SOCIAL APPROACH

CORE STUDY 2Core Study 2: Reicher, S. & Halsam, S. A. (2006)

Rethinking the psychology of tyranny. The BBC prison study.

To create an institution ‘like’ a prison to investigate the behaviour of groups that are unequal in resources,

power & status

Approach & Behaviour: R&H

What behaviour was being studied?

Why was the study performed?

Group BehaviourConformity to social role Conflict/rebellion Use of power

What are the conditions under which people DO or DO NOT assume (conform to) allocated social roles?

Aim & Hypothesis: R&H

What were the aims of the study?

To provide data on the unfolding interactions between groups of unequal power and privilege.

To analyse the conditions that lead individuals to a) identify with their group; b) accept or challenge intergroup inequalities.

To examine the role of social, organisational and clinical factors (e.g. mood) in group behaviour.

To develop practical and ethical guidelines for examining social psychological issues in large-scale studies.

Aim & Hypothesis: R&H

What method was used?

Laboratory experiment Created a society in which participants would live

for 10 days. A number of interventions (independent

variables) were introduced at specific Constructed inside a film studio in London.

Case study Detailed study of a small group of people through direct

observation Field experiment

Prisoners lived in lockable 3-person cells of a central area that was separated from the guards headquarters.

Method, Design, & Variables

What are the design features of this study?

The study was designed to create a hierarchical society in which people would live for up to 10 days

Repeated-measures design as the same prisoners were used for each of the conditions.

Matched-pairs for allocation to groups

Independent measures design for separate conditions of guards and prisoner.

Method, Design, & Variables

Experimental manipulations were introduced over time at predefined points in the study (time series approach) and their effects both within and between the groups of guards and prisoners was measured.

What are the 3 IV’s?1. Permeability of roles2. Legitimacy of roles3. Cognitive alternatives (possibility of change)

What are the DV’s?1. Social variables (social identification, awareness of cognitive

alternatives, right-wing authoritarianism)2. Organisational variables (compliance with rules) 3. Clinical variables (self-efficacy, depression)

Location, Control, Ethics

Where did the study take place?

Did R&H put in any control measures?

Were any ethical issues raised? If so how did R&H overcome these issues?

Location, Control, Ethics

Location: Where did the study take place?

Did R&H put in any control measures?

Were any ethical issues raised? If so how did R&H overcome these issues?

UK London Elstree Studios

Standardisation

Psychological

Harm Informed Consent

Sample & Participants

Who was the target population?

What sampling technique did R&H use?

Describe the sample: Number, Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Occupation etc.

How were the participants allocated to the role of guard/prisoner?

Sample & Participants

Who was the target population?

What sampling technique did R&H use?

Men living in the UK

Diverse Age Social class Ethnic background

Self Selected/Volunteer

Sample & Participants

Describe the sample: Number, Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Occupation

15 chosen to represent diversity in age, class and ethnicity

30-50yrsMixed socioeconomic backgrounds Range of ethnicities

3c. Sample & Participants

How were the participants allocated to the role of guard/ prisoner?

Matched on personality variables in 5 groups of 3

1 from each groups allocated as guard, and other 2 as prisoners

5 guard and 10 prisoners

1 prisoner was not involved at the beginning of the study (Trade Unionist)

Apparatus

What apparatus did R&H use? Studio for prison Video Camera

What materials were required? Uniforms Food Resources

Procedures

Comment on the Guards

Initiation Evening prior to study the 5 guards

were told they had be selected as guards

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

Asked to draw up the rules and suggest punishments

Told no physical violence allowed

Taken to prison in van with blacked out window

Procedures

Comment on the Guards

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

Procedures

Comment on the Prisoners

Situation 3 man cells Hair shaved on arrival Uniform of T shirt, 3 digit

number, loose trousers & sandals

Arrived one at a time Told nothing – but no violence

allowed List of rules & ‘prisoners rights’

posted on cell wall

Procedures

Write a step-by-step plan of what happened during the experiment:

Start with participant arriving End with participant leaving

Step-by-step plan

1. Day 0: Guards given full briefing by the experimenters on the prison layout and the resources available to them. Agreed on rules and for prisoners

2. Day 1: The guards were taken in a blacked-out van to the prison (since this was meant to be their entire experiential world for the duration of the study, it was important that they could not imagine the outside).

3. Day 1: 9 prisoners arrived one at a time. 4. Day 1: Their heads were shaved, everyday clothes were taken

away and they had to shower. 5. Day 1: They were then put into cells. 6. Day 3: Promotion to be made 7. Day 4: New prisoner was introduced.8. Day 6 participants were to be informed by the experimenters

that there were in fact no differences between guards and prisoners.

 

Data Collection

How was data gathered?

What quantitative data was recorded?

What qualitative data was recorded?

How was data gathered?

Psychometric tests Stress measures Specific

behaviours

Observations

Results/Findings

-List 8 KEY finding from the research -Include data where possible, both qualitative and quantitative

8 Key Findings

Phase 1:1. Guards did not develop group

identity/coherence, did not internalise power and could not agree.

2. Days 1-3 prisoners tried to show qualities that might lead to promotion.

3. After promotion, prisoners formed group identity and challenged the guards, leading to a shift in power and a collapse of the prisoner/guard system.

8 Key Findings

Phase 2:

4. Day 6 : Ps break out of cell and occupy Gs quarters. Gs regime now ended. Ps + Gs decided to continue as a self governing ‘commune’ but prisoners who led challenge did not cooperate.

5. By end of study draconian system of inequality was being proposed by some.

8 Key Findings

Phase 2: 6. Commune day 1: established by

dominant challengers violate rules 7. Commune day 2: 1 former P and 3 gs

plan to re-establish hierarchy 8. Authoritarianism increased in Ps & Gs

Study terminated on 8th day

RESULTS: Authoritarianism

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

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

examplesI 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

Self reportexamples

I try to do what the Gs wantI try to comply with the rules

Prisoner compliance reduced after group boundaries perceived to be impermeable

RESULTS: Group 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 report

exampleDo you ever feel low or depressed.

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

Conclusions

Locate research findings to support these conclusions:

1. People do not automatically conform to group or social norms.

2. Groups with power do not always act tyrannically.

3. Failing, powerless groups can lead to tyranny.

4. The breakdown of groups creates conditions under which tyranny can develop.

Conclusions

It is possible to design and run powerful social psychological research studies that are also ethical

The role of G was positively valued in the prison but the Gs were more concerned with possible negative evaluation by futures audiences and this made the reluctant to identify with their group role.

Approach & Behaviour: R&H

Why was the study performed?

(i) Do participants accept roles uncritically?(ii) Do those given power exercise it with no restraint?(iii) Do those given no power accept their situation without

complaint?Linked to Zimbardo, 1973: Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

To test the ‘situational hypothesis’ proposed by Zimbardo

To show that group membership has a more powerful influence over an individual’s behaviour

Conditions that lead to changes in the behaviour of a group

Method, Design, & Variables

What are the 3 IV’s?1. Permeability of rolesAt the start, prisoners were told that guards had been selected on the basis of reliability & trustworthiness – told that these qualities were missed in some prisoners and possibility of promotion (day 3). They all believed movement between groups was possible. 2. Legitimacy of roles3 days after the one and only promotion took place, prisoners were told that observations revealed that there were no differences in qualities between guards & prisoners but not practical to change groups back (groups became impermeable).This would lead to the perception that group differences were not legitimate.3. Cognitive alternatives (possibility of change)On the 5th day a new prisoner was introduced who was experienced as a trade-union official – expected that he would have the skills to create more equality between prisoners and guards (collective action).

Method, Design, & Variables

What are the DV’s?1.Social Variables: social identification, awareness of alternative plans of actions, right-wing authoritarianism.

2.Organisational Variables: compliance with rules.

3.Clinical Variables: self-efficacy, depression, stress hormones.

How was the DV measured?•Participants were video-and audio recorded wherever they were•Daily Psychometric testing (measure psychological characteristics)•Daily swabs of saliva (measure of stress)

In order to minimise fatigue, not every measure in the full battery was administered every day.

Location, Control, Ethics

Did R&H put in any control measures?Participants were matched on personality variables.

Random allocation to participants in groups.

All participants given the same information about the various conditions (e.g. guards selected in terms of reliability, then no differences and then new prison introduced).

All participants were screened (clinical, medical & background screening).

Two independent clinical psychologists monitored the study throughout.

Location, Control, Ethics

Were any ethical issues raised? If so how did R&H overcome these issues?

Submitted for scrutiny by BPS ethics committee

Men used less ethical problems than using women

Pts clinical, medical & background screened and all gave informed consent

Monitored by clinical psychologist 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

Sample & Participants

What sampling technique did R&H use?

Self Selected: Recruited through leaflets and advertisements in the national press. Initial pool of applicants was 332Reduced to 15 after 3 phases of screening using, ensuring well adjusted and pro-social:

a) Psychometric tests (measured social variables & clinical variables).

b) Full weekend assessment by clinical psychologists.

c) Medical & character references were obtained + police checks conducted.

Method, Design, & Variables

Psychometric tests measuredSocial variables: Authoritarian

ism Social

dominance Modern

racism

Clinical variables: Depression Anxiety Social isolation Paranoia Aggressiveness De-motivation Self-esteem Self-harm Drug

dependence