).
Johnson & Downing (1979) disagreed with Zimbardo. They felt that Zimbardo’s participants were dressed like the Klu Klux Klan and were behaving accordingly, i.e. conforming to expectations. They got participants to dress as nurses and found that despite the deindividuation that resulted that participants were less likely to deliver shocks. They were conforming to the caring image of nurses.
Real Life example:
|
Like most Iraqi women, Alazawi is reluctant to talk about what she saw but says that her brother Mu'taz was brutally sexually assaulted. Then it was her turn to be interrogated. "The informant and an American officer were both in the room. The informant started talking. He said, 'You are the lady who funds your brothers to attack the Americans.' I speak some English so I replied: 'He is a liar.' The American officer then hit me on both cheeks. I fell to the ground. Alazawi says that American guards then made her stand with her face against the wall for 12 hours, from noon until midnight. Afterwards they returned her to her cell.
"The cell had no ceiling. It was
raining. At midnight they threw something at my sister's feet. It was my
brother Ayad. He was bleeding from his legs, knees and forehead. I told my
sister: 'Find out if he's still breathing.' She said: 'No. Nothing.' I started
crying. The next day they took away his body."
|
