SOCIAL APPROACH
CORE STUDY 2
Core 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 Behaviour
Conformity 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.
2.
3.

Permeability of roles
Legitimacy of roles
Cognitive alternatives (possibility of change)
What are the DV’s?
1.
2.
3.
Social variables (social identification, awareness of cognitive
alternatives, right-wing authoritarianism)
Organisational variables (compliance with rules)
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?

Men living in the UK

Diverse




What sampling
technique did R&H
use?

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
30-50yrs
Mixed 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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
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).
Day 1: 9 prisoners arrived one at a time.
Day 1: Their heads were shaved, everyday clothes were taken
away and they had to shower.
Day 1: They were then put into cells.
Day 3: Promotion to be made
Day 4: New prisoner was introduced.
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? How was data gathered?


What quantitative
data was recorded?
What qualitative
data was recorded?

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 reestablish hierarchy
8. Authoritarianism increased in Ps & Gs
Study terminated on 8th day
RESULTS: Authoritarianism
Self report
examples
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
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
Self report
examples
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: Group Self- Efficacy
Self report
example
My prison group can manage to
solve problems if we try ..
Prisoner self-efficacy increased becoming greater than guards
RESULTS: Group Depression
Self report
example
Do 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)
(ii)
(iii)
Do participants accept roles uncritically?
Do those given power exercise it with no restraint?
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 roles
At 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 roles
3 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 332
Reduced 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 measured
Social variables:
 Authoritarianism
 Social
dominance
 Modern racism
Clinical variables:
 Depression
 Anxiety
 Social isolation
 Paranoia
 Aggressiveness
 De-motivation
 Self-esteem
 Self-harm
 Drug dependence