The sample of participants in this experiment has been criticised as it was limited to male college students. It may be possible that different groups of other age ranges or occupations may not have shown such a high rate of conformity. The conclusions are therefore not applicable to the world in general. The high rate of conformity amongst students could be explained by a higher sense of peer pressure- students feel greater pressure to conform in order to fit in. Perhaps it is more important to this sample group to conform, and to be accepted and liked than in other sample groups.
The study may also show historical bias, as the results may be different if carried out again today. As society and social expectations change, it is possible that so do levels of conformity. This experiment was carried out in the USA during a time of intense conservative views, involving an anticommunist witch-hunt against those thought to hold left-wing values (McCarthyism). This promotes a high level of compliance- appearing to conform publicly, yet still maintaining private values- and may explain the rate of conformity shown during the study. The participants were afraid to be seen as ‘anticonformist’.
This suggests that if the experiment were to be carried out again today, due to the less oppressive environment and a reduced fear in the consequences of anticonformity or independence, the level of conformity may be found to be significantly lower.
However, this theory may be hard to prove. As interest in social psychology has developed, a greater number of people have studied experiment such as Asch’s and so know the format, aims and the expected results. If the study were to be re-enacted there is a high chance of demand characteristics showing up. The participants are able to interpret the experimenter’s aim, and know what research they are doing, and so alter their answers accordingly, either to corrupt the study or to please the experimenter.
Asch’s study can be criticised for it’s reliability (due to historical, geographical and social biases), it’s limited ecological validity, and the use of a limit test sample, however the experiment acts as a crucial base for further research. This method has been replicated and adjusted in order to investigate the influence of the majority in a variety of situations. An example of such a study is the one carried out by Crutchfield (1955), where the participants were unable to see each other yet the level on conformity remained relatively the same. Perrin and Spencer (1980) found using the method that British students were less likely to conform following cultural changes over the thirty years. Nicholson et al. (1985) demonstrated the differences between conformity levels in Britain and America; Smith and Bond (1998) used meta-analysis of 31 cultures to compare conformity differences.
Such research would not have been possible without the method that Asch proposed. So, although his original experiment had limitations, one of its greatest strengths was that it could be used years later for extended research. This has contributed greatly to psychologists’ understanding of conformity in different situations and varied cultures.
One of the most infamous and influential studies into the effects of conformity is Zimbardo’s (1973) Prison Simulation Study. Male students were paid to take part in the prison simulation, randomly being allocated the role of either guard or prisoner. The guards were permitted to create their own rules, and were told they could do as they saw fit (within reason) to maintain law and order inside the jail. However, the experiment was taken further than anyone had anticipated when the men conformed so greatly to their perception of the stereotypical guard that the investigation had to be stopped. The participants- who had previously been classed as ‘showing no sadistic tendencies’, were shaped by their expectations of prison guards. This moulded their behaviours and attitudes, forcing them to conform to a stereotype; as can be seen in everyday life, but to a lesser extent. Such great changes in character occurred across only six days, it is hard to imagine how much people may change in real life in order to conform and be accepted.
The greatest criticism of this study is the ethical issues raised. Participants playing the role of prisoners were humiliated, abused and forced to experience an inhumane amount of distress. They suffered sleep deprivation, intimidation from the guards, and some were even sexually assaulted.
Upon applying for the study the participants agreed to give up their human rights, however this cannot excuse the events that occurred during the six days. A vast number of the modern ethical guidelines were broken during the simulation; these should have been of prime concern to the experimenter in order to ensure the safety of the participants.
At the beginning of the experiment the participants were not fully informed of what would happen in the study. Of course it could not be predicted how the guards would react, however even the details of being humiliated by the real police officers when collected from their homes was neglected to be told. The participants did not fully understand the risk of psychological and physical harm they were putting themselves in. Without knowing how the simulation would turn out, when investigating areas of human behaviour Zimbardo should have been able to judge the possible effects of a participant entering a study of this sort, and they ought to have been warned.
A major concept in the ethics of an experiment is that a participant can withdraw at any time. This was not possible in this simulation. When withdrawal attempts were made they were seen as a way of escape from the prison, and only when evidence of psychological harm became clear were the participants permitted to leave. Many of the participants who remained to the end became so involved in the simulation that they forgot their rights, and so allowed themselves to be humiliated in numerous ways without trying to withdraw. In this study it was important that the prisoners remained in their roles, however when they needed to withdraw they were unable to- due to their own mental state and the pressure of the guards. There should have been a limited to which the experiment could be taken to, and the participants should have been reminded of their rights according to ethical guidelines.
Although some areas of psychology are of great interest to psychologists, and the only way of gaining true understanding is through experimentation, it must be accepted that some studies are simply not ethically suitable to be carried out. This may be such a study. The results provide much evidence for the effects of conformity, but they came at a great cost. The participants were not treated with the respect that they ought to have been, and they were not care for psychologically, physically or emotionally. In a case like this the idea ought to be proposed to an ethics committee first, and if such a proposition was made today it would be highly unlikely to be allowed, even when unknowing of the results of Zimbardo’s study.
The conclusions drawn from Zimbardo’s experiment are highly important in understanding human behaviour. Because of this it is possible that the ethical infringements could forgiven, however only if the results were of such high accuracy that they could not be questioned. This is not true of the findings though. The study had high ecological validity, mirroring real life as accurately as possible without being an observational experiment. However the study has historical, social, geographical and sample bias.
All the participants were male college students in the 1970s. If the same simulation was carried out today with a different group of people the results may be very different. The students may have been influenced by their own personal views of guards; these beliefs would most likely be formed by news articles at the time, or through other forms of media. If the stereotype was represented differently, they would have behaved differently. This makes the result dependent on this precise group of people; others may have generated a completely different set of findings.
A second key criticism was Zimbardo’s involvement in the simulation, acting as the prison-superintendent. He became too involved in the role, as he himself admitted, and was unable to see the problems of the jail events. Not being detached, he could not see when the experiment ought to have been stopped, or to have provided a balanced judgement on what was happening.
However, the videoing equipment of the study was limited, and so he was able to provide a crucial insight to the behaviours of the guards. When the cameras were no longer taping, he could remain and make note of the attitudes of the guards. This would not have been possible if he remained as the experimenter- it would have lowered the ecological validity of the simulation to have someone making records wandering through the prison on a daily basis. So, although he was not able to make crucial decisions, he was able to accurately record what happened. At least when such suffering went on, there was valid data taken that could be used an analysed, so the suffering still served a purpose.
In order to have been successful additional safety precautions ought to have been put in place before the experiment began. The results could not have been predicted- if they were the study wouldn’t need to be carried out- however some of the suffering could have been prevented if safety measures were present. The levels of sadism seen should never have been reached before the simulation was brought to an end.
Overall, although the study provided a great and influential insight into the workings of human behaviour in conformity, these positive effects are outweighed by the negative effects from the ethical guideline breaches. Participants could have been severely harmed both psychologically and physically, and may not have recovered. This should never happen in a psychological experiment, not matter how much can be learnt from the results and conclusions.
Many of the criticisms of these research pieces are fair. They can be discussed to a great extent, especially in the area of ethics. The criticisms serve to ensure that the conclusions are applied accurately, and to improve further experiments. They also help to mould psychology so that when a study goes wrong- like Zimbardo’s simulation- the same mistakes are not made again. This helps us to form the ethical guidelines of psychology, and to judge what makes an experiment reliable. Overall this improves the field of psychological experimentation.
