Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

social influence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - arrested at home by real police, blindfolded, strip-searched, and given a uniform with a prison ID number (used instead of their names)
      - wore smocks, a stocking cap (to simulate a shaved head), and a chain on one ankle
      - instructed to follow rules set by the guards and were confined to the mock prison 24/7
    - - wore military-style uniforms, reflective sunglasses (to prevent eye contact), and carried a wooden baton.
      - worked in shifts, returning home after their shift ended
      - given no specific training but were instructed to maintain order and enforce rules without using physical violence.
  - - - became passive, submissive, and showed signs of emotional distress, with some experiencing breakdowns
      - rebelled initially but eventually conformed to their roles, obeying guards and internalising the prisoner identity
      - the study was terminated after 6 days (planned for 2 weeks) due to the extreme behaviour and ethical concerns raised by an outside observer
    - - became increasingly abusive and authoritarian, using psychological tactics to exert control (e.g., humiliation, punishments like push-ups)
      - some exhibited extreme cruelty, escalating their behaviour as the experiment progressed
  - - - a guard admitted to "running his own little experiments,"
      - a prisoner admitted to faking a mental breakdown
      - behaviour may not have been natural, reducing validity
      - participants were randomly allocated their roles to reduce individual differences, ensured observed behaviour was likely due to situational pressures, not personality traits
    - - if individual differences and demand characteristics influenced behaviour, this undermines its use in explaining real-world events like Abu Ghraib
      - used to explain the abuse of prisoners by US military guards at Abu Ghraib prison, highlighting the impact of role conformity and situational factors
    - - risk of harm
        
        Participants were subjected to distressing experiences, with one going on hunger strike.
        
        Zimbardo held dual roles as both the lead researcher and the prison superintendent, creating a conflict of interest.
        
        This meant he was unable to fulfil his professional duty of care and failed to adequately protect participants.
      - right to withdraw
        
        Participants were told they could leave at any time.
        
        However, Zimbardo actively encouraged them to stay, creating pressure to continue.
        
        Prisoner 8612 felt unable to leave, raising issues about informed consent and the right to withdraw.
      - valid consent
        
        Participants were informed it was a simulated prison and that their usual liberties would be suspended.
        
        They were not fully aware of the study's intensity, duration, or the surprise arrests.
        
        This raises questions about the adequacy of informed consent.
      - Zimbardo argued none of the harm could be foreseen and informed consent was not possible