Reicher & Haslam (2006) Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Reicher & Haslam (2006) Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny
Background
Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam aimed to understand historical atrocities such as the Holocaust and Rwandan genocides through social psychology research. Building upon classic studies by Sherif, Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Study, they sought to replicate and re-examine findings about obedience and tyranny in group situations.
The original Stanford Prison Study (1971) by Haney, Banks, Jaffe and Zimbardo involved young men divided into prisoners and guards in a simulated prison at Stanford University. That study found guards conformed to their roles and acted brutally towards prisoners, leading to early termination after six days due to prisoner suffering.
However, Reicher and Haslam noted that previous research suggested ordinary people are capable of both extreme behaviours and active resistance to social influence. They highlighted that in Sherif's studies, boys refused to compete against each other, and Milgram found dissent when participants had an ally. The prison simulation also showed prisoners working together to resist oppression and challenge guard authority.
Reicher and Haslam identified several limitations with the original Stanford Prison Study, including lack of video evidence and insufficient observational records that matched the conclusions drawn about participants' psychological states. They maintained that the original study did not clearly demonstrate natural acceptance of assigned roles, but rather that these roles were forced by instructions given. Many participants actually resisted their assigned roles.
Theorist, title, year
Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam, "Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study", 2006
Participants
The researchers advertised for male participants through national newspapers and leaflets. A total of 332 applicants completed questionnaires assessing personality and mental health. From this pool, 27 men underwent clinical psychological assessment, followed by medical records checks, police checks and character references.
A final sample of 15 men were selected based on their suitability, representing different ages, social classes and ethnic diversity. This diverse sample provided greater generalisability than Milgram's research.
Aim
In collaboration with the BBC in 2001, Reicher and Haslam established their own institution simulation study over eight days. The aim was to simulate an institution that reinforced inequality between groups and to investigate whether these inequalities were accepted or resisted.
Drawing on social identity theory, they wanted to test whether unequal roles were a natural consequence of group formation, or whether some form of internalisation of the social category and its associated norms was necessary for compliance to occur.
Procedure
Experimental setting
Reicher and Haslam created an experimental case study to examine intergroup relations between a dominant and subordinate group. The institutional setting was built at Elstree Film Studio in London, featuring:
- Prisoner and guard quarters separated by a steel mesh fence
- Prisoners' quarters with lockable cells, showers positioned around a central atrium, and an exercise yard
- Guards' quarters with a dormitory, mess room and bathroom
Role assignment
The 15 male participants were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles using a careful matching process. Participants were first divided into five groups matched on important dimensions (personality, racism). From each group, one guard was randomly selected and the remaining two participants were assigned prisoner roles.
Guard briefing
Guards were invited to a hotel the evening before the study began. They received information about the prison timetable and their role in ensuring prisoner duties were performed. Guards were asked to create a list of prison rules.
Although not given direct instructions on enforcing prisoner behaviour, they received a list of prisoner rights and were told physical violence would not be tolerated. Guards were escorted to the prison the following morning, briefed about the layout, resources and surveillance systems, and given guard uniforms.
Prisoner arrival
Nine prisoners arrived individually (the tenth came later on day five). They had their heads shaved and received prisoner uniforms with printed 3-digit numbers on T-shirts. Prisoners were informed of the prison rules and their rights.
Manipulations
The guards were told their selection was based on trustworthiness and initiative, though this was not entirely reliable and researchers may have mistakenly assigned one of the prisoners. Guards were asked to be vigilant for guard-like characteristics among prisoners, with correct identification potentially resulting in promotion. This manipulation encouraged belief that movement between prisoner and guard roles was possible.
Following promotion of one prisoner to guard, the offer of further promotions was removed. All prisoners and guards were informed there were no key differences between them and that the groups were now fixed.
Participant 10
The tenth prisoner entered on day five. He was deliberately introduced as an experienced trade union representative. Researchers anticipated this would bring a different dynamic to the prisoner group, particularly introducing ideologies of negotiation, equal rights, illegitimacy of institutional norms, and challenge to authority.
Data collection
The behaviour of participants was monitored using visual and audio recordings. Psychological state was assessed through daily questionnaires measuring:
- Social identification - whether participants identified with their group and group norms
- Right-wing attitudes
- Rule compliance
- Citizenship
- Depression
Levels of cortisol (a stress hormone) were assessed daily through saliva swabs.
Social identity measurement
Researchers used daily questionnaires to understand whether groups were categorising themselves as a group and identifying with group norms. This would establish whether social identity theory (requiring individual members to identify with a group) provided better explanation for intergroup hostility compared to mere group formation.
Social identity was measured using questions such as:
- "I feel strong ties with the prisoners/guards"
- "I identify with the prisoners/guards"
- "I feel solidarity with the prisoners/guards"
Participants rated responses on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).
Findings
Phase one
Initially, prisoners were dissatisfied with their subordinate positions. As individuals within the group sought promotion to guard status, no shared sense of identity was established. When the possibility of promotion was retracted, prisoners began developing a sense of shared identity and solidarity against the guards.
The guards' behaviour contradicted predictions. Instead of forming a group identity based on their superior roles, they were reluctant to use their status against prisoners. This resulted in a lack of role identification and no shared group identity formed.
Social Identity Formation Over Time:
Using social identity measures, researchers found guards identified with each other and their role on the first day, but social identity scores fell once they had to implement a routine of discipline. In contrast, prisoners' social identity scores continually rose, particularly after the promotion was retracted.
This affected compliance levels within groups - prisoners became increasingly reluctant to follow guards' orders, whilst guards became increasingly dominant and undermining.
The guards' attempt to reassert authority failed, resulting in decreased self-efficacy and increased depression. On day six, prisoners broke out of their cells and occupied the guards' quarters; the guards' regime had completely broken down.
Phase two
Following the breakdown of guard rule, participants initially established a commune environment of equal governance. This led to reduced hostility between groups and formation of a new whole-group identity. However, this was short-lived.
Prisoners who were active in challenging the regime during Phase one became increasingly dissatisfied with the new system. These original dissenters began breaking commune rules and plotted to destroy the new social order. With no rules to manage such dissent, the new commune system came under threat.
Some participants formulated a new social order that was harsher than the original prisoner-guard hierarchy, which was met with despondency and minimal resistance by the original commune founders. During this time, levels of authoritarianism rose in all participants.
With this shift towards right-wing authoritarianism, researchers decided to stop the study at midday on day eight, as any new regime would have probably involved direct force by the new self-appointed guards.
Conclusions
Reicher and Haslam propose that people do not inevitably conform to roles they have been assigned. Rather, a range of factors determine whether people identify with their role and the social identity of their group. The mere creation of inequitable groups does not naturally lead to prejudice and intergroup conflict. This appears to support social identity theory, which proposes that people need to internalise group norms before adopting its social identity.
Additionally, when groups fail to form a social identity, they are more ready to accept ideals of a different social group, even one that is more tyrannical, and submit to them. This suggests that oppression can emerge from conditions of powerlessness and lack of identity. This mirrors the social conditions of Nazi Germany, where extreme right-wing views were adopted by citizens who were confused and disenchanted.
Evaluation
Strengths
Multiple assessment methods: There were multiple ways of assessing behaviour and mental states that confirmed the experimental manipulations affected participants' behaviour. It was notable that the offer and retraction of promotion had a direct causal effect on behaviour and psychological state of individuals and groups in the study. This strengthens confidence in the validity of findings.
Diverse sample: The diversity of participants was greater than the sample used by Milgram, providing the findings with greater generalisability to the ordinary person.
Ethical safeguards: Participants were selected after a careful screening process involving clinical, medical and background assessments to ensure they would not suffer harm or harm other participants. Participants received full information about the study, including that they might experience psychological and physical discomfort and stress, and that they may be locked up whilst being watched at all times. Behaviour was monitored by a clinical psychologist and ethics committee members, with security guards instructed to intervene if dangerous behaviour was shown. A paramedic was available at all times. The ethics were approved by the University of Exeter and the British Psychological Society. The researchers themselves stopped the study before any escalation of threat occurred.
Rigorous selection process: The careful selection process meant key figures could stop the study at any point if they had concerns.
Weaknesses
Demand characteristics: The simulation study can be criticised on multiple grounds, which the authors acknowledge. Participants were fully aware their behaviour was being recorded and monitored, which could have resulted in artificial behaviour in both guards and prisoners. It is not socially desirable to be an oppressor but it is desirable to be a rebel. This could probably account for the reluctance of guards to exert authority and punish prisoners, and explain why prisoners were quick to dissent.
Television filming: The knowledge that behaviour would be shown on national television likely exacerbated demand characteristics. Participants' behaviour could have been guided by expectation - they were expected to rebel and form a new social order. Such demand characteristics can seriously affect the validity of findings.
Difficulty measuring psychological states: Although participants could have been 'acting', it would have been harder for them to fake psychometric measures taken daily during the study. However, it would be difficult to understand why they would have suggested a more inequitable social order at the study's end.
Small, selective sample: The study involved a small sample of selected men. Some of these men had particularly strong personalities, which may have influenced group dynamics and created dissent among prisoners initially, and dissent against the commune in Phase two. Although groups were matched on important personality traits, not all variables could be controlled or were equally distributed between prisoner and guard groups.
Individual differences not fully explanatory: Researchers accept that individual differences could have altered participants' behaviour, but claim that changes in personality dimensions and attitudes recorded throughout the study could not be explained by this criticism. Individual differences alone cannot explain why rebellion did not occur until after promotion from prisoner to guard was retracted. If a strong dissenting personality was responsible for rebellion, this would have occurred at the start of the study and not have waited until day four.
Lack of real power inequality: The study failed to manufacture real situations of inequality between prisoner and guard groups. Despite setting up the environment to favour guards with better food and housing conditions, guards had no real power of authority to exert over prisoners. Researchers acknowledge this but insist that guards did have real power in terms of rewards and punishments they could offer, yet their failed guard group identity resulted in them not agreeing how to yield such power.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Reicher and Haslam's BBC Prison Study challenged findings from the Stanford Prison Study by showing people do not inevitably conform to assigned roles
- The study demonstrated that social identity formation is necessary for groups to adopt role-consistent behaviours, supporting social identity theory
- Phase one showed prisoners developed solidarity when promotion was removed, whilst guards failed to form a cohesive group identity and their authority collapsed
- Phase two revealed that when groups lack identity and structure, they may accept more tyrannical systems - mirroring conditions in Nazi Germany
- The study used rigorous ethical safeguards and multiple assessment methods, but faced criticisms regarding demand characteristics and lack of genuine power inequality