Reicher & Haslam(2006) Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study

• Tyranny: the arbitrary and/or oppressive exercise of power

• Question: How do we come to condone the tyranny of others and/or act tyrannically ourselves?

Introduction / background

• Previous explanations suggest that group psychology always moves in the direction of extreme anti-social behaviour

• When in a group individuals lose their self-identity (deindividuation) and become capable of barbaric acts

Reicher & Haslam criticised Zimbardo’s study on a number of

grounds…• Zimbardo’s guards given clear guidance on

how to cause powerlessness in prisoners.• Ethical concerns.• Analysis lacks quantitative data.• Over involvement of Zimbardo as the

Superintendent.

• Reicher & Haslam wanted to test the validity of Zimbardo’s analysis and role based explanation of group behaviour and tyranny

Reicher & Haslam Rethinking the psychology of

tyranny:• Reicher & Haslam & the BBC, created the

environment, filmed and broadcast 4 1 hr episodes

• Original science filmed NOT reality TV• Not a replication of the SPE and not a prison

simulation• Aim: to create an institution ‘like’ a

prison to investigate the behaviour of groups that are unequal in resources, power and status

Reicher & Haslam Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC

prison

•Plan of the prison showing the layout and initials of the P’s who were either prisoners (p) or guards (g)

Reicher & Haslam’s questions:

• Do participants accept roles uncritically?

• Do those given power exercise it with no restraint ?

• Do those given no power accept their situation without complaint ?

N.B. If the process of role enactment was ‘natural’ as claimed by Zimbardo- then it

should apply in all cases.

Specific research aims:

• Collect data on the development of social interactions between groups of unequal power

• Analyse the conditions under which people (i) define themselves in terms of group

memberships (ii) accept or challenge group inequalities

• Analyse the relationships between social organisation & clinical factors in group behaviour

• Develop an ethical framework for examining social psychological issues

ETHICS

• Submitted for scrutiny by BPS ethics committee• Participants clinical, medical & background

screened and all gave INFORMED consent• Monitored by clinical psychologists throughout• Paramedic on duty throughout• Security guards present to intervene if needed• Monitored by 5 person ethics committee who

were able to terminate the study at any time

Participants

• Recruited by adverts in

national press• Screened e.g. well

adjusted and pro-social• Fully assessed over a

weekend• Provided medical and

character references• 332 applicants reduced to

27 men – final sample of 15 then chosen from these.

Ian Burnett replied to a newspaper advert asking for volunteers

Participants

• 15 chosen to represent diversity in age, class and ethnicity

• matched on personality variables into 5 groups of 3

• 1 from each group allocated as guard and other 2 as prisoners - thus

• 5 guards and 10 prisoners

A scene from the study

04/20/23

ProcedureOverview of the study set-

up;• 8 day study period set up• Examined behaviour of

15 men placed in a social hierarchy of guards and prisoners in a purpose built environment.

• Behaviour was video & audio recorded over the entire time and daily psychometric and physiological measures taken.

• Video data was edited for 4, hr long documentaries and screened in May 2002

Filmed at Elstree studios in London

•Purpose built prison

Procedure

What was measured? Data sources (DVs)• Video & audio recording of behaviour

– Daily psychometric testing for• social variables e.g. social identification• organisational variables e.g. compliance with

rules• clinical variables e.g. depression & self-efficacy

• Cortisol levels (saliva) as indicator of stress

Set-up of the study- Guards

Guard initiation: the evening prior to study the 5 guards were told they had been selected as Gs

• Shown prison timetables, informed about duties, roll calls and their responsibility to ‘ensure institution runs smoothly’

• Asked to draw up the rules and to suggest punishments

• TOLD NO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ALLOWED• Taken to prison in van with blacked out

windows

Guard situation

• Superior accommodation• Good quality uniform• Superior meals• Keys to all doors & punishment cell• Access to guard station with surveillance

system which could view all cells• Resources - sweets & cigarettes to give

rewards

Set up- Prisoner situation:

Prisoner situation:• 3 man cells• hair shaved on arrival• uniform of T shirt having 3 digit

number, loose trousers & sandals• arrived one at a time• told nothing - but NO VIOLENCE allowed• list of rules & ‘prisoner rights’ posted

on cell wall

Manipulated Variables: IV’s

• IV 1 : Permeability of roles• Prisoners & guards were told guards were

selected on basis of reliability, trustworthiness, initiative BUT that the test was not perfect and that guards would watch out for prisoners who showed ‘guard like’ qualities - that promotion was possible on day 3.

• Thus all believed movement between groups was possible

• IV 2: Legitimacy of roles• It was planned that on day 6 prisoners

would be told that there were really no differences between prisoners & guards, but that it was impractical to reassign roles so the groups would stay the same.

• This would lead to the perception that group differences were not legitimate

• IV 3: Cognitive alternatives• On the 5th day (originally planned to

be Day 7), a new prisoner, was introduced chosen because of his background as a Trade Union official.

• It was expected that he would provide the skills required to organise ‘collective action’

04/20/23

•The BBC prison study Dec 2001

Reicher & Haslam(2006) Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study

Qualitative & Quantitative data recorded

RESULTS - Phase 1: Rejecting inequality(Days 1-6)

• The guards did not develop group identity /coherence - they did not internalise power role and could not agree norms & priorities

• Until day 3 when 1 prisoner was promoted to guard each prisoner tried to show the qualities that might lead to promotion (individual self interest predominated in prisoners)

RESULTS - Phase 1: continued…

• After one P was promoted, when roles were fixed (impermeable) the prisoners DID develop group identity and as a group challenged the guards, this led to a shift in power & a collapse of the prisoner / guard system

RESULTS - Phase 2:Embracing inequality(Day 7-8)

• On day 6 Ps break out of cell and occupy Gs quarters, the regime of the Gs has now ended

• The Ps and Gs decided to continue as a self governing ‘commune’ but prisoners who had led the challenges did not co-operate

• By the end of the study a more draconian system of inequality was being proposed by some

RESULTS - Phase 2 continued…

• Commune day 1: Commune established but dominant challengers violate commune rules

• Commune day 2: 1 former P and 3 Gs plan to re-establish authoritarian hierarchy

• “we want to be Gs and make them ******* toe the line”

• Authoritarianism increased in both Ps and Gs

• Study terminated on 8th day

Phase 1 RESULTS - Social identification

Self report

‘I identify with Ps / Gs ‘‘I feel strong ties with Ps / Gs’ ‘I feel solidarity with Ps / Gs’

Scores averaged & out-group score subtracted from in-group score

Prisoner in-group identification increased

Guard in-group identification decreased

RESULTS - Cognitive alternatives

Self report

examples‘I think the Gs will always have more privileges than Ps’

‘I think the relationship between Ps and Gs is likely to change’

Prisoner perception of alternatives increased

RESULTS - Acceptance of unequal regime- compliance with prison rules

Self reportexamples

‘I try to do what the Gs want’‘I try to comply with the rules ‘

Prisoner compliance reduced after group boundaries perceived to be impermeable

RESULTS - Collective self-efficacy

Self reportexample

‘My prison group can manage to solve problems if we try ‘..

Prisoner self-efficacy increased becoming greater than guards

RESULTS - Group depression

Self reportExample

Do you ever feel low or depressed.

Overall depression low, but Ps depression reduced, Gs depression increased

Phase 2 RESULTS – Authoritarianism in assigned

groups

Self reportexamples

We need strong leaders that people can trust

There are two kinds of people, strong and weak

For both Ps and Gs there was a significant increase in authoritarianism over the length of the study

04/20/23

The end of the study

• The new regime was not seen to be possible to enforce without a level of force not permitted in the study and as existing system had failed the study was gridlocked

• The study therefore came to a natural point of termination at noon on Day 8.

• The P’s remained for a further day for debriefing.

Conclusions:

• The way in which members of a group behave depends on the norms & values of the group social identity and may be pro or anti social so tyranny is not an inevitable outcome

• Failing groups create problems for their own members and for others because when people cannot create a social system they will accept extreme solutions proposed by others, this is when tyranny can seem an attractive alternative.

Conclusions:

•The results are consistent with contemporary thinking about social identity theory

• The breakdown of groups, and powerlessness,

of people can create the conditions for tyranny

•It is an alternative explanation for the SPE – the failure of the prisoners to act as a group

allowed the tyranny of the guards to emerge.

•It is possible to design and run powerful social psychological research studies that are operated ethically.

• Demand Characteristics- How might the

knowledge that this was to be a TV programme have affected behaviour? (rather than present situation ‘only’ determining behaviour, past and future context may also have an affect )

• Validity of self report measurements (DVs) • Reliability - can the study be replicated ?• Sample size - does this matter? • Ecological validity (level of realism)• Usefulness – how can the findings be applied• Differences between SPE & BBC study

Further discussion points….

04/20/23

•The BBC prison study Dec 2001