Answers AO3 - evaluations for Zimbardo 2021 PDF

Preview

Summary

Psychology Milgram theory explanation imitation and strength as well as evaluation of the paper 1....

Description

Evaluations for Zimbardo’s research – Evaluation 1 – Control conformity to social Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. roles.This

was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.

Q1. Is the above evaluation point a strength or limitation of Zimbardo’s prison study? One strength of the Stanford prison study is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over the key variables.

Q2. Elaborate on how the above evaluation point is a strength or limitation of Zimbardo’s research – conformity to social roles? The degree of control over the variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.

Internal validity - Internal validity is defined as the extent to which the observed results represent the truth in the population we are studying and, thus, are not due to methodological errors.

Write an AO3 evaluation paragraph for the above evaluation point

One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over the key variables. One of the most obvious examples of this was the selection of the participants. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen, and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was one way in which the researcher ruled out individual personality differences, as an explanation of the findings. If the guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself. This suggests that this degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity. This is therefore a strength of the Stanford prison study.

Evaluation 2 – Lack of realism Ali Banuazizi and Siamak Movahedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participant’s performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. For example, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted – they thought that was what real prisoners did.

Q1. Is the above evaluation point a strength or limitation of Zimbardo’s prison study? One limitation of the Stanford Prison study is that it did not have the realism of a true person.

Q2. What does this suggest? This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.

Counterpoint…. However, Mark McDermott (2019) argues that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them. For example, 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life. Amongst themselves, they discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were over. ‘Prisoner 416’ later explained how he believed the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government.

Q1. What does this suggest? This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.

Write an AO3 evaluation point for the above evaluation point.

Evaluation 3 – Exaggerates the power of roles Only a third of the guards behaved in a brutal manner. Another third tried to apply the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners. They sympathised, offered cigarettes, and reinstated privileges (Zimbardo 2007). Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.

Q1. Is the above evaluation point, a strength or limitation of Zimbardo’s study? Another limitation is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour.

Q2. What does this suggest? This suggests that Zimbardo overstated this view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g., personality)

Write an AO3 evaluation point for the above evaluation point. A limitation of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison study is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour. For example, it was noted that only a third of the guards behaved in a brutal manner. Another third tried to apply the rules fairly. The remainder actively tried to help and support the prisoners. These guards were seen to sympathise, offer cigarettes, and reinstate privileges (Zimbardo, 2007). It was found that most of the guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.

This suggests that Zimbardo himself overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)....