A User’s Guide to
The Experiment
Exploring the Psychology of Groups and Power
Manual to accompany the DVDs
B B C ACTIVE Pearson Education ii The Experiment Preamble
Cover Photograph
The participants (left to right) Guards: Brendan Grennan, Thufayel Ahmed, Tom McElroy, Tom Quarry, Frankie Caruana; Prisoners: Frank Clark, Derek McCabe, Paul Petken, John Edwards, Philip Bimpson, Ian Burnett, Dave Dawson, Kevin Murray, Neil Perry, Glen Payton
The experimenters: Steve Reicher, Alex Haslam
Second Edition
ACTIVE
Pearson Education
ACTIVE
© BBC Active, Pearson Education 2006 80 Strand London WC2R 0RL e-mail: bbcstudies@bbc.co.uk
First edition published 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilised in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 563 54734 0
Library of Congress catalog card number record available
The Experiment Contents iii
About this Manual
This manual provides material to accompany the BBC DVDs of the four episodes of The Experiment. It is intended to help students, teachers and practitioners reflect on the social and psychological issues that the programmes address and to help people get more out of their viewing experience — whether alone, in class, in a seminar, or in a workshop.
On the one hand, the manual allows for a detailed understanding of what happened in The Experiment and of the lessons to be drawn from it. In this sense it is also an introduction to issues that are addressed in the range of formal academic publications that have come out of the study (for details see p.131).
On the other hand, the manual allows The Experiment to be used as an introduction to many of the key concepts in social psychological theory and method — from authoritarianism to intergroup relations, from leadership to stereotyping, from research design to the logic of measurement. In this way, the manual is intended to provide a lively and engaging way of introducing the subject of social psychology in general.
The manual is organized into five main sections. In turn, these present:
• the background to the research — including, for example, the research questions, recruitment procedures, details of psychological measures and ethical protocols,
• its findings — including a detailed breakdown of the events in each episode and consideration of their relationship to key debates in psychology,
• its implications, — including discussion of the study’s theoretical and practical significance, together with consideration of potential critiques,
• its conclusions, and finally,
• additional material — including further reading and references.
We have tried to write the manual so that its contents are accessible to a wide readership. However, because the programmes are most likely to be used in a teaching environment, much of the text is written for the benefit of prospective instructors.
Additional features are also included to help instructors stimulate and focus the activities of other people who have not necessarily read the manual.
iv The Experiment Contents
These features are colour-coded and formatted as follows:
Discussion questions
• These relate to material that is dealt with in the text and are intended to stimulate debate around that material.
Exercises
These are designed to allow groups of people (e.g., students) to explore issues raised by The Experiment in a hands-on way and to provide insight into practical issues surrounding psychological research.
Key concepts These provide definitions of terms and concepts that are commonly used in psychological literature and that can be used as a focal point for teaching and discussion.
Key concepts are also identified in the body of the text in bold.
We hope that you find this material useful and that, used in conjunction with the DVDs, it contributes to an enjoyable and thought-provoking learning experience.
Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher
The Experiment Contents v
Contents
1: Background to The Experiment 1
A: The issues 1
B: The psychology of tyranny 2 Classic studies 2 Questioning Zimbardo’s analysis 4
C: Social identity and the psychology of resistance 7 Social identity theory 7 Explaining social change 9 Aims of The Experiment 14
D: Setting up the study 18 Selection of participants 18 Consent 22 The participants 25 Assignment to groups 26 Planned interventions 27 The prison environment 29 Guards’ resources and Prisoners’ rights 33 Rules 36 Psychometric measures 39 Ethical safeguards 45 Initial set-up 48
2: Findings of The Experiment 51
A: Qualitative findings 51 Episode 1 — Conflict 52 Episode 2 — Order 64 Episode 3 — Rebellion 75 Episode 4 — Tyranny 87
B: Quantitative findings 100
C: Integrating the findings 107
vi The Experiment Contents
3: Discussion of The Experiment 108
A: Explaining the findings 108 Taking on social identity 109 The psychological consequences of social identity 113 The move towards tyranny 117
B: Critical issues 120 On the impact of prior knowledge 121 On the impact of television and surveillance 123 On simulation and reality 125 On the nature of science 128
4: Conclusions 131
5: Additional material 136
A: Further reading 137
B: Other references 139
C: Index of key concepts 141
D: The authors and acknowledgements 143
The Experiment Background 1
1: Background to The Experiment
A: The issues
The Experiment was designed as a major scientific study into the psychology of groups and power.
It aimed to address a range of key social, clinical, organizational and methodological issues. Some of the main ones were:
For social psychology
• What are the effects of power and powerlessness on behaviour? • Can people resist tyranny and oppression, and, if so, how? • What role does personality play in large-scale social processes? • What psychological factors contribute to the rise of tyranny?
For clinical psychology
• Does social inequality impact on mental health? • Is there a relationship between social support and depression? • How does group membership contribute to clinical well-being? • Do social factors contribute to stress? Do they play a role in coping?
For organizational psychology
• What factors make groups effective and productive? • What is the basis of successful leadership? • What strategies contribute to positive relations between groups? • How should group negotiation be managed?
For methodology
• Can behaviour in simulated environments help us understand behaviour in general? • What can we learn from qualitative and quantitative data analysis? Do these tell a similar story? • How can we study phenomena like inequality and tyranny in ways that are both valid and ethical? • What is the relationship between theory, experimentation and scientific progress?
In addition, our aim was to re-open debate surrounding an important question that is relevant both to psychologists and to society in general: How might we better understand the conditions which give rise to tyranny, in order that we might be in a better position to oppose it?
2 The Experiment Background
B: The psychology of tyranny
Classic studies
Since World War II, the study of group psychology can be seen, above all else, as a response to the Nazi Holocaust. It is haunted by the question of how millions of people could be exterminated simply because of their membership of particular social groups.
Since that time, social psychologists have presented a number of answers to this question.
The first, and simplest explanation suggested that the Nazis and their sympathisers were simply people who had a particular type of personality — an authoritarian personality. This personality was believed to be expressed through extreme deference to those with power and extreme hostility to those without it (Adorno et al. 1950).
Over the ensuing decades, a series of influential and dramatic field studies moved the analysis of hostility and aggression from explanations based on personality and individual differences to explanations couched in terms of group processes.
In particular, this was because classic studies by Milgram (1963), Sherif (1956), and Tajfel (1970) suggested that basic group processes could lead normal, healthy individuals to behave in anti-social and/or discriminatory ways.
In Milgram’s obedience research about two-thirds of participants were prepared to administer what they believed to be a potentially fatal electric shock to another person when asked to do so by an experimenter.
In Sherif’s boys’ camp studies the assignment of boys to different groups led those boys to behave antagonistically towards each other (even when they had previously been friends) once the groups were engaged in competition for scarce resources.
In Tajfel’s minimal group studies individuals who had been assigned to different groups (e.g., as ‘over-estimators’ or ‘under-estimators’) tended to favour members of their own group over members of the other, even though the groups had no prior history or meaning.
The Experiment Background 3
Such research culminated in the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo and his colleagues in 1971 (Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973).
In this, young men were randomly divided into Guards and Prisoners and the former were given power over the latter. The study was scheduled to last two weeks. However, the brutality of the Guards and the suffering of the Prisoners was so great that it had to be stopped after six days.
For those running the study, this demonstrated the inherent tendency of people to slip into role and their inability to resist anti-social impulses once their individuality was lost. In the researchers’ words:
Guard aggression … was emitted simply as a ‘natural’ consequence of being in the uniform of a ‘guard’ and asserting the power inherent in that role (Haney et al., 1973, p.62).
This analysis suggests that tyranny is embedded in the psychology of powerful groups. Accordingly, it is concluded that the only way to avoid tyranny is to avoid groups and to avoid power.
This research has not only been of interest to academics. It has inspired television documentaries (e.g., BBC’s Five Steps to Tyranny; broadcast in 2000), films (notably, Das Experiment, released in 2001), and even a punk rock band (whose first self-titled album was released by World Domination Records in 1993).
The Stanford study and its message thus represent one of the few examples of contemporary psychology reaching beyond the textbooks and entering popular culture.
Key concepts authoritarian personality A personality style characterised by deference to people in authority and disdain or hostility towards people who are perceived as inferior. Early work (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950) suggested that this style predisposed people to Fascism. power The process that results in a person or group having (or being perceived to have) control over the behaviour and circumstances of others by virtue of the reward- and punishment-related resources at their disposal. role A set of expected practices and behaviours that are associated with the position that a person occupies within a given social system.
4 The Experiment Background
tyranny Arbitrary, excessive and unaccountable use of power, typically by a state over some of its citizens or one social group over another.
Web links
• The BBC Prison Experiment: www.ex.ac.uk/Psychology/seorg/exp/index.html
• T he Stanford Prison Experiment: www.prisonexp.org
Albums by Stanford P r i s on Study — Stanford Prison Experiment, Wrecreation and The Gato Hunch.
Das Experiment — The award-winning film based on the novel Black Box by Mario Giordano, and inspired by the Stanford Prison Experiment. Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel; Screenplay by Mario Giordano, Christoph Darnstadt, and Don Bohlinger; Starring Moritz Bleibtreu, Christian Berkel, Oliver Stokowski, Maren Eggert, Justus Von Dohnanyi, and Edgar Selge.
The Experiment Background 5
Questioning Zimbardo’s analysis
Despite its impact, there are some major problems with the received analysis of the Stanford study.
First, it is based on data that has never been fully reported scientifically. As a result, public and academic understanding is generally informed by limited film footage and website material.
Second, the received analysis seems to ignore much of the behaviour that is reported. There was evidence of significant resistance on the part of the Prisoners in Zimbardo’s study, and it is not clear that all, or even the majority, of the Guards behaved tyrannically.
Third, even where the Guards did act tyrannically, it is unclear whether this resulted from role alone, or from the leadership of Zimbardo. The relevance of leadership is illustrated by video footage in which it is apparent that, as part of his briefing to the Guards, Zimbardo told them:
You can create in the Prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me and they’ll have no privacy... They have no freedom of action they can do nothing, say nothing that we don’t permit. We’re going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness (Zimbardo, 1989).
These instructions conflict with Zimbardo’s theoretical claim that “we did not have to teach the actors how to play their roles” (Zimbardo et al., 1999, p.206). Indeed, they suggest that the Stanford Prison Study was more a study of obedience (like Milgram, 1963) than of conformity to roles.
These scientific concerns gain greater significance when one considers the social implications of the role explanation. In effect, it serves both (a) to pathologise group life by representing it as intellectually and morally suspect and also (b) to excuse individuals for their behaviour in groups. Former tyrants can claim that they are not to blame and that they have no responsibility for their acts because it was simply ‘the uniform that made them do it’.
Such arguments also go against attempts to give prospective tyrants pause for thought by making them realise that they will be held to account for their actions. They also make evil appear more banal than it really is (for extended discussion see Haslam & Reicher, in press a).
6 The Experiment Background
Rationale for The Experiment
In light of the above problems, we felt that there was a need to revisit the issues raised by the Stanford study — not as a matter of historical curiosity but as a pressing contemporary need.
More specifically, we wanted to look at both tyranny and resistance. We wanted to investigate both (a) when people use their power to maintain (or create) an unequal social system and (b) when they act to challenge such a system.
Key concepts
leadership The process whereby one or more members of a group influence other group members in a way that contributes to the definition and achievement of group goals.
obedience Conformity to rules, instructions or orders that have been provided by another person or set out within a particular institution. In social psychology, most research on obedience has focused on people’s compliance with the instructions of people who have positions of authority within a hierarchical social system (e.g., Milgram, 1963).
Discussion questions
• Had you ever questioned the conclusions of the Stanford Prison Experiment before? Why (or why not)?
• Had you ever thought about the moral and social implications of Zimbardo’s analysis? Why (or why not)?
• Can the potential benefits of conducting a study that might challenge the original conclusions of the Stanford Prison Study ever outweigh the potential risks?
• Should research like this be televised? What are the pros and cons of such a decision?
Exercise
Visit the website for the Stanford Prison Experiment and study closely the account of what went on in the study.
Is the behaviour of the participants and experimenters consistent with the theoretical analysis which suggests that conformity to role turned the Guards into tyrants and the Prisoners into passive victims?
The Experiment Background 7
C: Social identity and the psychology of resistance
Social identity theory
Whenever we look at tyranny we must also look at resistance. After all, whether or not tyranny exists depends partly on whether or not people resist it.
Similarly, we need to look at groups in a more balanced way. Certainly people in groups may oppress others. On the other hand, it is by banding together that people gain the strength and confidence to challenge oppression. This perspective is central to recent developments in social psychology.
In particular, it is consistent with social identity theory. This is one of the most influential approaches to group psychology to emerge in the last 25 years (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; see also Ellemers, et al., 1999; Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
This tradition starts from the premise that group behaviour is made possible by a psychological shift from seeing ourselves in terms of personal identity to seeing ourselves in terms of social identity (Turner, 1982).
When we think of ourselves in terms of personal identity we see ourselves as individuals who are different from other individuals. When we think of ourselves in terms of social identity we see ourselves as group members who are similar to ingroup members (“us”) but different from outgroup members (“them”).
Social identity researchers question the view that group behaviour is associated with a loss of reason and the unthinking acting out of roles. As they see it, acting as a group member does not entail a loss of self, but rather a change in the level at which self is defined and an associated change in the norms, values and beliefs which guide behaviour (Turner, 1982).
The theory also makes a basic distinction between acting in terms of a role and assuming a social identity. It suggests that it is only when we internalise a social identity and define ourselves in terms of our membership of a given social group that we behave in terms of that group membership. This is a fundamental difference between our position and Zimbardo’s.
8 The Experiment Background
Key concepts
ingroup A group that is perceived to be self-defining in a particular context (i.e., a group that defines a person’s social identity — “us”).
outgroup A group that is perceived to be nonself-defining in a particular context (i.e., a group contrasted from a person’s social identity — “them”).
personal identity An individual’s knowledge that he or she is different from other people together with some emotional and value significance to him or her of this sense of individuality.
social identity An individual’s knowledge that he or she belongs to certain groups (i.e., a sense of ‘us-ness’) together with some emotional and value significance to him or her of the group membership.
social identity theory An explanatory framework developed by Tajfel and Turner in the 1970s that focuses on the psychological underpinnings of intergroup relations and social conflict (see Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Discussion questions
• What social identities are important to you?
• Are different group memberships important to you in different situations?
• How and why does social context affect the importance of particular groups to you?
Exercise
Draw up two lists: one of groups that you identify strongly with, one of groups that you strongly reject or oppose.
Next to the groups that you identify with, list the situations in which those groups are most important.
Next to the groups that you reject or oppose, list the situations in which that rejection or opposition is most important.
What patterns emerge from this exercise? What does this say about the relationship between ingroups, outgroups and social context?
The Experiment Background 9
Explaining social change
Social identity theory is concerned not only with how and when people conform to the expectations of their social position, but also with the conditions under which members of subordinate social groups challenge their social position.
For example, it tries to explain the conditions under which ethnic minorities in a racist society, or women in a sexist society join together as group members in order to try to bring about social change (Reicher, 1996).
On the one hand, the theory points to a basic psychological motivation – the need for a positive social identity – which makes subordination a psychological problem. People want to define themselves positively, and so when they define themselves as group members, they want those groups to be positive.
On the other hand, the theory suggests that how people respond to the problem of subordination depends on structural and ideological factors. It points to three critical factors in particular: boundary permeability, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives.
Permeability, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives
Permeability principally affects people’s willingness to see themselves as group members. The term refers to our sense of whether we can progress in society despite our group membership. For example, a woman might believe that, as long as she plays down her gender, she has as much chance as a man of getting any job or achieving any position.
A belief that such progress is possible is associated with a social mobility belief system. With this people stress their individual qualities and try to distance themselves from the low status ingroup (Ellemers, 1993). They get on by leaving their group.
A belief that personal mobility is impossible is associated with a social change belief system. An example would be the belief that there is a ‘glass ceiling’ for women and that whatever a woman does, she will always be excluded from senior positions. Here people stress their group membership and, if they seek change, try to achieve it by changing the position of the group as a whole (Tajfel, 1975). They get on by improving their group.
10 The Experiment Background
However, even if boundaries are seen as impermeable, that doesn’t mean that people will automatically act together to try to overturn any inequalities they suffer. Whether or not they do so depends on two further factors: legitimacy and a sense of cognitive alternatives.
Legitimacy refers to perceptions of whether or not inequalities between groups are seen to be justified or not. Cognitive alternatives refer to group members’ ability to imagine different ways of organizing the social world.
Together, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives determine the security of group relations. When inequalities are legitimate and/or there are no alternatives, group relations can be described as secure. When they are illegitimate and have alternatives, they can be described as insecure.
Putting these various ideas together, social identity theory predicts that when existing social relations are seen as legitimate and/or lacking alternatives (i.e., secure) members of low status groups will try to achieve a positive social identity through acts of social creativity.
They can display social creativity in one of three ways:
(a) by redefining the meaning of their social identity (e.g., members of a poorly-performing sports team may say “we don’t always win, but we play the most attractive football”),
(b) by comparing themselves with different groups (e.g., by saying “we’re better than the teams in lower divisions”), or
(c) by making social comparisons on different dimensions (e.g., by saying “we have the best stadium”).
However, where existing social relations are seen as illegitimate and open to specific forms of change (i.e., insecure), social identity theory predicts that members of subordinate groups will be more likely act to resist the dominant group and to challenge the status quo. This is the prediction we focused on in designing The Experiment.
The Experiment Background 11
The above ideas are summarised in the following figure (adapted from Haslam, 2001, p.38).
This summarises the strategies that low status group members are predicted to adopt in order to deal with their situation depending on the permeability of group boundaries and the security of group relations.
Perceived Perceived Strategy for Course of Implications Form of permeability security of achieving action of strategy for behaviour of group group positive resulting from outgroup and boundaries relations social identity strategy status quo (legitimacy and cognitive alternatives)
The social mobility belief system
ed permeable accepts
attempt to our i
individual alis group join high outgroup’s av
mobility du boundaries status group superiority i beh indiv
The social change belief system
change (a) meaning of redefines identity but avoids secure social (b) comparison directly
relations creativity groups, or challenging
(c) comparison outgroup’s impermeable dimensions e iv superiority our i group t
boundaries av ollec c engage in directly beh insecure social conflict, open challenges relations competition hostility, outgroup’s antagonism superiority
12 The Experiment Background
Key concepts
cognitive alternatives Group members’ awareness of specific ways in which social relations could be restructured in order to bring about social change.
legitimacy The extent to which relations and status differences between groups are perceived to be justified or not.
permeability In the analysis of social structure, a condition that prevails when it is perceived to be possible to move from one particular group into another.
security In the analysis of social structure, a condition that prevails when existing group relations are perceived to be stable (e.g., not open to cognitive alternatives) and legitimate.
social change A strategy for self-enhancement that involves collective defence or rejection of existing intergroup relations.
social change belief system A set of beliefs that leads members of low status groups to seek self-enhancement collectively. They reject the status quo and try to improve the position of the group as a whole.
social creativity A strategy for self-enhancement that involves collective redefinition of the content and meaning of existing intergroup relations.
social mobility belief system A set of beliefs that leads members of low status groups to seek self-enhancement individually. They accept the status quo and try to improve their personal position.
Discussion questions
• Can you think of any examples of groups that encourage social mobility beliefs and of groups that encourage social change beliefs?
• How might alerting women to the existence of a ‘glass ceiling’ change the way they relate to other women in the workplace?
• What effect would promoting a ‘token’ individual in a workplace have on other people’s behaviour (e.g., promoting one woman to be a manager)? Would it increase or reduce the chances of low status groups achieving equality in the long term?
The Experiment Background 13
Exercise
Think of any disadvantaged group in society (e.g., women, gay people, Black people).
Research and prepare a report on the extent to which social identity processes have played a part in their drive for equality over the last 100 years.
14 The Experiment Background
Aims of The Experiment
With the above arguments in mind, The Experiment was primarily designed as a field test of social identity theory.
In the study 15 well-adjusted men volunteered to participate in a study of power and inequality in which they were placed in a simulated prison environment for a period of nine days. Cameras and microphones recorded everything that was done and said, and the observational data that was obtained by these means was complemented by daily psychometric and physiological measures.
This provided an opportunity for detailed examination of the unfolding interactions between participants who had been randomly assigned to two groups of unequal power: Guards and Prisoners.
A number of interventions were also planned in order to affect (a) the levels of perceived permeability between groups, (b) the legitimacy of the intergroup inequality and (c) participants’ awareness of cognitive alternatives to the social system.
Predictions
Our key predictions were that participants would only act in terms of their group memberships to the extent that they identified themselves as Guards or Prisoners. For the Prisoners, in particular, we expected that this would only occur when group boundaries were made impermeable.
Higher group identification was expected to lead the Guards – the high status group – to accept their group position and impose their power over the Prisoners.
On the other hand, for the Prisoners – the low status group – we expected higher social identification to be associated with a greater challenge to the status hierarchy and to the power of the Guards, especially if the Prisoners saw inequalities between the groups as illegitimate and as subject to alternatives.
However, the experiment was not simply designed as a test of existing theory. It was also designed to extend our understanding of the nature and import of social identity processes in organizations and in society at large.
It did this in a number of ways...
The Experiment Background 15
Groups with a history and future
First, because a typical social psychology experiment lasts about 30 minutes, very few experiments allow researchers to examine the role that a sense of group history and future plays in shaping behaviour. And because social psychologists’ method does not allow for the examination of history, this is often left out of their theorising.
Because it was an extended field study, one of the key advantages of The Experiment was that it allowed for an exploration of these interactive social processes over time. In this way, it provided an invaluable opportunity to test and extend psychological theory.
Organizational psychology
Second, recent work has begun to stress the importance of social identity processes for organizational behaviour (e.g., Haslam, 2001). The Experiment allowed us to examine the relationship between social identity and organizational processes such as commitment, planning, productivity, social support and bullying. The longitudinal nature of the study also allowed us to explore the way in which these different factors develop over time.
Our general prediction was that increased levels of shared social identity would be associated with improved organizational functioning. This prediction is derived from a body of work which has applied social identity and self-categorisation principles to organizational settings.
Amongst other things, this work suggests that a sense of shared social identity provides the psychological basis for individuals both (a) to perceive the social world in similar ways and also (b) to work together to co-ordinate social perceptions and social action.
We therefore expected that increased social identification would be associated with improvements in communication, planning, organization and teamwork.
16 The Experiment Background
Clinical psychology
Third, there has also long been a recognition of the relationship between social conditions and mental health (e.g., Orford, 1992). However, despite this, relatively little work has addressed the relationship between social psychological processes and mental well-being.
Once again, in The Experiment our aim was to examine how mental health states (e.g., depression, anxiety, paranoia and burnout) develop in relation to group identity and group relations.
In particular, we were interested in the mental health of subordinate group members under conditions where they identify more or less with their group and where they either accept or challenge intergroup inequalities.
Again, our general prediction was that increased levels of social identity would be associated with improved clinical functioning (e.g., less depression). This is because social identity should provide a psychological basis for individuals both (a) to validate each others’ views of the world and (b) to work together to provide each other with intellectual, emotional and material support (Branscombe et al., 1999).
The power of experimenters
Fourth, we were interested not only in when and how Prisoners and Guards would challenge each other, but whether, when and how Prisoners and Guards might challenge the experiment and us, the experimenters.
The research of Milgram and Zimbardo provides powerful insights into the conditions under which research participants accept an experimenter’s authority. However, in line with our general interest in processes of resistance and social change, we were keen both to investigate, and to theorise about, the participants’ responses to our own power and authority.
In particular, we predicted that the same factors that might lead the Prisoners to challenge the Guards (i.e., impermeability, illegitimacy, cognitive alternatives) might also lead the participants as a whole to challenge us.
The Experiment Background 17
Key concepts physiological measures Measures of physiological states or processes (e.g., cortisol levels, skin conductance and blood flow) used in psychological research to gain insight into particular psychological states or processes. psychometric measures Measures used in psychological research to gain insight into particular psychological states or processes (e.g., personality, attitudes, mood). Most commonly these are self-report measures that have been pre-tested to ensure they provide valid and reliable data.
Discussion questions
• What are the consequences of conducting experiments that (a) do not involve interaction, and (b) are too short to examine the development of behaviour over time? In particular, how do these factors affect the type of theories that psychologists develop?
• How important is the power of experimenters in determining the way people behave in psychological research — especially in studies of intergroup relations? What are the consequences of not taking this power into account?
18 The Experiment Background
D: Setting up the study
Planning and preparing for The Experiment took almost a year. We undertook this in collaboration with two senior producers from the BBC: Gaby Koppel and Nick Mirsky. However, it was a major logistical exercise that could not have been carried out without the input and energy of a large and committed team of BBC producers, researchers, and managers. For most of the time this team had around a dozen members, but at its height about 200 people were working on the project.
In this section we provide details of some of the most important features of this process.
Selection of participants
In October 2001 the following advert for participants was placed in several British newspapers and leaflets were distributed in different localities around the country:
PERSONAL NOTICES
DO YOU REALLY KNOW
YOURSELF?
BBC Producers seek men to take part in a university- backed social science experiment to be shown on TV. Exercise, tasks, hardship, hunger, solitude, anger. It’s a two-week challenge that will change the way you think.
Visit our website to find out more - www.an-experiment.co.uk Or email us on apply @an-experiment.co.uk Or call us on 020 8746 1252
The Experiment Background 19
Those who were interested were directed to a website that presented an extensive application form. This comprised clinical and social measures, as well as a lie scale. The measures of depression and authoritarianism that we used are presented on p.41 and p.42.
We decided only to recruit men for three reasons:
First, we wanted to be sure that our results would be comparable with findings from previous research (in particular, the Stanford Prison Study). If we had selected women and obtained different results, it could be argued that this was simply because, unlike previous researchers, we had used women.
Second, we were motivated to try to minimise the risk of harm to participants. In particular, there would be obvious dangers in locking men and women up in the same cells.
Third, we felt that including women in the study would complicate the dynamics between participants, and would make it more difficult for us to focus on those theoretical variables in which we were interested.
In other respects too, the overall logic of our selection process was both ethical and scientific. For ethical reasons, we excluded anyone who might be either liable to suffer harm from the conditions of the study or else liable to inflict harm on others. For scientific reasons, we wanted a sample of people who could be described as decent, healthy and well-adjusted. As a result, any conflict or extreme behaviour subsequently observed in the study could not be attributed to individual disturbance or pathology (see also Haney et al., 1973; Sherif, 1956).
Exercise
Imagine you are given the task of devising a study of this form that included women.
Design a study that is (a) ethical and (b) has the potential to contribute to scientific advance.
State your experimental hypotheses and predictions.
If your predictions were confirmed, would the study’s findings be open to alternative explanations?
20 The Experiment Background
332 people completed full applications. Details of this sample and of the applicants selected for participation in the study are presented in the following table:
Participants Other applicants Significant difference (p < .05)
number 15 317 age 33 31 no
depression 2.03 2.53 yes paranoia 2.61 2.95 yes authoritarianism 2.81 2.93 no
all clinical scales 2.03 2.49 yes all lie items 4.51 4.34 no all social scales 2.48 2.63 no
Note: Table presents means scores on 7-point scales (1-7). On social and clinical measures a higher score is less desirable On lie scales an extreme score (high or low) is less desirable
From this table it can be seen that the participants in the study were broadly similar to the non-selected pool of applicants on social scales. However, responses on clinical measures indicated that their mental health was significantly superior.
In the second phase of selection, all remaining applicants were interviewed by telephone in order to check the information they had given in their application forms and also to ascertain whether there was any other information which might disqualify them from participation on clinical or social grounds.
Those who passed this hurdle were then invited for a face-to-face meeting in which they underwent full psychological testing and a full clinical interview with independent clinical psychologists.
In a third and final phase of screening, police checks were made on all applicants. Applicants were also asked to produce character references from a suitable referee (employer, teacher etc.), and to undergo a medical examination.
The Experiment Background 21
After this screening, there were 27 remaining applicants, from whom we selected 15 participants and 3 reserves.
Final selection was made on two grounds:
First, we wanted a diverse sample of men in terms of age, class, region of origin and ethnicity who were broadly representative of society at large.
Second, we wanted people who were articulate and relatively open about their thoughts and feelings so that they would be better able to provide us with insights into their behaviour.
Discussion questions
• What is the logic for including only decent and well-adjusted people in experiments like this?
• The goal of The Experiment was to test and extend predictions derived from social identity theory. Do features of the selection process limit our ability to do this?
Exercise
Divide people into those who would, and those who would not, volunteer for a study like this.
Complete the scales on p.41 and p.42 and compute means for the two groups.
Are there any differences between groups? If so, on what scales? What are the implications of your findings?
22 The Experiment Background
Consent
In order to meet ethical guidelines for the provision of informed consent, before participating in the study, participants were given a Briefing Document providing basic details about the study. They also had to complete the following form. This combined a standard contributor’s agreement for participation in a television programme with a consent form for participating in psychological research.
Consent form/ Contributor’s agreement
Name of series: The Experiment
In consideration of my taking part in the above programme (hereinafter referred to as "the Programme") I agree to the terms and conditions set out below:
1. I confirm I have read the Volunteers’ Briefing Document and understand that the Series will consist of a psychological study filmed by the BBC using a multi-camera recording unit, to be broadcast on TV, and written up in books and scientific journals.
The BBC will create an enclosed set in which participants are assigned to one of two groups. They will live entirely in the set for up to 2 weeks. The living conditions of the two groups will be very different. Contact with the outside world will be kept to a minimum for both groups. All participants will be under constant camera surveillance by a team of psychologists, health professionals and television employees.
There will be tasks to perform. One group will be required to carry this out, and the second group will monitor their performance, and be in control of what happens. In addition to the tasks, all participants will be asked to complete a range of surveys and participate in a number of tasks as the study progresses.
2. I assign to the BBC the copyright and all other rights in my contribution(s) for use in all media now known or which may be developed in future.
3. I assign to Professor S. Alexander Haslam, Dr Stephen Reicher and the University of Exeter copyright in the scientific questionnaires which I will complete during the study. I agree that they may use my contribution(s) for academic research and teaching, and for publication in academic journals and books.
4. I agree that the BBC may edit, adapt, translate or remove my contribution(s) and I waive irrevocably all "moral rights" in respect of my written, verbal and behavioural contribution(s) which I may have now or in the future (including but without limitation any of my rights under sections 77 and 80 of Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or any similar laws of any jurisdiction).
The Experiment Background 23
The BBC may use my name, likeness, biography, photographs and recordings of me in advertising and publicising the Programme in all media and formats throughout the world.
5. I understand that this study involves the following factors, some of which may involve risk: • The environment itself may be uncomfortable both physically and psychologically. • I will have to deal with lack of companionship and few luxuries. • I will have to deal with the pressure and stress resulting from the conditions. • I will have to cope with being in a confined space for up to three weeks. • I will be under constant surveillance. • The study will also involve some deception, as is common in psychological experiments of this kind. • I will have to deal with the consequences of my actions being seen on television by friends, neighbours and the public at large. This may involve, for example, being recognised in the street.
6. I understand that my participation in the programme is entirely at my own risk and that the BBC shall not be liable to me or my legal representative for any loss or damage or injury to my person or property caused or suffered during or in connection with this engagement unless caused by the negligence of the BBC and recoverable on that ground.
7.(a) I confirm that I am fit, healthy, am not on any medication, have no history of mental illness or depression and know of no medical reason why I should not participate in the Programme. I agree to co-operate with the producers and abide by any guidelines and advice they provide.
(b) I confirm that my G.P. has approved my taking part in the Programme and agree to allow the BBC to contact my G.P. and my employer/educational establishment to confirm the appropriateness of my participation.
8. I warrant that I have no criminal convictions (other than those set out below) and that my contribution will be entirely honest and truthful and that I am not deceiving the BBC about my identity, experiences or in any other way. I am aware that any breach of this clause may result in my being excluded from the study with no compensation.
9. I shall ensure that my contribution(s) shall not infringe copyright or contain anything which is calculated to bring the BBC into disrepute or which is defamatory provided however that I shall not be liable in respect of any defamatory material which is included without negligence or malice on my part.
10. (a) Prior to the first broadcast of the programme containing my contribution I will not make or authorise the making of any other contribution with a substantially similar content for inclusion in any other radio or television programme to be broadcast by the BBC or any other broadcasting organization.
24 The Experiment Background
(b) I agree not to discuss my participation in this Series with any third party including commercial interests prior to the Series being broadcast.
11. I agree not to disclose any information concerning the Series or my participation to any third party after broadcast without the BBC's consent. Criminal Convictions (if any)
......
I give my informed consent to participate in this study of social behaviour in a confined environment. I have read and understand the consent form. Upon signing below, I will receive a copy of the consent form from the study investigator.
Investigators: Professor S. A. Haslam; Dr. S. D. Reicher. Producer: Ms. G. Koppel
Contributor's name: ......
Address : ......
Signature: ...... Date: ......
Key concept
informed consent The ethical principle that research participants should be told enough about a piece of research to be able to make an informed decision about whether to participate in it.
Discussion questions
• To what extent is it possible to provide properly informed consent in research of this form?
• Can anyone ever be prepared for the consequences of appearing on television?
• How do the consequences of appearing in a television programme like The Experiment compare with those of appearing on other programmes (e.g., quiz shows, documentaries, ‘reality TV’, Candid Camera)?
The Experiment Background 25
The participants
Thufayel Frankie Brendan Tom Tom Ahmed Caruana Grennon McElroy Quarry
Ian Philip Frank Dave John Burnett Bimpson Clark Dawson Edwards
Glen Neil Paul Derek Kevin Payton Perry Petken McCabe Murray
26 The Experiment Background
Assignment to groups
In order to allocate the selected participants to Prisoner or Guard groups, the participants were divided into five groups of three people. Matching was undertaken to ensure that the three people in each group were equivalent in terms of their scores on the social measures used in the screening process (authoritarianism, modern racism, social dominance).
From each group of three people, two were randomly assigned to be Prisoners and one to be a Guard.
This gave a total of five Guards and ten Prisoners with members of the two categories being psychologically matched at the outset.
One Prisoner was not introduced into the prison until Day 5, but the remaining nine Prisoners were randomly assigned to the three cells (for the resulting allocations to cells, see p. 30).
Key concept
matching The process of attempting to remove systematic differences between experimental groups on variables that are not manipulated but might nonetheless contribute to differences on outcome measures.
Discussion questions
• We tried to match Prisoners and Guards by making sure that, as groups, they had similar profiles on authoritarianism, modern racism and social dominance. What was the logic behind this? Should we have matched them on any other characteristics? If so, why?
• Given that the groups were matched (see the graphs on pp.100,102), what does this tell us about the impact of social conditions on social and clinical states?
The Experiment Background 27
Planned interventions
Induction of permeability
During their briefing by the experimenters, the Guards were told that they had been selected because the psychological screening tests they had previously completed indicated that they had qualities of reliability, trustworthiness and initiative. However, it was also stated that the tests misidentified people around 10% of the time and that test data therefore needed to be complemented by behavioural observation.
The Guards were told that, statistically, it was unlikely that one of them would be demoted but that it was very likely that one of the Prisoners would have the desired qualities and hence be eligible for promotion.
The Guards were also told that preparation had been made for such an event. The fact that there were six beds in the Guards’ dormitory and six chairs in their mess was a physical symbol of this.
Finally, the Guards were told that they should observe the Prisoners in order to decide who they thought should be promoted and that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, we would accept their decision.
In the initial tannoy announcement Prisoners were also informed that people had been allocated to groups on the basis of the tests they had completed previously. They were told that the Guards and experimenters would be observing them closely to see if anyone displayed the qualities of reliability, trustworthiness and initiative, and that in case they did, provision had been made for a promotion to Guard.
They were told that the outcome of these observations would be announced on Day 3 and that any promotion would occur on Day 4.
Induction of impermeability
On the evening of Day 3, the Guards were told to conduct formal interviews to select one Prisoner to be promoted to a Guard. The experimenters endorsed their decision. The Guards were told that henceforth there would be no further movement between groups irrespective of how people behaved. Guards were asked to announce this message to the Prisoners. Thus, from Day 4, the system was rendered impermeable.
28 The Experiment Background
Induction of illegitimacy
Prior to running the study, our intention had been to manipulate legitimacy independently by announcing on Day 5 that behavioural analysis had shown that there was no justification for the division of participants into Guard and Prisoner groups. In other words, we planned to say that analysis had shown that the Guards were no more reliable or trustworthy than the Prisoners, and had no more initiative. We were also going to add that, for reasons of convenience, we were not planning to move people between groups to reflect real differences in these qualities.
As it happened, though, it was apparent that illegitimacy emerged naturally from the permeability manipulation.
That is, the legitimacy of the intergroup status and power differences was undermined by the way in which the promotion was carried out. This clearly had little to do with the qualities by which group membership was said to be determined (reliability, trustworthiness and initiative). In addition, from their behaviour, it became increasingly obvious that the Guards did not possess these qualities to a greater extent that the Prisoners.
For this reason, we did not attempt an independent manipulation of legitimacy.
Induction of cognitive alternatives
On Day 5 a new Prisoner was introduced into the prison. He was selected and assigned to a group on the same grounds as all the other participants. He also received exactly the same briefing before entering the prison.
However, because his background was as a Trades Union official, he was seen as the Prisoner most likely to provide both a new perspective on how the institution should be organized (one based upon the rights of Prisoners and participants as a whole) and to have the skills by which this perspective could be communicated and realised.
For these reasons, his introduction was deliberately delayed in order to see whether (and how) he would be able to make available theoretical and ideological resources that might encourage participants to rethink their status-based relations.
The Experiment Background 29
The prison environment
The study was conducted in a purpose-built environment constructed inside a film studio in Elstree, in Hertfordshire, north of London.
The environment most obviously resembled a prison. Importantly, though, it also had features in common with other hierarchical institutions — for example, an office, a barracks, a ship, or a school.
This was because the study as a whole was not trying to simulate a prison (or prison life), but rather to create an environment in which there were significant status and power differences between two groups.
Prisons are one place in which such differences exist, but so too are offices, schools and homes, and a goal of our study was to develop social psychological theory that would allow us to address issues relevant to all such environments — not just prisons.
In order to test and develop such theory (specifically social identity theory), the presence of status and power differences was therefore essential, but the creation of a real prison was not.
30 The Experiment Background
Prison plan
Thufayel Ahmed [TAg] Ian Burnett [IBg] (promoted Day 4) Brendan Grennon [BGg] Philip Bimpson [PBp] John Edwards [JEp] Frankie Caruana [FC ] g Glen Payton [GPp] Kevin Murray [KMp] Tom McElroy [TMg] Neil Perry [NPp] Paul Petken [PPp] Tom Quarry [TQg] Guards' Walkway Guards' (first floor) Mess Video Booth Delivery Cell 1 Cell 2 Area
Exercise Area Main Atrium Entrance
Isolation Cell Cell 3 Guards' Guards' Observation Dorm Post
Prisoners' Ian Burnett [IBp] Guards' Showers (promoted Day 4) Bathroom Frank Clark [FCp] Dave Dawson [DDp] Derek McCabe [DMp] (introduced Day 5, 10m withdrawn Day 6)
= sliding lockable grille doors = location of fixed camera
Discussion questions
• Would you expect the geography of the prison to have any impact on participants’ behaviour? For example, might the fact that Cell 2 is more isolated than the other cells have any effects (noting that, unlike Prisoners in Cells 1 and 2, its members couldn’t see into any other cells)?
• To what extent could the Guards use the geography of the prison to assert their power?
The Experiment Background 31
Cells
Prisoners were divided into three cells. Together with a shower room, these were located off a central atrium. Each cell contained three beds, a toilet and a wash-hand basin. Prisoners had no control over the lighting which was switched off at 10pm and switched on at 6am. They slept on unsprung beds with thin mattresses and coarse blankets.
Guards’ quarters
The Guards had separate dormitory and mess areas. Their beds were sprung with good mattresses and duvets. In their common room, they had sofas and comfortable chairs and extra provisions (see above). The Guards had control over their lighting.
Common areas
There was a main atrium in which meals were served, where work tasks were performed and where Prisoners spent recreational time.
The atrium also housed a video booth in which participants could talk directly and in confidence to the experimenters (but without seeing them). This was necessary for ethical purposes, but all participants were encouraged to speak to the experimenters every-other-day in order to gain insight into their mental state and well-being.
In the centre of the atrium there was a Guards’ observation post in which there were monitors on which Guards could observe all the cells (on both standard and infra-red cameras). At one end of the atrium was an entrance area that was used for deliveries. At the other end of the atrium was an exercise area and Guards’ quarters consisting of a bathroom (with showers, toilets and wash hand basins), a dormitory and a mess.
Locks and access
The Prisoners’ cells had a lockable door and a metal grille. There were also lockable grille doors at either end of the atrium. All doors had emergency release mechanisms to allow for rapid evacuation in case of fire. There was also an upstairs walkway which was only accessible from the Guards’ quarters.
32 The Experiment Background
Timetable
There was a daily prison timetable which included periods for meals, cleaning and other chores, completing psychological tests, work, exercise and a ‘privileges hour’.
At other times, Prisoners remained in their cells with the grille door shut unless they were required to serve the Guards at meals or to clear up after them. At night, Prisoners were locked in with both the inner door and the grille door closed. Guards were allowed to organize their own duty roster. When off duty, they were free to use any of the prison facilities.
Freedom of movement
The Prisoners were only allowed out of their cells at specified times, and were restricted to certain areas. Access to certain resources and spaces (e.g. the pool table and the exercise area) was further restricted. Guards had complete freedom of movement and use of all resources as long as this was consonant with their supervisory duties.
Meals
The Prisoners’ meals were designed to be nutritionally adequate but very basic. These consisted of small portions, cheap ingredients, and were poorly cooked. The Guards’ meals were of a high standard. These consisted of large portions (usually more than they could eat), good ingredients, and were well cooked.
The Experiment Background 33
Guards’ resources and Prisoners’ rights
The Guards were given the following resources through which to impose their authority:
Spatial control
The Guards alone had conventional and electronic swipe keys that opened all the doors and grilles in the prison. As a result they could control the movement and distribution of Prisoners. They had the ability to confine Prisoners to cells at any time and to reallocate them amongst cells. In addition, they had sole access to the upstairs walkway.
Surveillance
The Guards had the ability to observe the Prisoners at all times, both in the Guards’ station and by using the upstairs walkway.
Control of resources
The Guards had control over food. They had sole access to delivery of meals, and also had extra supplies in their quarters (soft drinks, snacks, tea/coffee etc.) which they could either distribute as reward or withhold as punishment. Likewise, they had control over cigarette rations for the Prisoners. Finally, Guards had control over equipment that could be used during the privileges hour (e.g. cues and balls for a pool table, basketball for the exercise yard).
The Guards were given notebooks and pencils with which to record violations and a violations board on which to summarise the violations committed by each Prisoner. There was also a time set aside for a disciplinary meeting each day in which Guards would summarise the disciplinary performance of each Prisoner and decide on appropriate responses on an individual or group level.
Guards were given responsibility for devising some of the tasks (mainly chores) and of ensuring that all these were properly completed, that the schedule was kept to and that prison rules were obeyed.
34 The Experiment Background
Punishments
The Guards devised a range of punishments they could impose if Prisoners failed to comply with the rules. These were as follows:
Punishments available to Guards
• Toilet cleaning • Temporary removal of one or all personal possessions • Detention - standing in the ‘punishment zone’ • Reduction of cigarette ration • Writing lines • Bread and water (for no more than two consecutive meals) • Solitary detention (for maximum of three hours, and not into sleeping times) • Others to be devised by Guards (but subject to approval by the ethics committee, and not to include any physical punishments)
Rights
At the same time, Guards were informed that the Prisoners had a range of basic rights that could not be violated. These were posted on the wall in the atrium and were as follows:
Prisoners’ Rights
• No physical chastisement • No sleep deprivation • No enforced nudity or strip searches • No racial abuse, homophobic abuse, or abuse based on religious or ethnic identity • No cruel or unusual punishments • Provision of a mattress and bedclothes • Provision of a nutritionally adequate diet • Session with a clinical psychologist on request • Daily hot shower • Shower and toilet in private; no broadcasting of nudity • Clean clothes and bedding • Sanitary and hygienic living conditions • The right to withdraw from the study at any time
The Experiment Background 35
In addition to these various sources of authority, status difference between Guards and Prisoners was marked in a number of other ways:
Uniforms
The Guards were provided with a uniform of black shoes, good quality dark trousers and light blue shirt, a military-style pullover, and a name badge. They also had a broad belt with loops on which to attach a long torch and keys on a long chain. The Prisoners had flip-flops, orange baggy trousers and an orange t-shirt with their prison number printed on it.
Possessions
The Guards kept their personal clothes with them in lockers along with other personal possessions. The Prisoners’ personal clothes were taken away from them on entering the prison but they were allowed to keep three personal possessions of their own choice.
Discussion questions
• Based on the conclusions drawn from the Stanford Prison Study, do you think the Guards had enough resources to assert their power?
• Before the experiment began, whose welfare do you think the experimenters were more worried about, the Prisoners or the Guards? Why?
• How do the resources available to the Guards compare to the resources available to other groups who are expected to wield power in society? Think, for example, of teachers, managers, parents, or United Nations peace keepers.
Exercise
Design a prison environment (building, rules, punishments, resources, etc.) that is ethical but which creates a real power difference between Guards and Prisoners.
36 The Experiment Background
Rules
At the start of the study, the Guards were given overall headings within which to devise rules (e.g., dress and appearance, language). However, they were free to determine the actual rules themselves.
These were the rules that they devised for the Prisoners and themselves:
Prisoners' Rules
Dress and appearance • All inmates must be clean shaven • t-shirts must be tucked in • Tidiness and hygiene • Beds must be made • Toilet seats must be kept up • Floors must be clean and clear of personal belongings • Personal belongings must be neat and tidy • Communal areas must be clear at all times • No blocking of stairways • No abuse of fixtures and fittings • Ablutions in full every day
Language • All inmates will be courteous and use respectful language when addressing Guards and in return will be treated with the same respect
Aggression • There will be no verbal or physical aggression in this establishment • Respect for authority • Guards will be addressed as "Sir" at all times • Guards will address the Prisoners as "Mr" followed by their surname • All orders must be obeyed
Time-keeping • All Prisoners must be punctual in all activities and duties • All the schedules must be adhered to
Obedience • All rules and regulations to be observed at all times • All orders to be obeyed • The Guards' word is final • No talking loudly after lights out
The Experiment Background 37
Maintenance of radio microphones • At the appropriate time, radio microphones must be returned to Guards for recharging and maintenance • Any malicious damage to microphones will be dealt with through disciplinary proceedings
Work • Work to be carried out as specified by Guards • Work detailed by Guards is non-negotiable • All work to be carried out diligently, to be completed to a high standard, and to be carried out within a reasonable time frame
Writing and reading • Writing and reading materials will be returned and counted at the end of each session • No misuse of reading and writing materials will be tolerated
Out of bounds • No Prisoners allowed in Guards’ dormitory or mess without permission • No Prisoners allowed in Guards’ control area without permission • No Prisoners allowed on blue carpet around control areas • No Prisoners may enter blue carpet areas without presence of a Guard
Guards' Rules
• Guards’ actions will be by consensus • The majority rules • No open disagreement in front of Prisoners • Hand-over and briefing at the end of all shifts • Attitudes towards each Prisoner should be unified and consistent • In front of Prisoners, Guards should address each other by surname • Guards should not discuss a Prisoner in front of other Prisoners • No flying off the handle • Before punishments are handed out, there must be consensus, and the punishment should be handed out the next day • No acting on impulse
38 The Experiment Background
Exercise
Before screening the DVDs, explain the set up of The Experiment and provide observers with copies of the rules.
Ask those observers to anticipate the way the study will develop.
In particular, ask the following questions:
• How will the Prisoners and Guards feel and behave at the start of the study?
• Will the initial phases of the study reproduce the findings of the Stanford Prison Study? Why (or why not)?
• How will feelings and behaviour change over time?
• Will the study run into ethical problems? Why (or why not)?
The Experiment Background 39
Psychometric measures
Every day during the study there was a psychological testing period during which all participants completed an extensive questionnaire comprised of a series of scales. Measures were drawn from a pool of 59 scales including measures of 33 social, 17 organizational and 9 clinical variables.
On the following pages we provide examples of four such measures:
one theoretical (social identification) one clinical (depression) one social (authoritarianism) one organizational (organizational citizenship)
Like many of the scales, the measure of organizational citizenship included reverse-scored items.
Key concept reverse scoring The practice of having some of the items that measure a particular construct worded so that a higher score is associated with a lower level of the construct. For example, on a scale designed to measure depression, if a question asked “Are you happy?” higher agreement would indicate less depression. So, before calculating an overall score for the construct, scores on these particular items are transposed so that on all measures a higher score is associated with a higher level of the construct. This is done by (a) subtracting the participants’ response from the scale midpoint and (b) adding the resulting score, including the + or - sign, to the scale midpoint to provide a new score. See p.43 for an example.
Discussion questions
• Can scales like those on the following pages capture the richness of the constructs they are attempting to measure?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of asking participants to complete the same scales on multiple occasions?
• What is the purpose of reverse scoring? What are its advantages and disadvantages?
40 The Experiment Background
Social identification
This was comprised of two three-item scales, based on the work of Doosje et al. (1995). It relates to the main theoretical variable in which we were interested.
On each scale participants circled a single number to indicate their level of agreement with a particular statement.
• I feel strong ties with the Prisoners
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• I identify with the Prisoners
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• I feel solidarity with the Prisoners
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
To calculate a mean score for identification with Prisoners add up responses on the above 3 scales and divide the sum by 3.
• I feel strong ties with the Guards
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• I identify with the Guards
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• I feel solidarity with the Guards
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
To calculate a mean score for identification with Guards add up responses on the above 3 scales and divide the sum by 3.
For Guards, social identification = (identification with Guards) minus (identification with Prisoners) For Prisoners, social identification = (identification with Prisoners) minus (identification with Guards)
The Experiment Background 41
Depression
This was a seven-item scale devised by Williams et al (2001). It relates to one of the main clinical variables in which we were interested.
On each scale participants circled a single number to indicate their current mental state.
• In general, how has your mood been over the last few days?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very negative • negative • positive • very positive
• Do you ever feel low or depressed?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all • • sometimes • • always
• Do you feel hopeless about the future?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all • • sometimes • • always
• Do you have difficulty dealing with everyday problems?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all • • sometimes • • very frequently
• Are you self-confident?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all • • slightly • • definitely
• Do you think that you are a worthwhile person?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all • • sometimes • • very frequently
• Do you think about harming yourself?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all • • sometimes • • very frequently
To calculate a mean depression score add up the responses on the above 7 scales and divide the sum by 7.
42 The Experiment Background
Authoritarianism
This was a ten-item scale, and it relates to one of the main social variables in which we were interested. This is because, as noted on p.2, authoritarianism is a personality style that has been thought to lead to tyranny and prejudice (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950).
The scale incorporates items developed by Altmeyer (1996). On each scale participants circled a single number to indicate their level of agreement with a particular statement.
• Things would go better if people talked less and worked harder
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• It is better to live in a society in which the laws are vigorously enforced than to give people too much freedom
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• People should always comply with the decisions of the majority
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• You have to give up an idea when important people think otherwise
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• There are two kinds of people: strong and weak
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• What we need are strong leaders that the people can trust.
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• Our social problems would be solved if, in one way or another, we could get rid of weak and dishonest people
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• People should always keep to the rules
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
To calculate a mean authoritarianism score add up scores on the above 8 scales and divide the sum by 8.
The Experiment Background 43
Organizational citizenship
This was a three-item scale that relates to one of the main organizational variables in which we were interested. Responses indicate how willing the participants were to engage in behaviour which would make the prison system work effectively.
The concept of organizational citizenship was developed by Organ (1988) and refers to people’s willingness to engage in activities that are ‘beyond the call of duty’ but which organizations rely on in order to work effectively. In previous research, it has been found to be strongly predicted by levels of identification with the organization (e.g., Tyler & Blader, 2000).
On each scale participants circled a single number to indicate their level of agreement with a particular statement.
• I am willing to do more than is asked of me by the Guards
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• I will do whatever I can to help the Guards
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
• Whenever possible I will try to make the Guards’ work difficult
do not agree at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree completely
To calculate a mean organizational citizenship score first reverse score the third item (so that 1=7, 2=6, 3=5, 5=3, 6=2, and 7=1). Then add up scores on the 3 scales and divide the sum by 3.
Key concept organizational citizenship Altruistic or conscientious organizational behaviour that enhances the organizational environment as a whole but which is not explicitly demanded (e.g., in an employment contract).
44 The Experiment Background
Exercise
Divide the people who are going to view the DVDs into two equal-sized groups.
When they watch it, ask one group to do so from the perspective of a Guard and the other to watch it from the perspective of a Prisoner.
At the end of every episode ask the viewers to complete some or all of the scales on pp.40–43, as if they were a member of the group to which you have assigned them.
Calculate scores for each measure and average them for each group.
Examine the differences (a) between the groups and (b) over time.
How do the results compare with the ones actually obtained from the study (see pp.100–105)?
The Experiment Background 45
Ethical safeguards
The fact that people remember most about the Stanford Prison Experiment was that it had to be terminated early due to the suffering of participants. It is clearly unacceptable (morally and legally) to impose such levels of suffering on participants.
In The Experiment, it was therefore necessary to build in failsafe mechanisms which would ensure that participants would not be harmed or be at risk of harm either physically of psychologically.
A general goal of the study was to conduct research that bore comparison with the Stanford Prison Experiment and allowed us to address issues of domination and resistance in a meaningful way, but without breaching ethical standards.
The general distinction we sought to make was between conditions which were tough and challenging (the sort of conditions one might find if one chose to go on an adventure holiday – some physical discomfort, occasional strong emotions, but no psychological or physical danger) and conditions which could be harmful to participants either in the short or the long-term.
The study was approved in advance by the University of Exeter using standard ethical procedures (although advice was also provided by the British Psychological Society).
We have already described the safeguards built into the selection procedures and into the prison rules. However, in order to ensure that these rules were not violated and that participants were safe, a series of additional procedures was also put in place.
Continuous observation
Qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis was conducted in order to monitor for any signs of disturbance or any violations of ethical guidelines.
It was important to have 24-hour recordings in order to ensure that it would be impossible for unethical behaviour to occur unobserved — especially at night.
46 The Experiment Background
In the event, no unacceptable behaviours were observed and none of the psychometric or physiological data indicated troubling levels of distress or disturbance.
Protocols for intervention
There were written protocols determining how to intervene in case any participant violated the limits of acceptable behaviour. These ranged from being summonsed to the video booth using the tannoy system and then given a reprimand in case of minor violations to immediate removal from the study in case of major violations such as physical violence.
Security guards
Trained security guards were on hand 24 hours a day throughout the study. Whenever there was any sign of tension they were put on standby and were in a position to intervene within seconds.
Clinical psychologists
Two clinical psychologists — Scott Galloway and Andrew Eagle — were either on site or on call 24 hours a day throughout the study. They had access to all recordings and they had the right to demand either to see any participant showing signs of disturbance or else immediately to remove any participant they thought to be at risk.
Although one participant did talk to the psychologists in relation to a family bereavement, there were no other serious concerns.
Ethics committee
Prior to the study an independent five-person ethics committee was appointed and at least one of its members was either present or on call 24 hours a day throughout the experiment. Membership of this was as follows:
Lembit Öpik MP for Montgomeryshire (Chair) Dr Mark McDermott Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of East London Dr Stephen Smith Co-founder, Holocaust Memorial and Education Centre Steve Taylor Council member, Howard League for Penal Reform Andrea Wills Chief advisor, BBC Editorial Policy Unit
The Experiment Background 47
The ethics committee was given a formal report of any incidents of tension or distress that had occurred during the previous 24 hours. This committee vetted all interventions by the experimenters and had the power to veto these interventions and to demand changes to the study at any time.
It also had its own protocols for intervening, together with the power to terminate the study at any time if three of its five members thought this necessary. In the event, the committee did not have any significant concerns about the running of the study.
Key concepts qualitative analysis Analysis of non-numerical data which is used to answer qualitative questions (e.g., concerning the structure and meaning of responses). Answers usually rely on detailed examination of sample data extracted from the full data set. quantitative analysis Analysis of numerical data used to answer quantitative questions (e.g., concerning means and probabilities). Answers rely on descriptive and inferential statistics that relate to the full data set.
Discussion questions
• Were the above safeguards adequate? Were they too stringent or not stringent enough?
• To what extent do ethical demands limit experimental psychologists’ ability to investigate people’s responses to challenging situations? How does this affect psychological science as a whole?
• Bearing in mind the outcomes of this research, could an attempt to replicate or extend The Experiment be ethically justified?
48 The Experiment Background
Initial set-up
Once participants had been selected to participate in the study they were given a general indication of what to expect.
They were informed that they would be participating in research that examined the behaviour of two groups of unequal power and that they would be entering a situation akin to a boot camp or a detention centre which might involve a high level of hardship and privation.
However, they were not told the exact details of the system nor were they told which group they had been assigned to. Participants were informed that the study would run for two weeks, although it was scheduled to run for a maximum of 10 days. This deception was intended to prevent re-entry into the outside world becoming more salient than social relations within the prison during the final days of the study.
On the evening before the study proper was to begin, the five participants selected as Guards were brought to a hotel near the study site. They were then given a full briefing by the experimenters concerning their role in the prison. The nature of the institution, their role and their resources were explained in detail.
More specifically, the Guards were told that the experimenters were interested in how social systems function and that their task was to make the prison system work and to make the Prisoners abide by a daily schedule and perform cleaning and other tasks to a high standard.
However, it was stressed to the Guards that it was their responsibility to devise the best way of achieving this. In contrast to the Stanford Prison Experiment, care was taken to distinguish the experimenters’ role from that of the Guards and to avoid providing instructions as to how they should act.
After the briefing, the Guards were given the rest of the evening to develop detailed prison rules and to specify the punishments they were prepared to use (see below). They were also asked to consider the strategies and tactics through which they would seek to impose their authority and to manage the prison on a daily basis.
The following morning, the Guards were taken to the study site in a blacked out mini-van. Because the prison was intended to constitute the participants’ entire social world, it was important that participants had no way of envisaging the outside environment.
The Experiment Background 49
On arrival, the Guards were given a full tour of the prison, an explanation of how it worked and of the resources available to them. They then changed into their uniforms and were told how they should process the Prisoners when they arrived. They practised this (as well as evacuation procedures in case of fire), and were then given more time to discuss their control strategy while waiting for the Prisoners.
The Prisoners arrived singly throughout the remainder of the first day in blacked out cars. On arrival, their possessions were taken away, their hair was shaved, they showered and changed into their uniforms, they were photographed by an official photographer (with copies of photographs later provided to the Guards to help them identify the inmates) and then locked into their cells.
Beyond this, Prisoners were not given any further briefing apart from a short tannoy announcement from the experimenters which indicated that they were Prisoners, that the Guards had authority in the prison, and that no physical violence would be tolerated. This tannoy announcement was also used to introduce the first planned intervention.
Key concept deception The strategy of misleading participants in order to conceal the purpose of research.
Discussion questions
• What purpose does deception serve in psychological research?
• Can it be ethically justified?
Exercise
Before they watch the DVDs, randomly divide people into Prisoners and Guards.
Ask the Guards to devise a set of prison rules.
After the rules are finalised, set up a forum in which the groups discuss how these rules would affect the behaviour of the two groups towards each other, and how their relationship would evolve over time.
50 The Experiment Background
The Experiment Findings 51
2: Findings of The Experiment
A: Qualitative findings
This section relates to material that is presented in the DVDs. For each episode, we first raise some general themes to think about while watching it. We then identify eight of the episode’s key events and consider their wider significance.
In each case there is material that should help viewers understand the significance of each incident as we see it. This is followed by a focal exercise to facilitate discussion of these issues with others (e.g., students or workshop participants).
At the end of each section a number of general issues are broached. These are intended to facilitate broad discussion and to link the episode with key debates in social psychology.
52 The Experiment Findings
Episode 1 — Conflict
General themes
1. Personality and individual differences
The Prisoners and Guards were carefully selected so that they were matched on key personality variables. They were also chosen because they were decent, healthy and well-adjusted individuals.
However, as the events unfold, individuals come to behave in very different ways due to the dynamics within and between the two groups. Many of the Prisoners come to appear confident, decisive and confrontational — especially after the promotion — whereas the Guards become nervous, negative and indecisive.
If one simply saw the two groups at the end of this episode, one might easily conclude that we were dealing with very different types of people with very different personalities. However, having seen the development of these differences over time, it becomes obvious that the context and the history of the Prison are essential to understanding how individuals behave within it.
The Experiment Findings 53
General exercise
As the events unfold, observe the Prisoners and Guards and think whether, if you had come into the study later on, you would have realised that they had started off as matched groups. Think about the way they change over time and why. Think about the ways in which decent people become involved in conflict.
2. Roles and Identities
Before the promotion, the Prisoners resent their inferior conditions, but they do not fully come together as a group. This is because some people are still trying to impress the Guards (in order to be promoted), while others are not. However, after the promotion, as expected, the Prisoners more fully accept their group membership and start challenging the Guards as a group.
The Guards are also divided over whether to accept their role or not. Some Guards are concerned at being seen as tyrants and are anxious about their position. Others are much less concerned with this. As a result the Guards fail to come to any agreement about how they should behave.
However, the more they are challenged by those in the cells, the more hostile the Guards become towards them and the more they begin to denigrate the Prisoners. Thus, to the extent that the Guards do identify with their group, this arises over time and out of social interaction within and between groups.
General exercise
Observe both the Prisoners and Guards and see whether they automatically and immediately accept the roles they have been given. If not, why not?
As time goes by, note any examples where participants begin to act as group members and to see others not so much in terms of what they are like as individuals but more in terms of the groups they belong to.
Think about the factors that encourage participants to identify with the groups they were assigned to, and what factors discourage them from doing so.
54 The Experiment Findings
Key events in this episode
1. Processing [Disk 1, Chapter 1]
During this stage the Guards are organized and united. The Prisoners are uncertain and isolated. There is no opportunity for mutual support between them. For the one and only time in the study the Guards form a group and are powerful. The Prisoners don’t form a group and are powerless. As a result, the Prisoners succumb easily. They even allow their heads to be shaved without protest – despite the fact that several of them clearly don’t like it.
Focus exercise
Think about why the Guards are so clearly in control at this point and why the Prisoners accept their instructions without any protest.
2. The Prisoners’ first meal [Disk 1, Chapter 2]
The Prisoners are plainly unhappy at the standard of the food they are given. But the issue isn’t just that they dislike the food, it is also that the food symbolises their inferior status – just like being locked up, having hard
The Experiment Findings 55 beds and scratchy blankets, not being able to smoke when they like, and so on.
However, at this stage, the Prisoners are divided in their response. Some want to confront the Guards, others want to work hard and impress the Guards in the hope of winning promotion.
Since the Prisoners are divided, even those who are confrontational have less confidence in pressing their grievances and therefore the challenge is relatively muted.
Focus exercise
The Prisoners are unhappy about their food, and also their inferior conditions in general – but what is it about these things that is really upsetting them? Look at how they respond. Think about the factors which are determining this response.
3. The Guards’ first discussion [Disk 1, Chapter 2]
It is not only the Prisoners who are unhappy at the inequality in the Prison. Some of the Guards are as well. In particular, Tom Quarry and Tom McElroy are worried about becoming tyrants.
One reason for this is that they are not just concerned with what is going on inside the prison. They are concerned with how others outside the prison might view them. In other words, what affects them is not only the context of the here-and-now, but also their ability to imagine other contexts associated with other times and places.
Other Guards are less concerned with these other audiences, they are happier to take a harder line. As a result, the Guards become divided and unable to agree upon how they should act as a group.
56 The Experiment Findings
This has a critical effect on (a) their ability to organize themselves, (b) their morale and (c) their ability to control the Prisoners.
Focus exercise
The Guards seem divided. Some want to take a harder line and others a softer line. What underlies this difference and why, in particular, are some Guards concerned at taking on their role? What effect do you think their divisions will have on the way the study unfolds?
4. Let them eat sausages [Disk 1, Chapter 3]
After breakfast on the second day, the Guards decide to implement their strategy of trying to defuse tension by being friends with the Prisoners – although Guard Caruana warns that there is no point trying to pretend that everyone is equal when there are such obvious differences between the groups. They decide to give surplus food – sausages – to the Prisoners as a gesture of goodwill.
The Prisoners, led by Philip Bimpson, see the offer as a trick – pretending to be friends in order to obscure group differences and maintain power. They are willing to accept the extra food only on the understanding that it is given to them as Prisoners and as a right, not as individuals and as a friendly gesture.
As a result, the Guards are forced to concede one of their tools of power (the ability to use food as a reward or punishment), they are out- manoeuvred and they argue with each other. The Prisoners, on the other hand, are united. They see the ambivalence of the Guards and they feel stronger as a result.
The Experiment Findings 57
Focus exercise
Why do the Guards offer the Prisoners food and why do the Prisoners refuse it? Think about the ways in which this interaction affects the power relationship between Guards and Prisoners. More generally, consider the advantages and disadvantages of using a strategy of personal friendship as a way of dealing with tensions between unequal groups. What other strategies might be used? What are their advantages and disadvantages?
5. The promotion [Disk 1, Chapter 4]
When the Guards think about the promotion, their main concern is how the new Guard will fit in with the group. Because the group is divided, people seem more concerned with their individual position amongst the Guards rather than the position of the Guards as a whole in relation to the Prisoners.
As a result, several of the Guards are particularly worried about someone too strong “muscling in” and taking over. Their decision is based on within- group considerations almost to the exclusion of between-group considerations.
This leads the Guards to choose the mild-mannered Ian Burnett as opposed to the tough-minded John Edwards. This deprives them of a strong presence to control the Prisoners and leaves the Prisoners with a strong and disaffected member.
Focus exercise
Why did the Guards decide to promote Ian Burnett over the others, and John Edwards in particular? What were the main considerations they used in making their choice, and what considerations did they ignore? What general lessons might be learned about interview and selection processes?
58 The Experiment Findings
6. Tension mounts [Disk 1, Chapter 5]
After the promotion, the Prisoners become much more united and opposed to the Guards. In particular, those who previously sought promotion now join in the opposition. This is most obvious in the case of John Edwards and Kevin Murray who had both been interviewed for promotion. They combine with Paul Petken, to make Cell 2 the biggest problem for the Guards.
This change clearly relates to the factors which we hypothesised to be critical in determining collective resistance. Most obviously, after the promotion a previously permeable system has become impermeable. People can no longer leave their group and, if they want to improve their lot, they have to do so by changing the group position.
However, the process of the promotion and the general behaviour of the Guards made the differences between groups appear illegitimate. This is because (a) the choice of who to promote was not based explicitly on the qualities that Guards were supposed to possess (reliability, trustworthiness, initiative) and (b) it is now apparent that the Guards do not possess these qualities to a greater extent than the Prisoners.
Finally, it is becoming increasingly obvious to the Prisoners that the Guards are divided and ineffective and hence they, the Prisoners, are in a position to change the system. In other words, the Prisoners have developed an awareness of cognitive alternatives. All the conditions are therefore in place for the Prisoners to challenge the Guards.
Note, however, that even if the Prisoners are becoming rebellious towards the Guards, they are still very compliant towards the experimenters. That is because, although the participant-experimenter relationship is impermeable, it is still seen as largely legitimate and without alternatives.
The Experiment Findings 59
Focus exercise
After the promotion, the Prisoners start to confront the Guards much more than before. What social psychological factors contribute to this change?
Think also about the ways in which the participants behave towards the experimenters. Are the same factors at work here? How might these explain the participants’ behaviour towards the experimenters?
7. Cell 2 confront Guard Quarry [Disk 1, Chapters 6 & 7]
Later on Day 4, Guard Quarry tries to strike up a friendly conversation with the inmates of Cell 2. He explains his hopes of everyone getting on well and having a drink together at the end of the study. Paul Petken responds that, even by having the conversation, Tom Quarry is demonstrating that they are not all the same — instead Quarry is on top in the unequal world of the Prison.
Later the inmates talk together and Kevin Murray expresses concern that the Guard might crack up. Petken responds by saying that the Guards don’t care about the Prisoners when they are in their nice dormitories, so why should the Prisoners care about the Guards?
By urging Murray to “think on — and fuck them”, he is saying very clearly “don’t think of the Guards as individuals, think of them as members of an enemy group, and treat them accordingly”.
As in the ‘sausage incident’, the Prisoners see the Guards’ attempt at friendliness as preserving their power, and it only makes Petken all the more determined to challenge the authority of the Guards.
Focus exercise
Consider how Petken and his cell-mates exploit the friendliness of the Guard and use it to undermine him. Also, consider the response of the
60 The Experiment Findings
other Guards as one of them comes under attack. Do they show solidarity or division? What is the nature of the group dynamics here?
8. Cell 2 confront the Guards [Disk 1, Chapters 7 & 8]
At lunch on Day 4, prisoners in Cell 2 decide to create an incident that will challenge the Guards’ authority. First Edwards flings his plate to the floor and complains about the food. As soon as the Guards try to deal with this, Petken and Murray come in with further complaints. The Prisoners act as a team, supporting each other well. By contrast, the Guards are divided, and they contradict and undermine each other. As a result, the Prisoners come out on top.
After the confrontation, the Prisoners are jubilant. They realise they can do virtually anything they like and start plotting further mayhem. In contrast the Guards are divided, enter into recrimination, and become increasingly pessimistic.
Focus exercise
Observe closely the ways in which the Prisoners support each other and compare it with the ways in which the Guards relate to each other. What impact does this have on the way in which the confrontation evolves? Also what impact does it have on the subsequent mood of the two Groups?
Compare the Prisoners as they return to their cells after the plate-throwing incident with the Guards as they return to their mess. What is this telling us about the general relationship between group unity, organizational effectiveness and mental state?
The Experiment Findings 61
General issues for psychology
1. The Guards’ use of their power
When designing the study, we gave the Guards many forms of power: the ability to record violations and to impose punishments either on individuals or on the Prisoners as a whole. We also gave them resources to use as punishments or rewards, and a Guards’ station from which they could observe the Prisoners in their cells. However, because of their ambivalence about their role, the Guards were very reluctant to employ the tools associated with that role.
This issue can be used to introduce the topic of the social psychology of power. Power is a much-neglected topic in psychology (Ng, 1980; Reicher & Levine, 1994). What this study shows is that we must not only look at the way objective power affects our psychology but also at the way in which psychological factors affect the exercise of power.
Discussion questions
• To what extent did the Guards use their power?
• Why did they not use many of the powers that they had?
• Do the reasons for the Guards’ not using their powers apply to other groups in situations outside The Experiment? If so, which ones?
• What was the consequence of the way the Guards used (or did not use) power for the way in which the Prisoners reacted?
2. The organization of the Guards
At the start of the study we suggested that the Guards formed a shift pattern so that they wouldn’t become tired from working all of the time. However they didn’t do this. Indeed, despite having a lot of relevant experience in the outside world and being extremely competent individuals, the Guards generally found it hard to organize themselves at any level.
The root of this problem lay in their inability to form a common idea of how Guards should behave – that is, a common social identity. Without such an understanding, it is impossible to rely on anyone else to represent the group. Everyone tries to do everything for themselves.
From this starting point, the topic of organizational psychology can be introduced. How do people behave in companies, teams and other
62 The Experiment Findings
organizations? Our study shows quite clearly the way in which shared social identity forms the psychological basis for effective organization (see Haslam, 2001, especially Chapter 2; for extended discussion see Haslam & Reicher, in press c).
Discussion questions
• Why did the Guards fail to organize themselves?
• Could this problem have been anticipated (e.g., on the basis of findings from the Stanford Prison Study)?
• What could we have done to make it easier for the Guards to organize themselves?
• What consequences did the Guards’ organizational difficulties have both for them and for the behaviour of the Prisoners?
3. Interpersonal and intergroup behaviour
Some of the Guards do not want to accept their role and so they try to gloss over it, seeking to create a situation in which everybody in the prison gets on well together as ‘mates’ and group differences are forgotten about. It is not simply that they want to be friendly towards the Prisoners, but that they want to be seen as friends rather than Guards. It is a strategy based on interpersonal relations rather than group membership.
The Prisoners reject this strategy because they see that it will preserve the group inequality – with them at the bottom of the pile. Indeed, this strategy annoys them and makes them more determined to challenge the Guards. Moreover, the attempts of the Guards to engage gives the Prisoners many opportunities to exploit attempts at goodwill and undermine the Guards’ power. They act on an intergroup level.
This provides an excellent basis for introducing the general topic of group behaviour and the core distinction between interpersonal relations and intergroup relations (Turner & Giles, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It also provides a good way into issues of conflict management and reduction.
In this area it is often recommended that people downplay group differences and try to treat everyone as individuals (see Hewstone & Brown, 1986). However, what our study suggests is that the use of
The Experiment Findings 63 interpersonal strategies in an intergroup world is not only ineffective but can be counter-productive.
Our data therefore supports those who argue that it is important to ensure that conflict management deals with the social reality that underpins conflict — so that where group differences (e.g., in power and status) exist, these are acknowledged (e.g., see Eggins et al., 2002).
Key concepts intergroup relations Relationships between people that are determined by their group memberships and the social identities associated with those group memberships. interpersonal relations Relationships between people that are determined by their individual characteristics and the personal identities associated with those individual characteristics.
Discussion questions
• What strategy do the Guards use to run the Prison? To what extent do they seek to treat the Prisoners on an individual or a group level? In what ways does their approach prove effective or ineffective?
• How do the Prisoners view the Guards and how do they react to the strategies used by the Guards?
• Are there any general lessons to be learnt about the effects of different strategies in managing relations between groups of different power? In particular, consider relations between teachers and students or between managers and workers.
64 The Experiment Findings
Episode 2 — Order
General themes
1. Authority and Influence
On Day 5 of the study we introduced Derek McCabe, a retired senior Trades Unionist into the prison. We were interested in the extent to which he would be influenced by the system and, more particularly, if and how he would influence the system. In the event, he transformed the prison within a day: he united the Prisoners around a strategy of negotiation, he sidelined those proposing confrontation, and he transformed relations between Prisoners and Guards. How exactly did he achieve this?
First of all, from the moment he entered, McCabe worked hard to find out critical information concerning the social relations in the prison: how Guards related to Prisoners, the nature of their authority, who was who in each group, the issues and grievances held by both groups.
Next, he tested out informally how people reacted when he proposed ways of dealing with their concerns: how far would they go and who could he rely on to do what?
Finally, he proposed paths of action that expressed everyone’s concerns and involved everybody in the solution. He gained influence because he learnt the nature of group identity and sought to represent it. In short, like all successful leaders, he acted as an ‘entrepreneur of identity’ (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001; Reicher, Haslam & Hopkins, 2005).
The Experiment Findings 65
General exercise
In this episode a new prisoner is introduced. He will seek to influence the others in the Prison, both Prisoners and Guards. Think about the ways in which he tries to gain influence. Consider what works and why it works. Consider also how others try to gain influence, look at what they do, where they are effective and ineffective. Finally, look at how the new Prisoner’s strategy eventually wins out and ask what it is that gives this the edge.
2. Participants and experimenters
One can look at the group relations in this study in two ways: either as Guards versus Prisoners or else as participants (that is, the Guards and Prisoners combined) versus the experimenters. In exactly the same way as one asks why and when Prisoners challenge the Guards one can also ask why and when the participants challenge the experimenters.
As we have explained previously, the same factors – permeability, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives – should apply in both cases. However, because the relationship between participants and experimenters is always impermeable (a participant could never become an experimenter!) legitimacy and cognitive alternatives are likely to be more important.
Note how, as soon as McCabe suggests that part of the set up – the heat – is illegitimate and that the Prisoners can do something about it, his cell mates begin to think about challenging us as experimenters. The same occurs when McCabe raises the issue with Guard Quarry. Quarry even goes so far as to ask us to change the system
Throughout the study, even the most confrontational participants continue to accept our authority as legitimate and they only question us on the rare occasions when that legitimacy is itself in question.
This demonstrates that people cannot simply be described as ‘rebellious’ or ‘conformist’ in general terms since, at the same time as they challenge one authority, they fully accept another.
To understand rebellion we must therefore look at how people perceive the specific relationship they are seeking to change.
66 The Experiment Findings
General exercise
Look at the ways in which people relate to the authority of the Guards and compare it to the way in which they relate to our authority as experimenters. What does this tell us about the factors which determine whether people accept or challenge those in authority? Do we learn anything about the nature of rebellion from the fact that some of those who go furthest in undermining the Guards, also comply fully with the experimenters at the very same time?
Key events in this episode
1. McCabe arrives [Disk 1, Chapter 12]
Like the other Prisoners, McCabe succumbs completely to the authority of the Guards when he arrives. The same factors apply as at the start of the study. Here the Guards know what to do, they are united and organized and act as a group. McCabe is isolated – if anything, more isolated than the original Prisoners since the others treat him as an outsider and a newcomer. He has no collective support through which to resist the Guards.
Focus exercise
Once again, the new Prisoner allows himself to be processed by the Guards and to have his head shaved. Why? Is the behaviour of the Guards during processing different to that they have been displaying over the previous few days? How is the new Prisoner treated by the ‘old lags’? Do they give him support or make him feel even more uncomfortable?
The Experiment Findings 67
2. Questioning the heat [Disk 1, Chapters 14 & 16]
The key issue which McCabe uses to question the authority of the experimenters is the heat (an unpleasant feature of the prison environment that we had not anticipated). He does this first with his fellow cell-mates and then with Guard Quarry. He suggests, first, that the heat is illegitimate since participants had not contracted to endure it. Second, he suggests that participants have the ability to challenge the experimenters and to change things.
In other words, when McCabe suggests that the participant-experimenter relationship is both illegitimate and open to alternatives, then participants start to think of themselves as such (rather than as Prisoners or Guards) and start thinking about challenging the experimenters.
Focus exercise
Look at the way in which McCabe uses the issue of the heat with both his cell-mates and with Guard Quarry. What is he trying to do here in terms of affecting the Prison system as a whole? What effect does he have, and why?
3. When is a prison a prison? [Disk 1, Chapters 15 & 16]
68 The Experiment Findings
When Quarry tries to persuade his fellow Guards to change the system and get rid of the Prisoner-Guard distinction he encourages them to look at the institution in an entirely new way — one which would imply entirely different social relations between the participants.
In particular, he seeks to reinterpret the building so that it is seen not as a prison but as some other form of community. He seeks to promote a new ‘way of seeing’ and the metaphors and analogies through which he promotes this are a crucial part of his argument.
Focus exercise
Consider the ways in which Quarry tries to persuade the other Guards to change the system. Is the way in which he discusses what the building looks like of any importance – and if so, why?
4. Reacting to the stolen keys [Disk 1, Chapter 17]
When the Guards discover that their keys are missing, their first reaction is one that displays their weakness: they express despair and show concern at how foolish they will look. Moreover, their reaction also demonstrates weakness. Instead of trying to exert their power over the Prisoners – by, say, undertaking a search themselves or else imposing punishments until the keys are returned – they suggest a self-evidently ineffective strategy: asking Prisoners to search their own cells.
This reaction both demonstrates the Guards’ sense of powerlessness and also further undermines their power. It demonstrates to the Prisoners that the Guards lack the confidence to impose their discipline even in the face of serious violations and it thereby increases the Prisoners’ confidence to commit yet more serious violations.
The Experiment Findings 69
Focus exercise
When the Guards discover their keys are missing, what is their response? Why do they respond in this way? What does it say about the power relations between Guards and Prisoners at this moment, and what effect do you think it will have on power relations between these groups in the future?
5. Petken promises the keys [Disk 1, Chapters 17 & 18]
When Paul Petken first suggests that he might be given a cigarette in return for the stolen keys, it is intended largely as a joke. However, when he sees Guard Quarry taking it seriously, Petken spots an opportunity to mock authority.
For Quarry this is also an opportunity – an opportunity to establish a personal bond by making an honourable agreement based on trust. However, Petken isn’t treating Quarry on an interpersonal level and hence the interpersonal norms of honour and trust don’t apply. He is treating Quarry as an outgroup opponent and therefore sees it as acceptable to use any means to gain an advantage.
So in the end, Petken gets one over on the Guards, and Quarry feels bitter and betrayed. Interpersonal norms have once again failed in an intergroup world.
Quarry thinks he has made a personal agreement with Petken to get the keys back, but Petken deceives him. What does this say about the relevance of interpersonal norms to an intergroup world?
70 The Experiment Findings
Focus exercise
Quarry thinks he has made a deal with Petken – cigarettes for keys – and thinks he can trust him. But Petken deceives Quarry. What does this say about the conditions of trust and of bonds between individuals? When and why do these break down?
6. The Prisoners’ meeting [Disk 1, Chapter 19]
At the start of the meeting, Bimpson seems to hold all the trumps, but by the end, McCabe has become the Prisoners’ representative.
The critical difference between the two – and the reason for the outcome – lies in their respective strategies. Bimpson offers a path in which group members rely upon the authority of ‘heroic’ leaders who commit ‘heroic’ acts against the Guards. Under this strategy, members are made different from, and dependent upon, special individuals. Bimpson’s appeal is based on personal identity — ‘me’.
McCabe offers a strategy in which the leader represents the consensus of the members. In this case, members are included and empowered with respect to the leader. This strategy is based on social identity — ‘we’.
As a result, other group members rally round McCabe, and Bimpson, despite his impressive individual qualities, is side-lined.
Focus exercise
During the course of the Prisoners’ meeting, Bimpson starts off in charge and McCabe ends up in charge. Why does this happen and how does it relate to the strategies they propose to their fellow Prisoners?
The Experiment Findings 71
7. Negotiating with the Guards [Disk 1, Chapter 20]
The Guards cede much of their authority and their power in the negotiations to McCabe. However (with the exception of Guard Ahmed), they seem positive about the final agreement.
The key plus for them is that the new procedures confirm their social identity as Guards and provide a clear structure in which they all know what is going to happen and therefore how they should act. Chaos has been replaced by order, and even though they have had to give up much of their power and accept a much more egalitarian system, the value of order is such that it seems like a good deal to the Guards.
Focus exercise
During the negotiations, the Guards accept McCabe’s terms even though they are asked to relinquish much of their power. So why are they eager to accept the agreement?
8. Asking Bimpson to shave [Disk 1, Chapter 22]
72 The Experiment Findings
Just after the negotiating meeting, the Guards see Bimpson and tell him to shave. For days he has been flouting the rules by growing his stubble, but the Guards have chosen to ignore this. Now, because their social identity has been confirmed and validated in the negotiation meeting, they feel more comfortable with their role and hence in a position to exert their authority.
Focus exercise
For days, the Guards have chosen to ignore the way Bimpson has been flouting prison rules by growing his stubble. Now, just after the negotiation meeting, they finally instruct him to shave. What has changed?
General issues for psychology
1. Leadership and negotiation
Issues of influence and leadership are central to this episode. Derek McCabe has provided an extraordinary example of such phenomena. Within a day, he has reshaped the entire prison system. Of course, much of that comes down to his individual experience and skills. However, that is not sufficient to explain how his strategy wins out over that of Bimpson – an equally powerful and skilled individual.
What the study highlights is the way in which effective leaders work to understand and represent the position of their followers. Their power comes from the ways in which they harness and shape the collective power of the group. So leadership is not just about the qualities of great individuals, it is about a contract between leaders and followers based on a common understanding of group interests and group priorities. This is a central element of recent work on the social psychology of leadership (e.g., Haslam, 2001, Chapter 3; Haslam & Platow, 2001; for extended discussion see Haslam & Reicher, in press b; Reicher et al., 2005,).
Discussion questions
• Based on the actions of Derek McCabe, what advice would you give to would-be leaders about how to gain influence in a group?
• What are the key differences between Derek McCabe and the other Prisoners who want to exert influence – and how do they contribute to McCabe’s emergence as leader?
The Experiment Findings 73
• Does the impact of McCabe simply tell us that impressive individuals create history, or do we also have to take other factors into account?
• If McCabe had been a Guard, do you think he could have brought them together in the same way that he brought the Prisoners together?
2. Justice and social relations
One of the striking aspects of events during this episode concerns the different notions of fairness and justice that are expressed at different times. Thus Petken thinks it is perfectly fair to break a promise when dealing with an outgroup member, but for Quarry it is an outrageous violation of a personal commitment.
The Prisoners want a fair and equal system amongst themselves, but they are more than happy to be unfair to the Guards and to get one over on them at every opportunity.
What this suggests is that people have different notions of justice and morality at interpersonal and intergroup levels and also as regards behaviour towards ingroup members and behaviour towards outgroup members. This takes us to the core of current issues in the social psychology of justice (Platow et al., 1997; Smith & Tyler, 1996; Tyler & Blader, 2000).
Discussion questions
• Do we have different notions of acceptable behaviour according to whether we are interacting with another individual or else behaving towards someone as a member of another group?
• If so, what are the implications where a first person views the second as an individual while the second views the first in terms of group membership? Think of examples both from the episode and from real life.
• Do we have different notions of what is right depending on whether we are dealing with members of our own group as opposed to members of another group? For instance, do we have different standards of fairness and equality in the two situations?
74 The Experiment Findings
3. Language and social reality
The way we behave in any given situation depends upon how we see the nature of that situation. Hence, one of the major ways in which we can influence others’ behaviour is through influencing the ways they see social reality. We do that all the time in the ways we use language to describe reality.
This is clear at many points during the episode: when McCabe tries to win over Quarry to challenge the heat he gets him to think of the situation as a working environment with workers and management; when Quarry wants to win over his fellow Guards, he gets them to see the building less as a prison and more as a ‘community’.
This has also been true in other episodes too. For example, to liken a Guard to Hitler (as in Episode 1) is a powerful way of suggesting that the outgroup are unacceptable and brutal and hence to legitimise particular ways of challenging them.
The use of metaphors, images, analogies and of language in general is critical to the construction of social reality: how people see who they are and how they relate to others. These insights have been developed by discursive psychologists (e.g., Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Edwards & Potter, 1992).
Discussion questions
• What are the different ways in which participants describe the nature of the institution they are in and what sorts of other institution do they liken it to?
• Do these different descriptions have any implications for the sorts of behaviours that would or would not be appropriate?
• If you wanted to either increase or decrease antagonism between Prisoners and Guards, what sort of language and descriptions of the institutions and of the groups would prove effective?
• How do people define the situation they find themselves in? How does that affect both (a) the way in which they categorise people into ‘us’ and ‘them’ (i.e., ingroup and outgroup categories) and (b) the ways in which they behave towards others?
The Experiment Findings 75
Episode 3 — Rebellion
General themes
General issues
1. The development of group process
If one looks at relations within and between groups on Day 6, the day that this episode deals with, and compare them to the position at the start of the study, it is clear that things have changed profoundly.
The Guards have become dispirited, divided and have low morale. The Prisoners have grown confident, effective and are increasingly in control. Both groups view the other more and more negatively. The Prisoners openly deride the Guards. The Guards are increasingly bitter and hostile towards the Prisoners – although their lack of confidence is expressed in the way that they reveal these feelings in private in their own mess rather than in front of the Prisoners.
These changes cannot be explained without taking the interactions between groups into account. For instance, the Guards started off wanting to be friendly with the Prisoners. Only in the face of the Prisoners’ challenges have they grown more resentful – especially towards the end of Day 6.
This points to the fact that, if we want to explain the behaviour of any one group, we must look at the historical development over time of its relations with others. Significantly, as noted on p.15, this can only be done through studies which allow for such an extended view.
76 The Experiment Findings
General exercise
Look at the ways the Guards and Prisoners are behaving both to members of their own groups and the other group and compare what is going on in this episode to the way things were at the start of the study. Think about why these changes have occurred. More specifically, think about how individuals and groups have changed through their interactions with others, and consider the implications of this for the ways in which we should study behaviour.
2. The roots of rebellion
In this episode, the Prisoners destroy the existing Prison system, but they did not set out with that intention. Rather, they set out to undermine the Guards, but the reaction of the Guards created new and unexpected situations in which they had to readjust their plans and objectives.
In particular, the division and indecisiveness of the Guards even in the face of severe provocations led the Prisoners to believe that they could go further than they imagined. By the time they had broken out into the atrium, the Prisoners in Cell 2 believed they could get away with anything.
And even though the Guards now came together and decided to confront the Prisoners, it was too late. The Prisoners’ sense of empowerment was such that physical barriers could no longer stop them, and they finally broke into the Guards’ quarters and destroyed the system.
As in many revolutionary processes, the final moment in which the system collapses is merely a reflection of a psychological transfer of power which has occurred already, and physical barriers ultimately prove insubstantial once people have the confidence to breach them.
General exercise
Look at the ways in which the Prisoners become bolder and bolder throughout this episode. Do you think they meant to go as far as they did, and if not, what led them to change their objectives? Also, consider what held them back from overthrowing the Guards earlier. What was the balance between physical factors – for instance the locks and bars which restrained them – and psychological factors such as their beliefs about what they could get away with?
The Experiment Findings 77
Key events in this episode
1. Rewriting the rules [Disk 2, Chapter 3]
At the end of Episode 2, we saw the Prisoners in Cell 2 start writing their own Prison rules. Now they begin to implement them. This is significant in a number of ways.
First of all, it is a way of mocking the existing system – the Prisoners’ rules are clearly a satire of the Guards’ rules.
Second, the fact that they are mocking the Guards openly is a clear sign of their confidence and of shifting power relations. The powerless often mock the powerful, but they tend to do so in private, when the powerful can’t retaliate. The powerful mock the powerless to their face.
Third, it is a way of creating division amongst the Guards by complaining to one about the behaviour of others. The Guards’ reaction demonstrates their collective weakness, for, instead of rejecting the whole idea of Prisoners’ rules as insubordination, they accept the instructions of Prisoners and turn on each other instead.
Focus exercise
The Prisoners are now writing their own rules. What is the significance of this, and what does the reaction of the Guards tell us about power relations in the prison at this point?
78 The Experiment Findings
2. Justifying the breakout [Disk 2, Chapters 3 & 4]
Even as they break out of their cell and into the Guards’ quarters, the Prisoners remain highly concerned with issues of legitimacy.
Their initial decision to go ahead with their plan on this evening is prompted by what they see as an illegitimate decision by Guard Grennan to deny Edwards food. However, they check with the experimenters to make sure we won’t see their breakout as illegitimate.
As well as this, they concoct a plan so as to blame Guard Quarry for leaving the cell door open and hence deflecting any possible criticism that they have acted violently (and hence illegitimately) in breaking out.
The importance of legitimacy is evident at several levels.
First, the Prisoners in Cell 2 are motivated to challenge acts by others which they perceive as illegitimate.
Second, it is important for them (as for any group) to be able to see their acts as legitimate and themselves as honourable in terms of their own beliefs and values.
Third, it is important for them to make others (both Guards and experimenters) see their behaviour as legitimate so that there are no grounds for punishing them (e.g., by excluding them from the study).
Focus exercise
The Prisoners are very concerned to justify their breakout and to deny they have acted inappropriately. This is clearest in their ploy to make it look as if Guard Quarry left the door open rather than them breaking it open. Why are they so concerned with this issue of legitimacy? Are there other instances in the episode where they show similar concerns?
The Experiment Findings 79
3. Sorting out the cigarettes [Disk 2, Chapters 4 & 5]
Guards Quarry and Burnett put a lot of effort into devising a cigarette rota. They do so in order to try and defuse tension with the Prisoners, particularly Paul Petken and others in Cell 2. However, for the Prisoners the cigarettes are merely a symbol of inequality in the Prison and a means by which they can challenge the authority of the Guards
Consequently, dealing with the cigarettes won’t reduce the tension. In a situation where the system is already seen as illegitimate it will merely demonstrate to the Prisoners that they can manipulate the Guards and hence give them confidence to go still further. That is, it will increase the Prisoners’ sense of cognitive alternatives and hence increase their challenge to Guard power.
Focus exercise
The Guards try to defuse tension with the Prisoners by sorting out a cigarette rota. Will this work, and if not, why not?
4. A simple game of chess? [Disk 2, Chapters 5 & 6]
80 The Experiment Findings
The game of chess between Prisoner Edwards and Guard Quarry is far more than a simple game – at least for Edwards. In a situation where the Guards’ power was secure, there would be no problem in playing and losing at chess. Indeed, letting a Prisoner win in an insignificant task could confirm Guards’ power where it counts. However, here the Guards’ power is insecure and Edwards uses the game to assert his general authority.
This can be seen during the game in which Edwards over-rides Quarry in defining the rules. It can be seen in their respective bodily postures. It can be seen in the way Edwards adopts a patronising tone after the game and it can be seen in the way Edwards belittles the Guard when talking about the game later.
The game is not only a game of power, it is an illustration of the ways in which the details of social interaction serve to create and assert power.
Focus exercise
Is the game of chess simply a game, or is there more to it than that? Look at the details of the interaction between Prisoner and Guard and consider the importance of what is going on, both in terms of this specific encounter and the broader relations between the groups.
5. Mutiny over the sugar [Disk 2, Chapters 7 & 8]
Late in the evening, the Guards phone the experimenters and ask for supplies to replenish their dwindling stocks. In particular, they have run out of sugar. The experimenters promise to make a delivery in the morning, but that fails to satisfy the Guards.
In discussion, they agree that sugar is a basic resource to which they have a right. Hence the experimenters are seen to have violated their contract by
The Experiment Findings 81 failing to provide adequate stocks. In this context, the Guards begin to talk of ‘mutiny’.
This is another of those rare moments when participants begin to question the authority of the experimenters. Once again it shows the importance of the same factors as those which underlie the Prisoner-Guard conflict. In this case, the perception of illegitimacy leads to thoughts of insubordination.
Focus exercise
The lack of sugar leads the Guards to talk openly of mutiny. Listen carefully to their conversation. Why is the sugar so important to them and why is it enough to make them think of challenging the experimenters?
6. A game of chicken [Disk 2, Chapter 7]
After lock up, Petken suggests to Edwards that they delay their break out for another day. Edwards responds by suggesting that Petken is not really committed to challenging the Guards. Petken takes this as an insult and asserts that he is as willing as anyone to take the Guards on. Once this is agreed upon then both can also agree to postpone the break out.
This incident illustrates that there is competition and disagreement amongst the Prisoners as amongst the Guards. The difference, however, is that the Guards disagree about how to behave as a group. The Prisoners in Cell 2 agree on this but challenge each other’s commitment to the group norm. Hence the Guards’ disagreement means that they all pull in different directions, whereas the Prisoners’ competition drives them further in the same direction.
82 The Experiment Findings
Focus exercise
The Prisoners in Cell 2 argue about whether to go ahead with the break out. What is this disagreement really all about? Does it show that the Prisoners are really just as divided as the Guards, or is there a difference in the nature of their disagreements and how they affect the action of the group?
7. The lack of social support [Disk 2, Chapters 9 & 10]
When Guard Quarry is on duty in the Atrium after lights out, he is drawn into conversation with the Prisoners in Cell 2, despite the fact that they are plainly playing games with him and seeking to undermine him.
The reason for this is that Quarry continues to try to manage the prison by relating to the Prisoners on a personal level. In terms of the norms of interpersonal behaviour it is unacceptable to ignore other people when they talk to you. Hence he engages and, in his desire to be decent, he presents himself as a target.
But his vulnerability is not simply a result of his own behaviour. The other Guards see what is happening, but — lacking social identity-based esprit de corps — they are divided and demoralised (for extended discussion see Haslam & Reicher, in press c). Accordingly, they abandon Quarry rather than providing him with the collective support he needs. The consequence is that, when Quarry withdraws, the atrium is left empty and the Prisoners can break out of their cell.
The Experiment Findings 83
Focus exercise
Why does Guard Quarry keep on going back to talk to those in Cell 2 when they are so clearly undermining him and playing games with him? Look at the reaction of the other Guards when they see one of their own in trouble. Why do they react the way they do, and what effect does it have on the overall events?
8. The final breakthrough [Disk 2, Chapters 10, 11 & 12]
The moment when the Prisoners finally break the gates into the Guards’ quarters exemplifies many of the processes that are central throughout this episode.
First, it is clear that the Prisoners did not set out to do this, they almost surprise themselves as much as the Guards. Each act places them in a new context where new choices open up. Where do they go once in the atrium? Going back into their cells would now be a defeat rather than the culmination of a daring raid. So they are impelled to go further.
Second, the reaction of the Guards to the breakout makes the Prisoners feel that they can get away with anything. They not only have the inclination but they also have the confidence to go further.
Third, they think the Guards have been lying to them about the availability of food and that the Guards are seeking to humiliate them. This sense of illegitimate outgroup behaviour makes them angry, and it provides a further motivational and emotional basis for action.
Once all the psychological constraints on action have been removed, the gates are a relatively insubstantial barrier. This speaks to the general historical point that in any society the psychological barriers to revolution are often more substantial than the physical ones.
84 The Experiment Findings
Focus exercise
While the Prisoners are in the atrium they seem uncertain what to do next. What are the factors which lead them finally to break the gates and invade the Guards’ quarters?
General issues for psychology
1. Stereotyping
As the tension between Prisoners and Guards mounts, so people increasingly see others in terms of their group membership rather than their individual characteristics. They describe people in terms of what they think of the group to which they belong, particularly when it comes to describing members of the other group.
Often this leads to negative and demeaning descriptions of outgroup members. Thus the Guards describe the Prisoners as stupid and worthless: “not worth the steam off your piss”, as one Guard puts it. Equally, Grennan describes how he, as a Guard, can easily tie Edwards up in his own words, since Edwards isn’t as clever as he looks. Later, he describes Edwards as pathetic and weak – a defeated man.
The study makes it clear that these perceptions are integrally tied to the reality of intergroup relations in the prison: they serve to make sense of it, to justify it and to point to how people should be treated in the future. In this way, they are part of creating the future of the prison as well as describing it in the present.
These are all core issues in the social psychology of stereotyping and prejudice (e.g., see Augoustinos & Reynolds, 2001; Spears, Oakes, Haslam & Ellemers, 1997).
Discussion questions
• Look at the way in which members of one group describe members of the other group. Are descriptions of individual group members influenced by views of the group as a whole?
• How are these descriptions affected by the overall relations between Prisoners and Guards?
The Experiment Findings 85
• What functions do these descriptions serve? Do they have any impact on how people actually behave towards the other group and do they affect the development of relations between the two groups?
2. Social support
The outcome of the interactions between Prisoners and Guards comes down less to differences between individuals and more to differences in the ways that members of the different groups support each other.
Not only do the Prisoners support each other, but they gain confidence from the fact that, whatever they do, they know that their fellow cell-mates will back them up against the Guards.
The Guards, on the other hand, not only fail to support each other, but lose the will to act because they fear that, whatever they do, they will be undermined by their fellow Guards. Most notably, Guard Caruana gives up his attempt to make things work and withdraws into the background.
Overall, lack of social support gives rise to a sense of depression, of futility and of hopelessness amongst the Guards. It makes them feel burnt out and unable to do their job. This again raises the question of the relationship between social conditions and mental health – a question which is the focus of research in community psychology (Orford, 1992).
Discussion questions
• Is there a difference in the amount of support which the Prisoners and the Guards offer the other members of their group?
• Does this difference affect the confidence of the two groups and their willingness to act? If so, how?
• Does this difference affect the mental well-being of the two groups – their level of depression, of hopelessness and their sense of being ‘burnt out’?
• Are there more general lessons to be learnt here about the relationship between social factors and mental health?
86 The Experiment Findings
3. Empowerment
One of the most striking aspects of the whole process leading up to the breakout is the importance of people’s sense of effectiveness upon how they act.
For the Guards a growing sense of ineffectiveness renders them increasingly helpless. They become reactive and begin to be directed by what the Prisoners do and say – they even begin to conform to the Prisoners’ rules.
For the Prisoners, on the other hand, the growing sense of effectiveness makes them increasingly active. Ultimately, they come to believe that they can overcome virtually any barrier or constraint placed upon them, and so they destroy the bonds that hold them.
The study shows not only that this sense of effectiveness is important for both groups but also that it arises out of the relations between groups: the more Prisoners get away with challenging the Guards, the more they feel empowered to escalate their challenge; the more the Guards are challenged by the Prisoners the less they feel empowered to stop them (for discussion see Reicher & Haslam, 2006c).
This aspect of the study relates to the psychology of self-efficacy — a key concept in social, developmental, and organizational psychology (Bandura, 1977; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Key concept
self-efficacy A person’s belief that they will be able to perform a particular task or achieve a particular goal. Such beliefs have been shown to impact both on a person’s mental state and their actual task performance.
Discussion questions
• Do the Prisoners and Guards differ in their sense of self-efficacy – that is, their beliefs about what they are and are not able to do?
• How much does a sense of self-efficacy affect what the Prisoners and Guards actually do (or don’t do)? How does this change over time?
• In society at large, how important is a sense of self-efficacy and what sort of factors affect it?
The Experiment Findings 87
Episode 4 — Tyranny
General themes
1. Building equality in a prison
In the course of this episode, the participants agree to replace the old hierarchy of Guards and Prisoners with a ‘Commune’: a single self- governing group in which all are equal. But by the end, the Commune is falling apart and there is a serious prospect that the old system of inequality will be reinstated – this time in a harder and harsher form.
On the surface, this seems to tell a ‘Lord of the Flies’ story: equality cannot work, attempts at equality always descend into conflict and chaos, and, ultimately, new inequalities emerge. However, this would be far too superficial a reading of what happens here.
First, it ignores the fact that, even if relations within the prison were equal, the relations between participants and experimenters remained unequal. The experimenters continued to control the resources given to participants, what they were allowed to do, and where they were allowed to go.
Indeed, it was when participants began to feel that the experimenters disapproved of the Commune that things started to fall apart and that those who opposed the Commune could exploit this to their own ends. It was the failure of the Commune’s supporters to challenge the real source of power outside the prison that ultimately meant they couldn’t solve their problems in the prison.
88 The Experiment Findings
Second, participants were never given a choice between an equal social order and an unequal social order, and they never chose the latter over the former. Rather, the failure of the Commune meant that, at the end, they faced a choice between chaos and an unequal order. In this context, the proposed hierarchy was beginning to seem more attractive.
This can be interpreted as showing that people prefer some social order — even if it is undemocratic — to no order at all. Even if they prefer democracy, the failure to make democracy work makes tyranny seem more alluring (for extended discussion see Reicher & Haslam, 2006a).
General exercise
In this episode, the participants try to set up a social system in which everyone is equal. Look at how things develop. Consider the successes and the failures of this system. What do the events tell us about the possibility of building fairer and more equal societies and about the problems such societies would have to confront?
2. Changing groups and changing relations
As the groups change in this last phase of the study, so relations between individuals change accordingly.
On the one hand, people who were cool or even actively hostile towards each other when they were members of different groups (as Guards and Prisoners) become close and friendly when they are common supporters of the Commune.
On the other hand, people who were civil to each other when they were members of the same group become much more hostile when they are divided into supporters and opponents of the Commune. This is most obvious in the relationship between Dave Dawson and John Edwards.
This illustrates how interpersonal bonds follow from group relations. Amongst other things, it confirms the theoretical point that it is difficult to heal group divisions by encouraging people to make friends with their opponents, but that changing group relations can certainly turn enemies into friends.
The Experiment Findings 89
General exercise
Over the course of this episode, look closely at the way relationships between individuals change as a consequence of the movement from a Prisoner-Guard regime to a Commune. Think about the broader implications for the way in which our friendships (and enmities) relate to the groups that we and others belong to.
Key events in this episode
1. Getting up [Disk 2, Chapter 13]
At the start of Day 7 the Guards try to keep to the normal schedule. They announce the morning roll call, but John Edwards and others simply ignore them. The Guards no longer believe that they can enforce the old system, the Prisoners no longer believe they can be made to observe it. The system falls apart.
This illustrates the importance of consensus and consent in making a social system work. It is not enough to have systems, rules and technologies of enforcement. In order for them to work, people have to believe in them.
Focus exercise
In the morning after the Prisoners break out, the Guards try and stick to the old routine. But at the first roll call the system simply falls apart. Why?
90 The Experiment Findings
2. The silver ball meeting [Disk 2, Chapters 14 & 15]
The ‘silver ball’ meeting, where participants decide whether to leave the study or to continue, is remarkably eloquent. The speakers not only express strong feelings but also make strong and clear statements about both the dynamics of the prison and about what makes societies in general work or fail.
This thoughtfulness was not limited to this particular event. It was noticeable throughout The Experiment when people addressed the nature of power and authority, of rebellion and revolution, of rules and social structures.
This eloquence does not reflect the fact that we had selected intellectuals for the study. In fact they came from all backgrounds. Rather, it reflects the fact that ordinary people had been placed in a ‘thinking environment’ where they were forced to address and reflect upon complex issues. In this respect it shows that ‘intelligence’ is as much a function of environments that require thought as it is a function of individual capacities for thought.
Focus exercise
Note the eloquence and the thoughtfulness of the speakers as they hold the silver ball. In fact, throughout the study people have been having sophisticated conversations about issues concerning the nature of society, authority, power and rebellion. What does this sophistication tell us about the nature of intelligence?
The Experiment Findings 91
3. Asking for the commune [Disk 2, Chapter 15]
In the context of the Commune, new leaders come to the fore. Frank Clark, who has hardly been seen before, acts as the group representative. He draws up the Commune guidelines. He presents them to the experimenters. Conversely, those who had previously been prominent (e.g., Paul Petken and John Edwards) temporarily fade into the background.
This illustrates, once again, that leadership is not a function of the set qualities of an individual. Rather, it has to do with the match between the position of the individual and that of the group and the extent to which people are particularly typical – that is, prototypical – of the group.
Focus exercise
In the Commune, is there a change in who is (and who isn’t) directing things? What does this tell us about the nature of leadership?
4. Cleaning [Disk 2, Chapter 16]
The daily chores are the first task after the Commune is set up. As Brendan Grennan comments, they are done better than ever before: more
92 The Experiment Findings
thoroughly, more carefully, and with more energy. Moreover, the tasks are completed enthusiastically, not reluctantly.
This mirrors more general evidence that people are more productive when they identify with the organization they are working for, rather than seeing themselves as doing tasks for somebody or something else. Those participants who identify with the Commune are, in effect, working for themselves by working for a system that they have created and they feel they own.
Focus exercise
For once, the daily chores are done with real enthusiasm and done well. Why are things so different from before?
5. Dealing with dissent [Disk 2, Chapters 16 & 17]
In setting up the Commune, the participants proposed a self-governing and self-disciplining body. However, they emphasise the former to the exclusion of the latter. Thus when people dissent or refuse to play their part, there are no procedures for dealing with them. When Edwards and Petken refuse to do any chores, and when they take more than their fair share of supplies, these transgressions are simply ignored.
Even an equal and democratic system requires rules, and the means of enforcing them. However, in this context, participants equate discipline and the exercise of authority with the old privileges of the Guards – which is precisely what they are trying to get away from.
The irony is that, by trying to sidestep these questions, the possibility of a return to the old system is opened up. The basic mistake is to confuse discipline and authority with a particular form: hierarchical authority. This
The Experiment Findings 93 confusion leads the Commune’s advocates to avoid the complex and arduous task of creating democratic authority in which all participate equally.
Focus exercise
When people flout the rules of the Commune or refuse to do their share of work, nothing happens to them. How should they be treated? Is it possible to deal with dissent without destroying the open and egalitarian nature of the Commune?
6. The proposal for a new regime [Disk 2, Chapter 18,19 & 20]
Philip Bimpson’s speech to the participants is a powerful mixture of warmth and hostility, promises and threats (“You’re great guys, but you’re arseholes”). On the one hand, he holds over the Commune’s supporters the supposed disapproval of the experimenters. He castigates the Commune members for their actions, their failures and their naïve belief that a communal system could ever work.
On the other hand, he promises to replace their chaos with a clear system based on his own control (see also the manifesto below). Moreover, he will reign in the threat posed by Edwards and Petken: he will channel it and use it to support his own order. If they accept his order, he will offer them support and protection.
In effect, his message is “you can’t make things work, so let me take on the responsibility for looking after you and making things work”. Although this message is clearly not welcomed by those who support the Commune, they respond passively and meekly, almost until the end.
94 The Experiment Findings
The Commune is in difficulties but — largely because its supporters have been rendered powerless by its failure — they find it hard to speak out in its defence. So, although they don’t explicitly embrace tyranny, their faith in democracy is slipping (see also the data below). As a result, they are unwilling and unable to reject the new regime out of hand.
Focus exercise
Listen carefully to the way Philip Bimpson constructs his speech – how he mixes threats and insults with promises and warmth. Do you think this is an effective speech and, if so, why? Examine the reactions of the other participants. Why do you think they react as they do?
7. How breakfast changes history [Disk 2, Chapter 20]
When breakfast is delivered on the second morning of the Commune it turns out to be particularly bad. This was not intended by the experimenters. Nonetheless, it has a critical impact on the turn of events.
In a situation where participants are uncertain about what will happen, and where they have very little direct communication with those who will determine their fate — the experimenters — they will use any information, however indirect, in order to try and determine what the experimenters think. In this case, they see the porridge as a deliberate signal of disapproval. They begin to ask what the experimenters will do next and they become less confident that the Commune can work.
This incident shows the role of chance events in determining history. However, it is also shows that such events only have an effect in relationship to the social context in which they occur and as a consequence of their meaning to people within this context. For instance, if the participants were less dependent on the experimenters and had more
The Experiment Findings 95 direct communication with them, then a bowl of porridge would probably remain just a bowl of porridge.
Focus exercise
The bad breakfast has a big effect on participants and it subsequently changes the course of events. Why does something so trivial have such a major impact?
8. The end [Disk 2, Chapter 23]
The reason why we concluded The Experiment when we did was because, in our judgement, the system was stuck and could neither move forwards nor backwards. The Commune was falling apart, but on the other hand, although people were becoming less opposed to reimposing a Guard- Prisoner hierarchy, they would not have positively accepted it. And, given that violence was outlawed, it could not be imposed against people’s will.
We had reached a situation where, whichever system people believed in, they could not make it work. This was beginning to lead to aggravation and tension, but, more than anything, we felt it would lead to disillusionment. People would feel there was no point in staying and, especially once Dave Dawson provided the example, they would simply leave the study feeling deflated and unhappy. Consequently, we decided to end the study before that happened.
Scientifically, our feeling was that the blocked system meant we would not be able to collect any new data. Ethically, we wanted participants to feel positive about their experience and hence, by ending the study a day-and- a-half early, we could use the remaining time to conduct exercises designed to rebuild positive relationships between people. In this we succeeded. As the final sequences of Episode 4 show, everybody left feeling good about the study and about each other.
96 The Experiment Findings
Whether we were right or wrong scientifically – whether there would have been interesting new twists and turns if we had continued – we can never know.
Focus exercise
Were we right to end the study when we did? What do you think would have happened if we had let things continue a little longer? Could a decision to continue have been justified on ethical or scientific grounds?
The manifesto for the new regime
The spectre of the new regime raises a number of very important questions. As food for thought, here is the text of the new regime’s manifesto:
The Experiment Findings 97
Discussion questions
• Part of the skill of this manifesto is that it can be interpreted in a range of ways — from something that is simply a parody of the original regime to something that is more menacing. How do you interpret it? How would the other participants have reacted to it?
• In what ways would the new regime have been different from the old one? Why?
General issues for psychology
1. Identity and productivity
At the start of the Commune, many people work harder than ever before because they identify with their work group, yet others refuse to do any work because they don’t identify with the group and there is nobody to make them work. Thus we can see that rigid authority is a double-edged sword. It can undermine the identification which makes people want to work, but it can compel people to work when they don’t want to. Like slavery, it can be effective, but it is hardly optimal.
This relates to the psychology of motivation and productivity (e.g. Haslam, 2001, Chapters 4 and 9; van Knippenberg, 2000). What our study shows is that, once again, social identity is central to all forms of collective activity including work.
Discussion questions
• Throughout the study participants have had various tasks to do: chores, filling in psychological tests, doing work activities. What determines whether or not people are motivated to do their tasks well?
• Do we need strong authority in order to ensure that people work hard?
• What features of organizational life determine whether people work productively and positively? How can organizations be arranged to maximise benefits to all parties?
98 The Experiment Findings
2. Deviance
At the start of Episode 4, all participants endorse the idea of a Commune. However, very soon there begin to be signs of deviance. Paul Petken and John Edwards become disillusioned and alienated. They start by simply refusing to pull their weight. Very soon they are plotting to destroy the Commune. In Petken’s words, they think it is time to “cause a bit of distress”.
One determinant of their actions is simply boredom: they are looking for excitement and for new challenges. Another is the fact that, whereas they were central to the previous system of conflict and confrontation, they are now much more marginal in a system based on equality and consensus. Yet another determinant is the sense that they are not properly recognised for what they did in destroying the old system and helping to bring about social change from which everyone benefits.
This relates to the psychology of deviance and delinquency (Emler & Reicher, 1995). In this respect, The Experiment shows how actions which undermine a social system reflect (a) the importance of people’s place in that system, together with (b) their perceptions of the legitimacy of that place.
Discussion questions
• What factors lead Petken and Edwards to turn against the Commune?
• Could things have been done differently to stop them deviating in the first place?
• What would have been the most effective ways of dealing with their deviance?
3. The emergence of tyranny
This whole episode charts a slide from democracy to tyranny. At its end some participants are actively proposing a new unequal system and even those who oppose them are losing faith and losing competence. As some of the participants said to us afterwards, they were losing confidence and losing the energy to make the Commune work. In such a context, it would certainly have taken less to get them to accept the new regime than it
The Experiment Findings 99 would at the start of the study. This speaks to the fundamental issue of the whole study – how psychological processes contribute to the emergence of tyranny.
The problem for students and researchers who seek to understand the emergence of tyranny is that there is very little psychological research that addresses this issue directly. In particular, the Stanford Prison Study looks at what happens when tyranny is imposed on people, not at how people create a tyrannical system for themselves.
As we have seen, the dynamics which brought about such a situation are extended and complex. Nonetheless, they are probably the most interesting of any observed in The Experiment. They were also unforeseen. Indeed to our knowledge, such dynamics have never previously been captured in a social psychology experiment.
We therefore need not only to try and explain what happened in this study (see below), but also to consider future studies that could test our explanations.
Discussion questions
• At the start of our study, nearly all the participants — Guards as well as Prisoners — rejected even a mild form of inequality. But by the end they were moving towards acceptance of a far more unequal regime. Why did this happen?
• To what extent do the processes which led towards tyranny in The Experiment correspond to processes that can be observed in societies past and present?
• Can these developments be explained by existing social psychological theory? If not, which theories seem best suited to explaining them and how might such theories be developed and tested in the future?
100 The Experiment Findings
B: Quantitative findings
In contrast to previous field studies of this form (e.g., Haney et al., 1973), participants in The Experiment completed a battery of psychological measures throughout the study. As a result, the above observational findings can be complemented by quantitative analysis.
In this section we present the results on the four measures described in section 1D (pp.39-43). These findings (reported in Reicher & Haslam, 2006a) represent a small sub-sample of the 59 measures that were administered in the study. Again, they have been selected because they represent the major categories of measure in which were interested.
Note that data was collected early each morning. Accordingly, scores relate primarily to events of the previous day.
Also, because we were interested in so many variables, participants did not complete every measure every day. This helped minimise practice effects and fatigue effects.
Key concepts
fatigue effects Change in participants’ responses or performance which arises from boredom or tiredness associated with having performed a task before.
practice effects Change in participants’ responses or performance which reflects learning associated with having performed a task before.
The Experiment Findings 101
Social identity
The graph below presents mean social identification scores as a function of participant group and time.
2.5 Guards 2 Prisoners
1.5 identification 1
Social 0.5
0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Study Phase
Statistically significant effect: Phase X Group (p < .05)
This graph reveals a significant interaction effect such that social identification varied depending on both participant group and study phase.
This interaction arose from the fact that in the first two days of the study the Guards identified more strongly with their group than the Prisoners, but that, as soon as they had to implement the disciplinary regime (from Day 2 onwards), Guards’ social identification fell while that of the Prisoners rose.
Note too that the Prisoners’ social identification was also particularly high after the promotion (Day 4).
Discussion questions
• What patterns can you detect in this data?
• Are these patterns meaningful (i.e., do they correspond to events observed in the DVDs or to experimental interventions)?
102 The Experiment Findings
Depression
Depression was measured during the screening process and then every day during the study. Mean depression scores are presented in the figure below.
Guards 4 Prisoners
3
2 Depression
1 Pre- Day Day Day Day Day Day Day test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Study Phase
Statistically significant effect: Phase X Group (p < .01)
From this it can be seen that overall levels of depression were quite low.
Again, though, the graph reveals a significant interaction effect such that depression varied as a function of both participant group and time. Specifically, while the Prisoners were more depressed than the Guards at the start of the study, by its end, this situation had completely reversed.
Note the way in which this pattern mirrors the data for social identification, so that high levels of social identification are associated with lower levels of depression. This is consistent with our theory-based predictions, and is a novel demonstration of the relationship between social and clinical variables.
Discussion questions
• What is the relationship between these findings and those on measures of social identification?
• What might be the nature of the relationship between these two measures and what might it tell us about the relationship between social and clinical functioning?
The Experiment Findings 103
Organizational citizenship
The figure below presents organizational citizenship scores as a function of participant group and time. Guards 7 Prisoners
6
5 citizenship 4
3
2
1
Organizational Day 2 Day 4 Day 5 Study Phase
Statistically significant effects: Group (p < .01); Phase X Group (p < .05)
It can be seen from this graph that the Guards were always more willing to engage in citizenship behaviours that would help them run the regime than the Prisoners.
However, while the Guards maintained their willingness to work for the regime throughout the first five days of the study, over time the Prisoners became much more reluctant to support the Guards’ regime in this way — particularly after the promotion on Day 4.
This interaction effect is consistent with the prediction that Prisoners would be more likely to work for the system (rather than against it) when group boundaries were permeable and group relations were legitimate.
The data also show that organizational citizenship varies as a function of structural factors and is not simply a question of personality.
Discussion questions
• Organizational citizenship is often treated as an individual difference that can be predicted from personality tests (e.g., during recruitment). What are the implications of the above results for such an approach?
• Is the pattern of results here consistent with predictions derived from social identity theory?
104 The Experiment Findings
Authoritarianism
It is possible to examine the development of authoritarianism in two ways.
First of all, one can look at levels of authoritarianism over time as a function of the groups to which participants were assigned by the experimenters.
Data from this analysis are presented in the following graph:
Guards 4 Prisoners
3
2 Authoritarianism
1 Pretest Day1 Day 3 Day 7 Study Phase
Statistically significant effect: Phase (p < .05)
From this it can be seen that all participants became more authoritarian as the study progressed. This was the only statistically significant effect to emerge from analysis.
Although authoritarianism is usually treated as a stable personality variable (e.g. Adorno et al., 1950; Altmeyer, 1996), this data therefore suggests that it actually varies as a function of changes in social context.
This casts doubt on the view that tyranny and prejudice are simply the expression of individual differences in personality and calls for a more socio-structural analysis (see Augoustinos & Reynolds, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2001).
The Experiment Findings 105
Discussion questions
• Is the data here consistent with the view that authoritarianism is a stable personality variable (e.g., as argued by Adorno et al., 1950)?
• What are the implications of this data for explanations of prejudice and tyranny which propose that prejudiced people and tyrants are those who have an authoritarianism personality?
As an interesting variant on the above analysis, we can also look at authoritarianism as a function of the groups to which the remaining participants assigned themselves at the end of the study — that is, as participants who either proposed setting up a new regime with themselves as the new Guards (“New Guards”) or who remained committed to the Commune (“New Prisoners”).
Data from this analysis are presented in the following graph:
New Guards 4 New Prisoners
3
2 Authoritarianism
1 Pre-test Day 1 Day 3 Day 7 Study Phase
Statistically significant effect: Phase X Group (p < .05)
This graph reveals a significant interaction effect, such that levels of authoritarianism varied depending on both participant group and time.
106 The Experiment Findings
This interaction arose from the fact that those who sought to assume the Guards’ role at the end of The Experiment had been more authoritarian than their would-be Prisoners at the start of the study. However, towards the time that the new regime was being proposed, all participants were reporting a very similar level of authoritarianism.
This data is very interesting, and it is worth noting that it could only have been obtained from a longitudinal study like The Experiment.
What it suggests is that, to the extent that tyranny is the expression of an authoritarian ideology, it is not the product of a stable personality variable.
Instead, people who are relatively authoritarian (in this case the EndGuards), can only have an impact to the extent that other people have become more sympathetic to their views.
Again, then, to explain the rise of authoritarianism we need to look beyond the individual to the broader society in which that individual is located. And when we do, we see that the rise of authoritarianism has more to do with changes in society than it does with the stable personality of individuals.
Key concept
interaction effect A pattern of results where the effect of one variable depends on the level of another. For example, we can see from the graph on p.103 that levels of organizational citizenship in The Experiment depended on both participant group and time. One would therefore need information about both these things in order to predict or explain a given participant’s level of citizenship.
Discussion questions
• How might the above graph be interpreted?
• In what sense does participants’ authoritarianism help to explain developments in The Experiment?
• How might these results lead us to refine our understanding of the evolution of tyranny?
The Experiment Findings 107
C: Integrating the findings
One of the unusual features of The Experiment is that because we obtained both qualitative and quantitative data, we are in a position to compare these and thereby address a range of important methodological issues. Most importantly, we can examine the two forms of data in order to see if there is any correspondence between them.
When we do this, it is apparent that there is indeed a high level of correspondence between the behaviour which we observe in the study and the responses that participants were providing on psychometric measures.
Thus the increasing disagreement and disillusionment among the Guards is paralleled by falling levels of social identification and rising levels of depression over time. At the same time, the growing confidence and organization of the Prisoners and their increased willingness to challenge the Guards (particularly after the promotion on Day 4) is reflected in increased social identification, falling depression, and reduced organizational citizenship. All participants’ increasing lack of confidence in democracy is also mirrored in rising levels of authoritarianism.
This correspondence is important because, through a process of triangulation, it allows us to be more confident that our representation of what happened in The Experiment is correct.
Key concept triangulation The process of comparing different forms of data (e.g., qualitative and quantitative) in order to see if they are consistent with each other.
Discussion questions
• Are the patterns in the graphs above consistent with qualitative findings discussed previously and your observations while watching the DVDs?
• What are the relative strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative analysis?
• Can a consistent and reliable picture be gained by integrating the results of qualitative and quantitative analysis? If so, what are the advantages of having such a picture?
108 The Experiment Discussion
3: Discussion of The Experiment
Having looked at some of the qualitative and quantitative findings from The Experiment, we obviously have to try to put them all together and clarify both what they tell us and what implications we can draw from the study as a whole.
To do this, in this section we present an overall explanation of the findings and consider their broad implications. We also discuss some potential critiques of our analysis.
A: Explaining the findings
Our explanation of the findings has three elements:
First, it requires an examination of the conditions under which participants interpreted and internalised their roles and took them on as part of their social identity. We also need to look at the factors which led social identity to be expressed in particular forms of behaviour (e.g., challenge or acceptance of the status quo).
Second, we need to look at the implications of achieving (or not achieving) social identity upon social behaviour, organizational behaviour and mental health.
Third, we need to ask why, despite being initially opposed to inequality and autocratic power, the system as a whole slid towards tyranny at the end of the study.
The Experiment Discussion 109
Taking on social identity
Why the Prisoners challenged the Guards
When we look at the behaviour of the Prisoners in The Experiment, it is apparent that our predictions were largely confirmed.
As predicted on the basis of social identity theory, before the promotion, when the boundaries between groups were permeable, Prisoners’ levels of social identification were relatively low — indeed they identified only slightly more with Prisoners than with Guards. However, as demonstrated by both observational and psychometric data, ingroup identification rose considerably once boundaries became impermeable (i.e., after the promotion). In the post-promotion period, there was not only increasing identification among the Prisoners but also increasing conflict between them and the Guards.
While it is tempting to see this as an indication that social identification leads to negative intergroup relations, this conclusion is questioned by the fact that, in the initial phase of the study, identification among the Guards was not associated with antagonism toward the Prisoners. Indeed, why would the Guards feel antagonism towards the Prisoners? At this stage their authority is not under threat and, in order to protect the status quo, they are keen to keep intergroup relations on an even keel.
It is therefore not the case that social identification is inevitably associated with antagonism towards outgroups.
Instead, where conflict arose, it reflected the fact that the imposition of impermeability also undermined the legitimacy of the intergroup hierarchy. As discussed in Section 1, conflict was thus a specific response to social relations of inequality that were perceived to be insecure (see pp.10-11).
Discussion questions
• Is it the case that social identification with an ingroup necessarily leads people to be antagonistic towards outgroups?
• What role does permeability play in social conflict?
• What role does the security of social relations play in social conflict?
110 The Experiment Discussion
Why the participants rarely challenged the experimenters
The contribution of perceived illegitimacy to intergroup conflict is further illustrated by looking at the relationship between the participants and the experimenters.
As we stressed in Section 1 (p.16), we were interested in the conditions under which participants would challenge us as well as the conditions under which they would challenge each other.
In fact, and along lines of previous research by Milgram (1963) and Haney et al (1973), in the study as a whole we were rarely challenged and our authority was nearly always acknowledged. Much of this can be put down to the fact that participants saw our control over them as legitimate and saw no alternatives to the status quo.
There were only two clear exceptions to this pattern. The first concerned the challenge that Derek McCabe mounted to our authority in Episode 2. The second concerned our failure to deliver supplies (particularly sugar) to the Guards on the night of the breakout in Episode 3. In both cases the participants called into question the legitimacy of our behaviour, and it was under these circumstances that mutiny appeared most likely. Indeed, we were of the view that unless we removed McCabe from the study on the morning of Day 6, mutiny was a very real prospect.
For these reasons, it is too simple to say that the Prisoners were rebellious or the Guards were compliant. Instead it is apparent that the participants experienced, and lived out, a variety of social relations throughout the study.
Most Prisoners viewed the Guards’ status as unfair and contingent and thus sought to undermine it in a variety of ways. Prisoners as well as Guards generally saw their relationship with the experimenters to be both fair and unalterable and hence were generally accepting of this relationship.
The only exceptions were in the rare moments where the participant- experimenter relationship was also represented in terms of illegitimacy and cognitive alternatives. Under these circumstances, Guards as well as Prisoners became potential rebels.
The Experiment Discussion 111
Discussion questions
• Why do participants in psychological research rarely challenge experimenters?
• How do the interactions between participants and experimenters in The Experiment help to shed light on findings in classic studies by Milgram (1963) and Haney et al., (1973)?
Why the Guards didn’t use their power
While the Prisoners did act as we expected, the Guards did not.
Because the Guards had high status and were given both power and material benefits, we had thought that those selected as Guards would quickly identify with their assigned group and impose their authority. As we have seen, though, they did not — or at least only some of them did. The question we were left asking, and the first question most people usually ask after watching Episode 1 is “Why was it that the Guards failed to use their power?”
There are two factors which can explain this. The first relates to the fact that we overestimated the impact of the immediate context and underestimated the importance of other contexts on the imagination of the Guards.
While it may have been better to have been a Guard within the Prison, the enjoyment of privilege and the assertion of power may be seen less positively from outside the study. This would have been particularly true for those who — like some of the Guards here — identify strongly with groups in the outside world that have an egalitarian ethos.
Even when in the prison, they could imagine how others — their friends, colleagues, and family — would react if they saw them behaving as ‘hard men’. As a result of their ability to reflect on this, the future had as much impact on their behaviour as the present situation.
112 The Experiment Discussion
The second relevant factor relates to the permeability manipulation. In previous research, permeability has been analysed almost exclusively in relation to the subordinate group (e.g., see Ellemers, 1993). However, some of our Guards were clearly concerned at the prospect of being demoted to Prisoner, even though they had been told that, while a theoretical possibility, this was unlikely to happen.
Indeed, when announcing the promotion, the Guards were noticeably more pleased and relieved to announce that none of them would become a Prisoner than to announce the identity of the person who had been promoted.
On theoretical grounds, the impact of permeability upon subordinate and dominant groups would be expected to take a somewhat different form. For the subordinate groups, the issue is how to deal with their current disadvantages. For dominant groups, the issue is how to deal with the possibility of future disadvantage.
In this way, the willingness of the dominant group to exert power is constrained more by their ability to imagine ‘what might be’ than by their experience of ‘what is’.
For both these reasons at least some of the Guards were very uncomfortable with their role and failed to identify with it. As a result, the Guards could never form a shared social identity and act as a group.
However, before we can have any confidence in this analysis, the importance of this factor needs to be established in further research. This is one of many areas in which The Experiment opens up new and interesting lines of enquiry for future study.
Discussion questions
• How does surveillance affect behaviour? Does the identity of the audience matter and, if so, in what ways?
• Do you think filming had an effect on the findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment?
• Would the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment have been different if participants had known their behaviour would later be shown to a television audience (as it has been)? If so, what does this tell us about the relationship between tyranny and surveillance?
The Experiment Discussion 113
The psychological consequences of social identity
Having discussed why the Prisoners achieved a common social identity (especially after the promotion) and why the Guards did not, we can now look at the social, organizational and clinical consequences of social identification.
Social consequences
At a social level, possibly the most significant findings of the study relate to the strategies adopted by the two groups in the context of the shifting power relations between them.
In presenting the study’s findings above, we focused in some detail on (a) the attempts of some Guards to gloss over the intergroup divide by seeking to relate to the Prisoners on an interpersonal level and (b) the consequences of such strategies in terms of both further alienating the Prisoners and also opening themselves up to attack by the Prisoners.
The importance of these findings is that they demonstrate the problems that derive from seeking to act on an individual basis in a world of group inequality.
Theoretically, the findings are also at odds with the notion that the most adaptive, valid and functional perception necessarily involves perceiving and treating people as individuals. Instead, it is more compatible with the position of social identity and self-categorisation theorists who argue that it makes sense to treat people as group members to the extent that they are organized in reality in terms of social category membership (e.g., Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994).
It follows that, in practical terms, interpersonal strategies are unlikely to resolve intergroup tensions and divisions. Indeed, where the division is already salient to subordinate group members, such strategies may actually increase tension and exacerbate conflict. Exactly this pattern has been reported in a number of previous studies (see Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
Discussion questions
• It is common for people to suggest that the world would be a better place if everybody was treated as an individual (e.g., Brewer & Miller, 1984). What are the limitations of such a view?
114 The Experiment Discussion
Organizational consequences
At an organizational level, the different consequences for the Prisoners and Guards of identifying or not identifying as a group are also clear and far- reaching. The findings are also consistent with general predictions concerning the organizational benefits of social identification (e.g., see Haslam, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2000; for extended discussion see Haslam & Reicher, in press c).
For the Prisoners, a common social identity (especially within the various cells) led to a high degree of organization, coordination, trust and mutual support. On the one hand, they could confront the Guards knowing that other cell-mates would come in to back them up. On the other hand, they were confident that other group members would act in ways that they approved of and hence they could allow others to act and make decisions for them.
Such factors led to a growing sense of self-efficacy over time and an increased willingness to undermine the system by refusing to act as good organizational citizens.
On every dimension, the situation for the Guards was totally different. Because they could not achieve consensus around the meaning of their group identity, they were incapable of achieving any form of effective organization.
At the most basic level, because they feared that others might act in ways they disapproved of when they were off shift, they were reluctant to take any rest during the day and all the Guards were on duty most of the time.
Still less were the Guards able to agree on any formal structures of delegation or leadership, since to have someone to represent the group requires agreement on what it is that is being represented.
But the problems went further than simple disagreement. Whenever any Guard made an active decision to intervene, other Guards would seek to intervene before him in order to pre-empt an act they might disapprove of. Hence the Guards constantly undermined each other and were forced to concede to the Prisoners.
Moreover, a lack of shared social identity meant that when Guards were picked on by the Prisoners, others failed to give them support.
The Experiment Discussion 115
All these factors led to a declining sense of collective self-efficacy amongst the Guards, especially in the post-promotion phase, and an increasing sense of futility. Indeed, this appeared to contribute to the decision of two Guards (Caruana and Ahmed) to leave the study after the Prisoners’ revolt.
Discussion questions
• How and why does a sense of shared social identity contribute to processes of trust, communication and self-efficacy?
• In what ways is leadership related to social identity?
• Is there a relationship between social identification and bullying? What is the nature of this relationship?
Clinical consequences
Just as there was a clear relationship between social identification and organizational functioning, so too there was a clear correspondence between levels of social identification and participants’ clinical state. Again, the findings were consistent with general predictions concerning the clinical benefits of social identification.
Among the Guards, declining levels of social identification were associated with rising levels of anxiety, paranoia, and depression. These patterns were clearly reversed for the Prisoners.
Although these patterns do not allow us to infer any causal relationship, the observational data does suggest some avenues for further exploration.
Two factors seem to be important. The first is social support, a factor that is often seen to mediate between social conditions and mental states (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
As noted above, one of the consequences of social identification was not only increased support but also an increased expectation of support (Branscombe et al., 1999). On the other hand, lack of identification led to a complete lack of social support. It is thus possible that support mediates directly between identification and mental state.
116 The Experiment Discussion
However, it is possible that a second factor is implicated here: collective self-actualisation. For the Prisoners the presence of social support enabled them to achieve their collective purpose and this made them feel good about themselves. For the Guards, lack of social support led to the frustration of their collective purpose and this led them to feel far less positive.
What this suggests is a path model whereby social identification leads to social support which in turn leads to collective self-realisation which then determines mental state (see Reicher & Haslam, 2006c). It was not possible to test this model in the present study. Nonetheless, at a more general level, our study points to the rich dividends to be gained from the integration of social and clinical fields of enquiry.
Key concept
mediation This occurs when the effect of one variable on another can be attributed to some intervening variable without which the relationship would be weaker. For example, the effect of a person’s age on their salary is mediated by the type of job they have — if people who were older did not get better paying jobs the relationship between age and salary would be weaker.
self-actualisation The process through which a person realises their potential. Personal self-actualisation is associated with realising one’s potential as an individual; collective self-actualisation is associated with individuals realising their potential as members of a group.
Discussion questions
• A number of researchers have argued that the increase in the incidence of depression in Western societies can be traced to the atomisation of people’s lives and the declining sense of community. Are the findings of The Experiment consistent with this argument?
• Could the findings of The Experiment be used in formulating a theory of depression?
The Experiment Discussion 117
The move towards tyranny
As a final point of discussion, we return to one of our primary concerns in the research as a whole: to examine the conditions under which people do or do not embrace inequality as a strategy for organizing social relations.
In Episode 2, the hierarchical system of the prison is obviously failing. In this context, we noted that the Guards were willing to give up much of their power in exchange for the return of their stolen keys and the establishment of a mechanism through which issues and grievances would be settled in the future.
For all that they gave up, the Guards were much more positive after this agreement and gained the confidence to challenge Prisoners for violations that they had previously ignored. The Guards primarily valued the fact that, even if diminished, their position was acknowledged and validated by the new negotiating structure (see Eggins et al., 2002).
In conditions where their ability to impose their authority or sustain any form of social order was in crisis, the Guards were willing to accept the offer of a new order, even if they had less authority within it.
The situation in Episode 4 forms almost a mirror image of that in Episode 2. At this point the egalitarian system of the Commune is beginning to fail. In particular, the supporters of the Commune devised no means of dealing with those who simply refused to abide by the collective rules. As a consequence, the Commune’s supporters were left in a position where they had responsibility for running the system but no power to make it work.
In this context Philip Bimpson and his lieutenants proposed a new system in which they would take responsibility and make things work. This new order promised to be far harsher than the first and much more akin to the regime traditionally associated with the Stanford Prison Study. But at least it might be a viable order.
Both our qualitative and our quantitative data suggest that, while the supporters of the Commune were not exactly enthusiastic about such a system, they were losing faith in democracy and become less opposed to hierarchy. During Bimpson’s speech, opposition was generally muted and participants’ responses were indicative more of resignation than resistance.
118 The Experiment Discussion
Moreover, some people openly admitted to us that there were attractions in giving up on a losing task and letting someone else exercise authority for them.
Correspondingly, the psychometric data show rising levels of authoritarianism and acceptance of autocratic leadership amongst participants as a whole (see the graph on p.104). More significantly, at the point when the new regime was proposed, there was no difference in the authoritarianism of would-be Prisoners and would-be Guards (see the graph on p.105).
In passing, it is worth noting that these variations in authoritarianism are of great theoretical importance. Authoritarianism is traditionally thought of as a stable individual difference variable that explains the social systems that people support. The fact that it varies so much due to the evolving relations in the prison shows that it is at least as much a product of social (dis)order as a cause.
Returning to the main thrust of our argument, and putting the two episodes together, we can see a clear pattern emerging. In Episode 2, when a hierarchical order was failing, those in authority accepted more equality. In Episode 4, when an egalitarian order was failing, people were shifting towards an acceptance of harsh inequality.
In combination, these events suggest to us that people will seek to create a social order based on the norms and values of their group as a whole. Sometimes this will be more democratic, sometimes more authoritarian. However where they fail to exercise power in such a way as to turn their aspirations into a reality, people will opt for whatever other form of order is on offer rather than living without any social order at all.
The lesson to be learnt from the collapse of the Commune is therefore not that equality and democracy cannot succeed. It is rather that people may start to embrace autocratic order where they fail in the practical tasks of creating a viable democratic order.
The Experiment Discussion 119
Discussion questions
• Given that they had been selected on the basis of their support for democratic values, why did the participants not object strongly to the possibility of an undemocratic regime on Day 8 of The Experiment?
• Does this study tell us anything about the conditions under which democracy starts to lose its appeal?
• Can you see any parallels between the events of this study and rises in the far right that have recently been observed among members of disempowered groups in many Western democracies?
• Do you see any parallels between this study and other events in history?
• Can The Experiment, or social psychological research in general, help us understand significant historical processes?
120 The Experiment Discussion
B: Critical issues
In this section we will explore three of the main issues that have been raised as criticisms of The Experiment since it was broadcast (e.g., by Zimbardo, 2006)
In effect, these present alternative explanations of the difference between our findings and those of the Stanford Prison Study. These explanations differ from the one we have presented and hence they question the internal validity of our analysis.
As you will see, we believe that, although superficially plausible, there are problems with each of these alternative explanations (for extended discussion see Haslam & Reicher, 2006a). In each case, though, thought- provoking issues are raised and these have broad relevance for social psychological research as a whole.
Key concept
internal validity The extent to which the findings of an experiment have been correctly interpreted and show what they are claimed to show.
Exercise
Draw up a list of factors that you think compromise the conclusions that have been drawn from The Experiment.
Divide a class into two groups and organize a debate in which half of the students attack The Experiment on these grounds and half defend it.
Afterwards, reflect on the broad relevance of the debate to issues in psychology and science as a whole.
The Experiment Discussion 121
On the impact of prior knowledge
The critique Some of the participants knew about the Stanford Prison Study. This knowledge contaminated and invalidated The Experiment’s findings.
The participants were aware of the dangers of power
It is certainly true that some of our participants were aware of previous social psychological research that was related to the issues investigated in this study — in particular, the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Amongst other things, this was because, before the experiment started, its historical roots had been discussed in some sections of the British media.
Moreover, as can be seen in Episode 1, in their early discussions, some of the Guards spoke of the dangers of their assuming a tyrannical role. They expressed fear that, were this to happen, this might easily ‘turn them mad’.
At the same time, though, others were clearly less concerned with acting, and being seen to act, more harshly. As we saw in Episode 1, this created uncertainty and disagreement amongst the Guards about their role. Moreover, this uncertainty contributed to the way in which group dynamics unfolded over time.
The importance of imagination and reflexivity
Far from rendering our analysis problematic, for us, such awareness as there was of the Stanford study helps us to see the critical distinction between the concepts of social role and social identity (see p.7).
This is because, contrary to claims associated with the Stanford Prison Study, the Guards’ concerns about the dangers of tyranny underline the fact that people do not inevitably internalise roles that are assigned to them and use them as a basis for action.
122 The Experiment Discussion
As we noted above, one reason for this is that they can imagine the consequences of taking on particular roles for other identities that are important to them. People can resist role and environmental pressures because they are imaginative and reflexive.
One of the factors which our participants considered was the Stanford Prison Experiment. But, more than this, they thought and talked about societal examples of tyranny such as Nazism.
Importantly, though, these examples (and others), would also have been available to participants in the Stanford research and would have had the capacity to inform their reflexive considerations.
Nonetheless, the Stanford study has become part of contemporary reflections on power and tyranny and therefore is a particularly important part of popular culture. Indeed, it feeds into contemporary ambivalence about positions of power.
Ironically, though, the fact that it has had this impact serves to undermine the conclusion that people inevitably succumb to roles. For if people like our Guards are ambivalent about their powerful roles, then powerful roles cannot — in and of themselves — be the basis of tyranny.
Key concept
reflexivity The ability of people to reflect on themselves and their behaviour as they would appear to others or to themselves in another context.
Discussion questions
• Do you think a desire not to appear tyrannical would affect your behaviour in a study like this? Would this make your behaviour any less real or interesting?
• Has the Stanford Prison study contributed to a fear of power? If so, what implications does this have for the view that the dangers of power are unavoidable?
• Researchers like Pfeffer (1981) argue that fear of power can have very negative effects on organizations and society. Do the findings of The Experiment support this view?
The Experiment Discussion 123
On the impact of television and surveillance
The critique The fact that the participants knew they were being filmed affected their behaviour. It made the findings of The Experiment invalid because participants were simply ‘playing up’ to the cameras.
Surveillance does affect behaviour
There is no doubt that the behaviour of participants in The Experiment was affected by the knowledge that they were being filmed. This fed into their awareness of the impact of their behaviour within the study and upon future interactions beyond the study. At the start it may also have been a factor in the unwillingness of some Guards to impose discipline.
Again, though, we do not see this as a problem for our study but rather part of its richness. Indeed, to the extent that this criticism is valid, it merely implies that the willingness of powerful authorities to be tyrannical is moderated by rendering them visible and accountable in particular ways. This is not a trivial finding, and its relevance is not limited to explaining the results of this research.
Surveillance is part of everyday life
Moreover, just as the effects of cameras are not trivial, it is equally true that the fact of surveillance is not artificial. Because humans are social beings surveillance of some form and by some audience is a core component of the human condition.
In society as a whole surveillance is also on the increase. And, of course, surveillance is central to almost all psychological research (Spears & Smith, 2001).
Rather than as something that nullifies research findings, surveillance is therefore something for researchers to take into account. Indeed, partly for this reason, surveillance is an increasingly popular topic for social psychological research (e.g., Reicher & Levine, 1994).
124 The Experiment Discussion
Surveillance is multi-faceted
Moreover, when we reflect on the importance of surveillance within The Experiment, we can see that it is wrong to reduce its significance simply to participants’ concerns about the television audience.
Our participants may have been aware of the cameras at times, especially at the start of the study. However, if anything, observational evidence suggests that participants were most concerned about being watched by us, the experimenters.
The impact of being televised is only part of the impact of cameras which is only part of the importance of surveillance which in turn is only part of the explanation of action. We therefore suggest that the notion of ‘playing up to the cameras’ is too simplistic to explain the full pattern of our findings.
Most obviously, since the television audience was a constant, why did we see predicted variations in behaviour over time? If people were simply attempting to look good to potential viewers by avoiding tyranny, why did tyranny start to emerge in Episode 4? If those in Cell 2 were simply seeking to impress the television audience by subverting the system, why did most of them support the system before the process of promotion?
Surveillance and faking
Equally obviously, while it may just about be plausible to claim that people can fake their behaviours for the cameras, it is hard to see why or how they would fake responses on psychometric tests.
In this regard, a significant and impressive feature of The Experiment is the way in which its qualitative and quantitative findings fit together (see Sections 2A and 2B above). The fact that they do, convinces us that the findings were real rather than in any sense artificial.
Discussion questions
• Is human behaviour less real or less relevant because it is observed by others?
• Does the fact that most experiments in psychology involve surveillance of some form affect the validity of their findings?
• Might the findings of The Experiment help us to understand the impact of surveillance in organizations and in society at large?
The Experiment Discussion 125
On simulation and reality
The critique: The set-up in The Experiment did not mirror that of a real prison. Consequently, we cannot draw any valid conclusions about the ‘real world’ on the basis of its findings.
The reality of the situation
At a general level, the observation that there were differences between our ‘simulated prison’ and real prisons has some validity. Obviously, people do not volunteer to enter a real prison, they cannot choose to leave when they wish, and they certainly cannot be promoted from Prisoner to Guard.
But the primary goal of this study was not to simulate a prison. Instead, the ‘simulated prison’ was designed as a context within which to examine the dynamics of relations between dominant and subordinate groups. For this reason (as noted on p.29) the prison was specifically designed in order to have points in common with many hierarchical institutions: not only prisons, but also places like barracks, offices, and schools.
What was important, then, was not that participants saw their environment as a real prison but rather that they experienced the inequalities within that environment as real.
Correspondingly, we would not want to extrapolate on a behavioural level directly from what participants did in our study to how people behave in prisons.
Rather, as noted in the Section 1, our aim was to use the study to develop theoretical understanding of why and when members of groups either accept or challenge inequality. It is on the basis of this theory that we then extrapolate to other contexts.
This use of theory ensures that our study was not simply an example of naive empiricism. Importantly too, it is also on the basis of theory — not data alone — that we make claims about external validity (see Haslam & McGarty, 1998; Turner, 1981).
126 The Experiment Discussion
The distinction between theory based-generalisation and naive empiricism is indicated in the following figure (adapted from Haslam & McGarty, 2003):
theo ry-based gene ralisation Empirical finding
1. Theory suggests After the promotion, conflict empirical test between Prisoners and Guards escalates Th eory Generalisation Imp ermeability 2. Empirical finding supports theory increases low Impermeability status group contributes to members’ increased conflict motivation to between groups of 3. Generalise on engage in social different status basis of theory competition
naive empiricism Empirical finding
1. Generalise on After the promotion, conflict basis of empirical Theory between Prisoners and finding Guards escalates Impermeability increases low status group members’ Generalisation motivation to engage in social Promotions competition encourage conflict
Key concepts
external validity The extent to which a research finding can be generalised to other settings.
naive empiricism The process of directly generalising research findings to other settings and samples, without basing that generalisation on a theory or explanation of the research findings
The Experiment Discussion 127
The power of the Guards
A more pertinent criticism of The Experiment, would suggest that, in contrast to the Stanford Prison Study, the intergroup differences we created were insignificant and experienced as such by participants. In other words, one could argue that, for all their status and privileges, the Guards had no real power: they could not use physical force if the Prisoners refused to obey them and they had no ultimate sanction to back up their authority.
The difficulty with this argument is that the only explicit constraint placed upon our participants — the prohibition of violence — was also a constraint in the Stanford study. Indeed, if anything, our Guards had more power-related resources than in Stanford (e.g., see pp.33-34). For example, unlike the Stanford Guards, they had the power to promote a prisoner of their choice to help them run the prison.
Significantly too, the Guards often discussed whether they should use these various tools, but they could never agree due to the fact that some Guards always expressed concern at being too draconian.
Moreover, the Prisoners were aware that these tools could be used but were equally aware of the Guards’ reticence about using them. For example, after the first major confrontation between Cell 2 and the Guards, members of Cell 1 discussed what would happen. Philip Bimpson said that, if he were a Guard, he would immediately have put John Edwards in solitary confinement. But as Glen Payton put it, they realised that in fact the Guards would do “fuck all — the square root of”.
In the end, then, the question is not whether the Guards had any real power, but why they were reluctant to use the power they had. And, as we noted earlier, far from being trivial, this is an important question at both a theoretical and an applied level.
Discussion question
• Would giving the Guards any more powers have made any difference to their behaviour?
• Are the difficulties that the Guards experienced in exercising power representative of difficulties experienced by some groups of people in the workplace? If so, can The Experiment help us to understand and deal with those difficulties? How exactly?
128 The Experiment Discussion
On the nature of science
The critique The Experiment was entertaining but it wasn’t science.
Having dealt with a range of issues that relate to the interpretation of The Experiment’s findings, one residual question that people often ask is whether the project as a whole should be considered science or entertainment.
Indeed, after it was first broadcast, several commentators observed that although the programmes were fascinating and highly entertaining, they seriously doubted whether the study had any serious scientific purpose.
Interestingly, these commentators rarely presented any details as to what it was about the research that made it unscientific or what features this (or any) study would need to possess in order be accorded scientific status.
Nonetheless, such objections appear to be grounded on assumptions (a) that the goals of science and entertaining television are necessarily incompatible, and (b) that several features of The Experiment violated scientific conventions — for example, evidence that participants in Cell 2 asked us for permission before their revolt, and that we often talked quite informally in commenting on the unfolding events.
Such debate is interesting because it relates to broad issues concerning the nature of science and the nature of the public understanding of science (e.g., see Chalmers, 1980).
As the preceding pages attest, we saw The Experiment as an invaluable piece of science for a range of reasons — primarily because it allowed us to test and extend theory-based hypotheses in a way that is simply not possible in ‘standard’ experimental research.
It is also true, though, that the way The Experiment was filmed and produced did not conform either to the standard accounts of hypothesis- testing that are typically presented in journal articles and textbooks (see Gilbert & Mulkay, 1983) or to a conventional view of scientists as detached and dispassionate data processors.
Instead, what we saw was that science itself is a profoundly human exercise, in which experimenters themselves are participants rather than disengaged observers (Spears & Smith, 2000).
The Experiment Discussion 129
It is notable, however, that philosophers and sociologists of science have recently come to question the traditional view of science as a cold, clinical process in which data mysteriously ‘speak for themselves’.
As Chalmers (1980) observes:
One of the embarrassing results of [attention to the history of science] is that those episodes ... that are commonly regarded as most characteristic of major advances, whether they be the innovations of Galileo, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein, have not come about by anything like the methods typically described by philosophers. (Chalmers., 1980, p.xvii)
Rather than quarantine the audience from the social dimensions of science, The Experiment thus tried to show these social processes at work. As we have seen, these were also processes about which we ourselves were keen to theorise (e.g., see p.16).
So, far from ‘spoiling’ or subverting science, we would argue that the human component is part of science — and one that it is a mistake to ignore or deny. For example, as we have discussed in relation to the findings of the Stanford Prison Study, the power of experimenters needs to be taken into account if we are properly to understand particular scientific findings (see Spears & Smith, 2000). Moreover, doing this does not make research any less scientific (e.g., less capable of testing theory).
For related reasons, we would argue that it is wrong to suggest that any programme-maker — or for that matter any scientist who wants to engage with a general audience — faces a choice between doing good science and providing good entertainment. The science of psychology is not inherently dull, and it does not become more scientific the duller it becomes.
An additional danger of the conventional view of science is that it promotes an elitist discipline, in which knowledge is accessible only to a select few, and in which research itself is of only arcane interest.
At least in principle, science is meant to be a democratic discipline in which its practitioners seek to convince other people of their point. They should succeed not because of their status or authority but through their ability to present evidence and to argue a case on the basis of that evidence. In this regard, it is notable that the motto of Britain’s most eminent scientific body, The Royal Society, is ‘Not by Authority’.
One of our significant concerns about the Stanford Prison Study was that it was in danger of violating that democracy.
130 The Experiment Discussion
As noted in Section 1 (e.g., p.5), only a limited amount of data was in the public domain, and ethical and financial considerations had hitherto made it impossible to revisit the study’s findings, or to question the experimenters’ conclusions. As a result, understanding was largely reliant on the word of those experimenters concerning what they had found and how those findings should be interpreted.
Hence, a major ambition for us was simply to reopen the debate about why and when people accede to tyranny.
Of course, we want to persuade people of our answers. But of equal importance, we want to encourage as many people as possible to reflect on the questions, and to address them on equal terms.
Accordingly, for us, one of the significant achievements of The Experiment is that, as a piece of novel science shown on television, it opens up social psychology to a new audience. As well as this, it has reached a far larger audience than academic publications ever would, and it provides that audience with an opportunity to engage in important and timely debates.
Such engagement is not anathema to science, it is its lifeblood.
Discussion questions
• What are the defining features of science?
• What role do human factors play in scientific practice and progress?
• In what ways is the public understanding of science misinformed? What functions do traditional representations of science serve?
The Experiment Conclusions 131
4: Conclusions
What, then, do we see as the most important conclusions to be drawn from The Experiment?
In effect, the research can be seen as helping us to understand the pre- history of the Stanford Prison Study. That is because, by the end, we had reached a point similar to that at which the Stanford Study purportedly began — one in which the new Guards identified with their social position and were willing both to impose their power and defend their privilege.
Roles can be questioned
We noted in Section 1 that Zimbardo developed a role-based analysis in order to explain the results of the Stanford Study. This argued that when they are assigned to powerful or powerless groups, people inevitably conform to roles in those groups and hence come to behave either as oppressors or as victims.
We suggested that there were problems with this argument, not least because it is unclear to what extent Zimbardo’s findings arose from the fact that he took on the role of Prison Superintendent. Lending support to this critique, it is clear that a simple role explanation cannot account for the findings of our study. Neither Prisoners nor Guards passively took on the roles we had given them. Instead, they actively developed and chose their identities in response to an emerging history of intergroup relations.
Groups work
For Zimbardo and his colleagues, tyranny derived from the inherent pathology of groups and of power. The clear implication was that people should steer clear of both — a message that has had profound impact not only within academic psychology but also in the broader community. It has had an effect on the way people behave at work, in school, at home, and in society at large.
Yet the overwhelming finding to come out of the present study is that, where problems arose, these were a consequence of the failure of groups.
132 The Experiment Conclusions
Where their group identity was strong, individuals were confident, positive, healthy and effective. Where group identity was weak, they were insecure, negative and ineffective.
Powerlessness is more problematic than power
At a social level, powerful groups can, of course, do terrible things. However, we believe that this does not derive from group processes in themselves but rather from the particular norms and values of those groups.
In contrast, powerlessness emerges from The Experiment as a major psychological and social problem. We see that it is precisely when groups with humane and democratic values fail in their attempts to institute an order based on those values that more autocratic options gain their appeal.
For us, the clear implication is that we should not fear groups and power but rather should think about ways in which both can be used effectively and responsibly.
In this study, the paradox and the tragedy for both the Guards and the Commune members was that their fear of asserting power due to their fear of tyranny created the conditions under which tyranny began to emerge.
Accordingly, for us, if there is one clear message to come out of The Experiment it is this: the greatest threat to psychological and social well- being does not lie in strong groups and power but rather in the failure of groups and in powerlessness.
Large scale social psychology experiments are viable
Examination of the history of social psychological research suggests that 30 years ago researchers were much more willing than they are today to conduct large-scale experiments that explored powerful forms of social interaction as they unfolded over an extended period of time. Indeed, at that time, a series of ‘classic’ studies helped shape social psychology as an influential, socially relevant and exciting discipline (e.g., Haney et al., 1973; Milgram, 1963; Sherif, 1956).
The Experiment Conclusions 133
However, in the wake of the Stanford Prison Study, social psychologists became much more reluctant to conduct research of this form. This reluctance was partly an issue of cost, but it also arose from well-founded ethical and practical concerns. Indeed, on this basis many researchers (including Zimbardo himself) have argued that studies like the one at Stanford were a thing of the past and were simply ‘undoable’.
Whether or not you agree with the theoretical arguments we have presented, we believe that The Experiment proves conclusively that it is possible to conduct large-scale social psychological studies. Moreover, these can be conducted in a responsible way but still deal with ‘big issues’ that capture the imagination of academics, students and the public at large.
As a result, we hope that The Experiment will help to rekindle interest in social psychology as a living, breathing discipline with clear relevance to the major issues that confront our societies.
Exercise
Identify an event in the course of The Experiment that relates to a topic that you think is important and interesting (e.g., rebellion, bullying, stress).
On the basis of your observation and reading, develop a hypothesis (or hypotheses) that might explain the psychological processes that underlie this event.
Design a study that would allow you to test this hypothesis.
Assess the practical issues that would need to be addressed before you could conduct this study and evaluate the theoretical contribution that your research might make.
134 The Experiment Conclusions
Discussion questions
• Consider the following account of the fall of the Weimar Republic in 1930s Germany:
The optimal conditions for the triumph of the ultra-right were an old state and its ruling mechanisms which could no longer function; a mass of disenchanted, disoriented and disorganized citizens who no longer knew where their loyalties lay; strong socialist movements threatening or appearing to threaten social revolution, but not actually in a position to achieve it.... These were the conditions in which helpless old ruling elites were tempted to have recourse to the ultra-radicals.... These, by the same token, were the conditions that turned movements of the radical right into powerful, organized and sometimes uniformed and paramilitary force. (Hobsbawm, 1995, p.127)
To what extent is The Experiment relevant to historical events like these? Can it help us understand them? Do its findings advance upon the understanding provided by previous research?
• Has watching The Experiment led you to change your views about the psychology of groups and power? Why or why not?
• Should further research like this be attempted in the future? If so, what would be the most important issues to address?
• How would you design a study that tested, developed or challenged the conclusions we have drawn?
The Experiment Additional Material 135
5: Additional material
A. Further reading
Publications from the BBC Prison Study (reprints available from the authors)
Overviews
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2005). The psychology of tyranny. Scientific American Mind, 16 (3), 44–51.
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2006a). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC Prison Study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1–40.
On tyranny and social issues
Reicher, S. D. & Haslam, S. A. (2006b). On the agency of individuals and groups: Lessons from the BBC Prison Study. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.) Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp.237–257). London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. (2006a). Debating the psychology of tyranny: Fundamental issues of theory, perspective and science. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 55–63.
Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. (in press a). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
On leadership and organizational issues
Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547–568.
Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. (in press b). Identity entrepreneurship and the consequences of identity failure: The dynamics of leadership in the BBC Prison Study. Social Psychology Quarterly.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (in press c). Social identity and the dynamics of organizational life: Insights from the BBC Prison Study. In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A. Wrzesniewski (Eds.) Identity and the modern organization. New York: Erlbaum.
On stress and clinical issues
Reicher, S. D. & Haslam, S. A. (2006c). Tyranny revisited: Groups, psychological well- being and the health of societies. The Psychologist, 19, 46–50.
136 The Experiment Additional Material
Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. (in press c). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of stress. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Responses
Turner, J. C. (2006). Tyranny, freedom and social structure: Escaping our theoretical prisons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 41–46.
Zimbardo, P. (2006). On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC Prison Study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 47–53.
Classic studies in social psychology
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195, 54–58.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.
Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (1999). Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm (pp.193–237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
On social identity theory and group processes
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). Social identity: Context, content and commitment. Oxford: Blackwell.
Reicher, S. D. (1996). Social identity and social change: Rethinking the context of social psychology. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.33– 47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp.15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
The Experiment Additional Material 137
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. A. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454– 463.
On social identity and organizations
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.) (2003). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Hogg M. A., & Terry, D. J. (Eds.) (2001). Social identity processes in organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp.25–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
On the psychology of power
Kanter, R. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 65–75.
Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. New York: Academic Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Reicher, S. D., & Levine, M. (1994). Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the outgroup. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 145–163.
Reynolds, K. J., & Platow, M. J. (2003). Why power in organizations really should be shared: Understanding power through the perils of powerlessness. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 173–188). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1–22.
On research methodology and experimental research in social psychology
Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1998). Doing psychology: An introduction to research methodology and statistics. London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (2001). A hundred years of certitude? Social psychology, the experimental method and the management of scientific uncertainty. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1–21.
138 The Experiment Additional Material
Spears, R., & Smith, H. J. (2001). Experiments as politics. Political Psychology, 22, 309–330.
Turner, J. C. (1981). Some considerations in generalizing experimental social psychology. In G. M. Stephenson & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–34). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto: Wiley.
The Experiment Additional Material 139
B. Other references
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Altmeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Augoustinos, M., & Reynolds, K. (Eds.) (2001). Understanding prejudice, racism and social conflict. London: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical persp- ectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp.281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Chalmers, A. F. (1980). What is this thing called science? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Eggins, R. A., Haslam, S. A. & Reynolds, K. J. (2002). Social identity and negotiation: Subgroup representation and superordinate consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 887-899.
Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity enhancement strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27-57.
Emler, N., & Reicher, S. D. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1983). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (2003). Experimental design and causality in social psychological research. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. C., & Panter, A. T. (Eds.) Handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 235–264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming a social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469–1479.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (Eds.) (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Oxford: Blackwell.
140 The Experiment Additional Material
Hobsbawm, E. (1995). Age of extremes: The short twentieth century 1914–1991. London: Abacus.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Orford, J. (1992). Community psychology. Chichester: John Wiley.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Platow, M. J., Hoar, S., Reid, S., Harley, K., & Morrison, D. (1997). Endorsement of distributively fair or unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 465–494.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation and mobilisation. London: Sage.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2001). Self-categorization and the changing relationship between personality and prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427–434.
Spears, R., Oakes, P. J., Ellemers, N., & Haslam S. A. (Eds.) (1997). The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the disadvantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171–200.
Tajfel, H. (1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change. Social Science Information, 14, 101–118.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups. Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Turner, J. C., & Giles, H. (Eds.) (1981). Intergroup behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.
Williams, H., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2001). Clinical scales for social research: The depression subscale. Unpublished manuscript: University of Exeter.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361–384.
Zimbardo, P. (1989). Quiet rage: The Stanford Prison Study video. Stanford CA: Stanford University.
The Experiment Additional Material 141
C. Index key concepts
Definitions of key concepts are provided on the following pages: authoritarian personality 3 cognitive alternatives 12 deception 49 external validity 126 fatigue effects 100 informed consent 24 ingroup 8 interaction effect 106 intergroup relations 61 internal validity 120 interpersonal relations 61 leadership 6 legitimacy 12 matching 26 mediation 116 naive empiricism 126 obedience 6 organizational citizenship 43 outgroup 8 permeability 12 personal identity 8 power 3 physiological measures 17 practice effects 100 psychometric measures 17 qualitative analysis 47 quantitative analysis 47 reflexivity 122 reverse scoring 39 role 3 security 12 self-actualisation 116 self-efficacy 82 social change 12 social change belief system 12 social creativity 12 social identity 8 social identity theory 8 social mobility belief system 12 triangulation 107 tyranny 4
142 The Experiment Additional Material
D. The experimenters and acknowledgements
Alex Haslam (left) is Professor of social psychology at the University of Exeter. He studied at the University of St Andrews, Emory University and Macquarie University and his previous appointment was at the Australian National University. He is a former Associate Editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology (1999–2001) and Chief Editor of the European Journal of Social Psychology (2002–2005). His most recent book is Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach (2nd Ed., London: Sage, 2004).
Steve Reicher (right) is Professor of social psychology at the University of St Andrews. He studied at the University of Bristol and his previous appointment was at the University of Exeter. He is a former Associate Editor of the Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology (1991– 1996) and co-editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology (2000– 2004). His most recent book (with Nick Hopkins) is Self and Nation: Categorization, Contestation and Mobilization. (London: Sage, 2001).
We both had equal input into this material and into the research as a whole.
The Experiment Additional Material 143
We would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this research:
The Participants
Brendan Grennan, Dave Dawson, Derek McCabe, Frankie Caruana; Frank Clark, Glen Payton, Ian Burnett, John Edwards, Kevin Murray, Neil Perry, Paul Petken, Philip Bimpson, Thufayel Ahmed, Tom McElroy, and Tom Quarry.
At the BBC
Gaby Koppel (Series Producer), Nick Mirsky (Executive Producer), Alex Holmes (Creative Director), Kuldip Dhadda, Stephanie Harvie and Gary Hunter (Producers).
At the University of Exeter
Andrew Livingstone, Brian Young, Huw Williams, Inma Adavares-Yorno, Jolanda Jetten, Mike Howe, Paul Webley, Stephen Wilks, and Tom Postmes.
At the Universities of St Andrews and Dundee
David Corner, Denis Sindic, Eva Loth, Fabio Sani, Grant Muir, Lloyd Carson, Nick Hopkins, and Stephanie Sonnenberg.
Elsewhere
Andrew Eagle and Scott Galloway (clinical psychologists); Andrea Wills, Lembit Öpik, Mark McDermott, Stephen Smith, and Steve Taylor (ethics committee).
Manual production
Lucy O’Sullivan (University of Exeter); Laury Alford, Carlos Rodriguez (BBC Worldwide), and Gaby Koppel (BBC).