What are the advantages and disadvantages of Zimbardo's work?

PLUS

He showed that giving people power can have a great effect on their behaviour, leading them to behave in ways that they previously thought unacceptable.

MINUS

The mock warders may simply have pretended to be aggressive, because that is the way real warders are thought to behave; however, the physical' ■ abuse and harassment shown by the warders Went beyond what would have been expected from, mere play-actingl

There are serious ethical problems with his experiment.

Hofling

One of the limitations of the Stanford prison experiment is that it was carried out in a mock situation. However, evidence of obedience to authority in a real-life situation was obtained by Hofling (1966). Twenty-two nurses were phoned up by someone who claimed to be Dr Smith. He asked the nurse to check that a drug called Astroten was available. When the nurses did this, they saw on the bottle that the maximum dosage of this drug was supposed to be lOmg. When they reported back to Dr Smith, he told them to give 20mg of the drug to a patient.

There were two good reasons why the nurses should have refused to do as they were instructed. First, the dose was considerably higher than the maximum safe dose. Second, the nurses did not know Dr Smith, and they were only supposed to take instructions from doctors they knew.

However, the nurses' training had led them to obey instructions from doctors: there is a clear power structure with doctors in a more powerful position than nurses. As you have probably guessed, the nurses were more influenced by the power structure than by the two hospital regulations they were meant to obey. All but one of the nurses did as Dr Smith instructed.

The findings of this study are important. They indicate that there is considerable obedience to authority in a naturalistic situation, in which the participants were unaware that an experiment was being carried out.

Crowd behavior

Le Bon was a French journalist who put forward perhaps the first theory of crowd behaviour. Crowds do sometimes behave in senseless ways. However, that is by no means always the case. For example, consider cases of fires in halls and other public buildings, in which several people died as everyone rushed to escape. At first glance, this may seem like senseless and irrational behaviour. However, it would only make sense for each person to walk slowly to one of the exits if they could trust everyone else to do the same. As that trust is usually lacking, the most rational behaviour is probably to behave like everyone else and try to be among those first out of the building.

Crowding and personal space

Research on other species confirms the link between crowding and aggression. In order to understand why crowding can cause aggression it is important to consider the notion of personal space. This was defined by Sommer as "an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person's body into which intrude may not come." Other people have compared personal space a buffer zone which affords protection against perceived thre

The unease caused by invasion of our personal space to explain why overcrowding leads to aggression. However is perhaps surprising that people are very unlikely to complain about invasion of their personal space. Felipe and Sommer found that only two of the mental patients and one out of 80 students asked the person invading their space to move away. As Hall (1966).expressed it, 'Weitreat space somewhat as we treat sex. It is there but we don 'it italk albout it."

Hall (Jl'966) argued that personal space Саn bee divided into four zones. These zones аpply to most people living in Еuroре and the United States, but may not be as relevant to those living elsewhere. First, there is the imitate zone, which extends up to about 18 inches (45 centimetres). Оnlу lovers, close relatives, and very close friends are normallу allowed into this zone (social kissing excepted). Second, (there is the personal zone, which ranges between about 18inches and 4feet (l.2 metres). Friends and members of one's family are allowed into this zоnе. Third, there is the social zone, which lies between about 4 and 12 feet (3.6 metres). Conversations with acquaintances and work colleagues usually take place in this zone. Fourth, there is the public zone,which extends between about 12 and 25 feet (7.6 metres). This is the zone that is often used when someone is giving a talk to an audience J

The notion that the size of our personal space depends or the precise relationship we have with another person is a valuable one. However, the four zones identified by Hall merge into one another. As a result, it should come as no surprise to find that people sometimes fail to keep within the distances indicate for each zone.

Deindividuation

Another reason for mob behaviour is related to what has been deindividuation.This is the loss of a sense otpersonal identity(our thoughts and feelings about ourselves) tha sometimes happens in a large group or crowd. According " Diener (1979), deindividuation can have a number of differed effects:

• Poor monitoring of one's own behaviour.

• Reduced concern to have social approval of one behaviour.

• Reduced restraints against behaving impulsively.

• Greater awareness of one's emotional state.

•Reduced capacity to think rationally. It is possible that deindividuation was involved!

Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment was discussed earlier. In that experiment, the participants who acted as prison warders behaved in ways that were quite different from normal behaviour, suggesting that they had lost their sense personal identity. Zimbardo reported a study -directly focused on deindividuation. Female participants told to give electric shocks to other women in a Mil gram-type study. Deindividuation was produced in half the participants by having them wear laboratory coats and hoods that covered their faces. In addition, the experimenter addressed them as_; a group rather than as individuals. The intensity of electric shocks given by these deindividuated participants was twice that of participants who wore their own clothes, and were treated as individuals.

Jones and Downing (1979) were not convinced that it was really deindividuation which produced the findings of Zimbardo (1970). They pointed out that the clothing worn by the deindividuated participants resembled that worn by the Ku Klux Klan. They found that deindividuated participants who were dressed as nurses actually gave fewer electric shocks than did those who wore their own clothes. Thus, deindividuation generally affects our behaviour, but the consequences can sometimes be desirable rather than undesirable.