1. Wallboards What were the results of Asch’s Original study?
What was the conclusion of Asch’s Original Study?
List three variables that affect levels of conformity
How do each of these variables effect conformity? (increase/decrease – can you remember any stats from Asch’s variations?

2. Evaluation handout Asch Please complete
Remember to try to link your evaluation points to either
Reliability- Consistency of findings
Internal Validity- does the study measure what it claims to? TRUTH
External Validity- Can the findings be applied to (ecological- real life, population- other groups, temporal- other times)

3. What makes people “evil”?
Discuss and mind-map as a group

4. Dispositional vs Situational
Bad Apples? - Dispositional
Bad Barrels? - Situational

5. Discuss the image and text above.
“All the worlds a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits, and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts.”
William Shakespeare
Discuss the image and text above.
What do these both suggest about human behaviour and how does this link to Zimbardo’s study ?

6. Conforming to Social Roles
Each social role is a set of rights, duties, expectations, norms and behaviours that a person has to face and fulfill.
The model is based on the observation that people behave in a predictable way, and that an individual's behaviour is context specific, based on social position and other factors.

7. Zimbardo et al. (1973)
The US Navy funded the study, as it and the US Marine Corps were interested in the forces that create conflict between guards and prisoners in the naval prisons.

8. Knowledge check- ZimBingo

9. Now let’s try the Kahoot quiz.

10. Conclusion: Do you agree?
Both guards and prisoners conformed to their social roles
Situational factors seem to be more important than dispositional factors, because ‘ordinary’ students became brutal prison guards when placed in the right setting
“Guard aggression … was emitted simply as a ‘natural’ consequence of being in the uniform of a ‘guard’ and asserting the power inherent in that role.”
(Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973, discussing findings of the SPE)

11. De-individuation- What is it
De-individuation- What is it? How were Zimbardo’s participants deindividuated?

12. In what ways did Zimbardo’s study de-individuate the participants?
De-individuation
Deindividuation is a social process
Where people are placed in a group
Situation they no longer act as individuals.
They no longer behave in the same way
that they would when alone, and instead
pass all responsibility for their behaviour
to the group.
Their identity becomes that of the group.
In what ways did Zimbardo’s study de-individuate the participants?

13. Big Boards Outline research into conforming to social Roles (6 marks)
Aim
Method
Results
Conclusions

14. Evaluation of Zimbardo’s research 1
Answer the following questions on mini-whiteboards
Did all the guards behave in the same way during the experiment?
How can the answer to the question above be used as a criticism of the conclusions drawn from Zimbardo’s research?

15. Evaluation 2- Researcher Bias
It is not, as Zimbardo suggests, the guards who wrote their own scripts on the blank canvas of the SPE, but Zimbardo who created the script of terror.
(Banyard, 2007)

16. Demand Characteristics
Do you think the guards and prisoners knew they were in an experiment the whole time?
How might this have affected the results?

17. Reicher and Haslam- BBC prison Experiment

18. Evaluation- Discussion
Which study was better?
Zimbardo or Reicher & Haslam? Why? Link to Validity and Reliability
Consider….
Methods used
The role of the TV
Researcher Bias
Time they were conducted

19. Conclusions and evaluations
Philip Zimbardo has been very critical of the BBC Study. In his reply to our key article in the British Journal of Social Psychology, he makes a range of criticisms:
(a) that our study had no psychological reality for the participants;
(b) that it was fundamentally flawed because participants knew they were taking part in an experiment and that this would be shown on television;
(c) that (despite our claims) the division of participants into Prisoners and Guards was not random but rather we purposefully made the “big tough rough guys” into Prisoners and the “more effete guys” into Guards;
(d) that our description of our various interventions as theoretically informed is just fancy rhetoric designed to cover up our bias and meddling; and
(e) that in reality, what we were doing was not science at all, but a pretence at science for the purposes of creating entertaining television.

20. Mark scheme Possible criticisms:
Level
Marks
Description 3
5 – 6
Two criticisms are clearly identified. There is some clear and effective discussion of each criticism. The answer is coherent and well organised, with effective use of specialist terminology. 2
3 – 4
Two criticisms are identified. There is some discussion of each but it is limited. The answer is mostly clear and organised, with appropriate use of specialist terminology. OR One criticism is presented at top of Level 3. 1
1 – 2
Criticism(s) are muddled but can be inferred. Discussion is absent / very limited. Specialist terminology is either absent or inappropriately used. OR One criticism is presented at Level 2.
No relevant content.
Possible criticisms:
•        Ethics – psychological harm – participants soon became distressed.
•        Zimbardo himself took part in the action / was a participant observer.
Possible discussion points:
•        Whether or not the distress should have been anticipated.
•        Whether or not the consent gained was sufficiently informed.
•        Zimbardo’s own behaviour affected the way in which events unfolded, thus the validity of the findings could be questioned.
•        Use of examples from the study to support argument and elaborate on the criticisms given.
Credit other valid criticisms and other valid discussion points. Can credit two separate ethical criticisms.