1. Reicher & Haslam Social Psychology The Core Studies

2. Background The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) Famous 1970’s study that took place in the basement of Stanford University. Its aim was to test the psychological effect of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. 18 male students were randomly assigned to be prisoner or guard. Prisoners were arrested at home (mundane realism) & taken to the makeshift prison. Prisoners were strip-searched and deloused. They had to wear a uniform (overall that barely covered the body), a stocking cap and an ankle chain. Only allowed to refer to each- other by numbers. Guards were allowed to make up prison rules. Unknown to participants, prison was bugged with 24/7 monitoring. Philip Zimbardo took the role as prison warden. Guards made prisoners do “counts”. Press-ups used as punishment. Second morning prisoners rebelled barricaded themselves in the cells. Guards forced in and strip-searched prisoners. Put ring-leaders into solitary confinement. Those least involved in rebelling were given washing privileges.

3. Background Day 3 the guards became more brutal, refusing to let prisoners leave cells. One prisoner showed extreme signs of anxiety but wasn’t allowed to leave until day 4. Day 5 the guards made prisoners clean toilets with their bare hands. At night when guards thought prisoners weren’t looking they sexually humiliated prisoners. Day 6 their power was almost total and prisoners obeyed without question. Visiting researcher objected strongly and convinced researchers to stop the study. Results – Prisoners and guards adopted their roles, which involved an imbalance of power between groups. Tyranny was inevitable.

4. Background Tyranny – An unequal social system involving the arbitrary and/or oppressive exercise of power by one group or its agents over Another Conformity – Yielding to group pressure and acting how someone wants you to or what is deemed “correct” for that situation Deindividuation – We stop acting as ourselves and we join the behaviour of the group we’re in Social identification – Think of ourselves as a group Social Identity Theory – Categorise ourselves and others into groups of “us” and “them” Permeable – Possible to leave one group and join another Impermeable – people with lower status tend to stay with own group (join to create collective action)

5. Aim 1 – To provide data relating to interactions between groups of unequal power. 2 – To give evidence of social identity theory (Hypothesis : guards will like their roles & will act as a group, prisoners won’t like their roles & will only act as a group if the situation is unfair. 3 – To look for relationships between social factors – group membership, organisational factors (rules) clinical factors (depression & stress) 4 – to produce an ethically sound experiment

6. Sample Self selecting – adverts in national press Initial response of 332 men All male 15 men were finally selected in order to ensure a reasonable mix of age, social class, and ethnic group. They were then grouped into threes, each closely matched for personality. 1 from 3 was randomly assigned to be a guard.

7. Method Experimental case study (features of the experimental method and the case study method) Longitudinal study IV’s : (the three interventions) – Permeability : (Promotion), Legitimacy/illegitimacy : researchers telling guards that they were assigned randomly (disregarded), Changeability : Trade unionist bought into the study DV’s : Participants’ responses. (measured by video and audio 24/7, psychometric tests every day, saliva swabs)

8. “Pre”-Procedure The screening process for applicants The participants undertook 3 stages of screening. First they undertook a battery of psychometric tests designed to measure clinical variables such as depression, paranoia, and social variables such as racism, social dominance, and authoritarianism. Only those low in all these variables were allowed to proceed. The second stage consisted of participants being assessed over a weekend by a team of clinical psychologists. The third stage consisted of participants undergoing police checks and had character references taken up

9. Procedure - Day 1 Why prisoners were given uniform – deindividuation, to enhance group identity, to make them feel inferior Guards arrived in blacked out vans so it would a total sensory experience (increased mundane realism). They were briefed about the layout and resources to help them enforce authority. Uniforms were well made and them being there first showed the prisoners that it was the guards territory. Prisoners arrived one at a time. They had their heads shaved. Uniform was flimsy = orange vest, trousers and a 3 digit number printed on the back of the vest. They were given rules and rights. Told a promotion would occur on day 3 for good behaviour. (guards were chosen on specific characteristics but prisoners could become one)

10. Day 2 Mostly all prisoners acting as individuals. Doing chores to get promoted. Food terrible, guards even gave some to prisoners. Guards were not conforming to their role and seem uncomfortable. JE works very hard for promotion.

11. Day 3 Promotion takes place. The guards choose quiet prisoner instead of JE which aggravates him and others. The prisoners start to plot against the entire system (intervention 1)

12. Day 4 Prisoners start to misbehave. They demand cigarettes and plasters. JE threw plate onto floor. Guards bicker about what to do. One guard gives in. Prisoners and guards realise the prisoners are starting to take over. The rebellion starts on this day. TA(g) said “This is only day 4, and they can do whatever they want now”.

13. Day 5 Intervention 2 is disregarded. The trade unionist is brought in. He assesses the situation and manages to work out what was going wrong. On day 5 prisoner PB takes the guards keys. The prisoners taunt the guards and joke with them. The taking of the keys represents that the authority of the guards has gone. Guards never demand the keys back and believe they are lost. Trade unionist steps in. His solution is that both groups should discuss every day their problems. PB disagrees.

14. Day 6 Trade unionist leaves. Prisoners manage to break out from the cell (2). They then occupy the guards quarters. One guard was sent out to face them. Prisoners enjoying themselves and the guards are becoming stressed. When the prisoners invade the guards quarters the guards hide in essence bar the one guard.

15. Day 7 Prisoners/guards regime has failed. Commune starts. (Everyone is to be equal and have the same food etc…) Guards are really happy about the commune strangely as now they didn’t have to conform to their roles. Reicher and Haslam stated for a while that the commune worked. It was “paradise”. However by the evening a couple of the ex-prisoners decided not to do chores and relax instead, letting someone else do them. Commune falls apart.

16. Day 8 On day 8 the breakfast delivered was a chance occurrence and everyone had a horrible breakfast. The ex-prisoners seem to believe this was a secret message from researches saying that the commune needs to stop. PB has a massive rant, demanding military uniforms, batons etc… At this point R&H intervene and stop the study. Other participants don’t put up a fight against PB because original prisoner/guard system didn’t work. Tyranny was being developed.

17. Results Quantitative data & qualitative data was collected. Quant : From psychometric tests (prisoners were initially depressed more than guards but this reversed ) Quant : Saliva analysis (prisoners were more stressed but reversed) Qual : from observations via audio and video : speeches on day 6, groups agreeing to set up a commune Permeability and legitimacy were initially high for prisoners and they wanted to be guards. When groups became impermeable they changed their behaviour, adopting strong group identity and collectively acting against guards. Prisoners eventually had huge levels of social identification

18. Conclusions Tyranny is not inevitable (opposite conclusion to Zimbardo). Tyranny happens when group identities fail, as happened when the commune failed. Social identity wasn’t present within the guards Reicher & Haslam concluded that people do not simply just conform to roles like Zimbardo said They conclude that it is possible to have a social study that doesn’t break ethical guidelines.

19. Ecological Validity high : Prisoners were held in lockable cells, as they would be in a real prison, so represented real life. The guards had separate quarters as they would do in real life. The guards (and prisoners) were given special uniforms to wear as they would in real life. Low : Both prisoners and guards underwent daily psychometric and biological tests which would not occur in a real prison. The prison was not a real prison, as it was a specially designed environment constructed inside Elstree Studios in London.

20. Strengths of the study Very ethical Large range of participants = very generalizable and more representative Much better screening process than Zimbardo’s Both data types collected – quantitative data was collected from two different sources increasing reliability.

21. Weaknesses of the study Can be argued that R&H were too involved which prevented the study from being realistic (low E.V.) R&H too much like a programme (demand characteristics of participants e.g. appearing nice on TV) Zimbardo’s was more generalizable to real life prisons (mundane realism, more representative) Division of groups not as good

22. Ethical rules The guards may have suffered as a result of being challenged by the prisoners Generally ethics of the study are good however the right to withdraw may not have been obvious. The psychological harm for guards (high levels of stress) can also be added as breaking an ethical issue Way that ethics were upheld – All participants gave informed consent, clinical psychologists monitored participants throughout the study

23. Evaluation of Sample Very generalizable as it included men from all over and had a range of backgrounds, ethnicity’s and ages but was gender bias as no women guards and women in the army are present.

24. Evaluation of Method Experimental Evidence - Cause and effect could be established because the manipulation of the IVs directly influenced the behaviour of both the guards and prisoners – once the group boundaries became impermeable, guards did not develop a group identity whereas prisoners did. Experimental strengths - High control, can establish cause and effect, possible to eliminate some extraneous variable and can be fairly confident that the IV did affect the DV (high control) Case Study Evidence - Because the behaviour of the members in dominant (guards) and subordinate (prisoners) positions and the developing relations between the two was studies in great depth (giving both qualitative and quantitative data). Case Study Strengths – Holistic therefore allows us to see a range of behaviour, usually longitudinal so allows us to see development over time

25. Evaluation of Method Experimental Weaknesses – Low ecological validity (very controlled and artificial, doesn’t necessarily represent real-life, a real situation wouldn’t be filmed Case Study Weaknesses - Case studies are very hard to do, time consuming, and difficult to analyse and write up: as it is mostly qualitative research.

26. Changes to the study Take the study off TV/conduct it with just researchers watching similar to the Zimbardo study. In the original study participants knew they were being broadcasted on TV therefore may have produced demand characteristics possibly resulting in social desirability bias. I would make the study again however only allow researchers to observe the experiment and not the general public. Another change I would make to the study is to include women into the sample. The original R&H sample only included males and therefore is not representative or generalizable to women. I would make an extra study just looking at the authority and conformity of women in a prison like setting.

27. Effects of these changes By taking the study off TV and allowing only researchers to observe, means that ecologically validity will increase thus making the study more representative to real life and results collected will be able to be realistic and reflecting a true situation. However with only observers watching, this may increase the ability for ethical problems to arise, similar to Zimbardo’s study’s. By including women into the stud, this means that new results can be collected, focusing on how women conform to roles and act within prison environments. With this, it also means that it is more representative to real-life because more and more women are part of the police forces, and the army.