The Psychology of Tyranny: the BBC Prison Study

44 TYRANNY THE PSYCHOLOGYTHE OF ruthlessness given the right Or, more disturbingly,cultures? isanyone collective in capable part of taking or products the they Are of families mentally they dysfunctional ill? Are brutal? and Madrid. Reﬂ cently, wrought London by carnage suicide the Jerusalem, bombers Baghdad, in abuse the South Vietnam, of in IraqiLai prisoners Abu in Ghraib, and most re- communities as part of “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans. The massacre at My Rwanda. in gangs rampaging systematic useof The of rape destruction and the women herded destroyed being and children villages by into Entire gaschambers. Images of inhumanity and atrocity are burned into our memories. Jewish men, ANDSTEPHEN D. HASLAM REICHERBY S. ALEXANDER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY POWER CORRUPTS, ANDABSOLUTE POWER decades, isproviding conundrums. anewwindow onthese decades, research, including possibly the largest social-psychology experiment in three ecting on these events, we inevitably ask: What makes people so so people makes What ask: inevitably we events, these on ecting COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. — or rather, wrong the — OR DOES IT? — circumstances? Now latest the circumstances? SCIENTIFIC AMERICANSCIENTIFIC MIND

CREDIT COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. Joseph Stalin, Questions about why groups can behave bad- early 1960s by Stanley Milgram. Ordinary, well- Adolf Hitler, ly have driven some of the most signiﬁ cant devel- adjusted males who took part in a bogus memo- Idi Amin and opments in social psychology in the 60 years ry experiment were told to deliver electric shocks Saddam Hussein since World War II ended. Starting with the need of increasing magnitude to another person who had powerful to understand the psychological processes that posed as the learner. (In actuality, the learner, an personalities, but made possible the horrors of the Holocaust, sci- accomplice of the experimenter, received no their success as ); entists have wanted to know how large numbers shocks.) Amazingly, every single “teacher” was

tyrants also ) required social of apparently civilized and decent people can prepared to administer “intense shocks” of 300 Stalin conditions that perpetrate appalling acts. volts, and two thirds obeyed all the experiment- Hussein made their Initially theorists sought answers to group er’s requests, dispensing what they believed were ( messages pathology in individual psychology. In 1961, 450 volts. Participants continued meting out

acceptable. however, German-born American historian and punishments even after hearing the learner com- Corbis political philosopher Hannah Arendt witnessed plain of a heart condition and yell in apparent the trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann, one of agony. Milgram concluded: “Arendt’s concep- the chief architects of the Holocaust. She con- tion of the banality of evil comes closer to the cluded that far from the defendant demonstrat- truth than one might dare to imagine.” ing a “perverted and sadistic personality” (as The vivid culmination of this line of inquiry

psychiatrists for the prosecution claimed), he was was the Stanford prison experiment, carried out PAVLOVSKY JACQUES ); utterly unremarkable and disarmingly ordinary. in 1971 by Stanford University psychologist Phil- Amin Arendt pronounced Eichmann to be an embodi- ip G. Zimbardo and his colleagues. The research- ( ment of “the banality of evil.” ers randomly assigned college students to be ei-

ther prisoners or guards in a simulated prison in ( CORBIS COLLECTION HULTON-DEUTSCH PAGE: THIS Everyday Evil? the basement of the campus psychology building. Sygma Corbis Corbis Sygma First published in 1963 in the New Yorker, The goal was to explore the dynamics that devel- Arendt’s analysis was considered shocking and oped within and between the groups over a two-

heretical. But a series of studies conducted week period. The study delivered these dynamics Getty Images; around the same time supported her observa- in abundance. Indeed, the guards (with Zimbar-

tions. In experiments at U.S. summer camps dur- do as their superintendent) exerted force with ); ALAIN NOGUES ing the late 1950s, Muzafer Sherif, a Turkish- such harshness that the study was halted after born American social psychologist, learned that only six days. Hitler normal schoolboys became cruel and aggressive The experimenters concluded that group toward former friends once they had been placed members cannot resist the pressure of their as- in different groups that had to compete over sumed stations and that brutality is the “natural” scarce resources. Even more striking were obedi- expression of roles associated with groups who PRECEDING CARTER PAGES: MARC ence studies carried out at Yale University in the have unequal power. Accordingly, two maxims, BETTMANN ( CORBIS Scientists have wanted to know how apparently (civilized people can perpetrate appalling acts.)

46 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. The “banality of evil” is clear in the hotel room in Rwanda (left) that served as the ordinary- looking setting for launching a plan for genocide (below). which have had immense infl uence at both a scientifi c and a cultural level—and which are taught as received knowledge to millions of students around the world every year—are routinely drawn from the Stanford experiment. The fi rst is that individuals lose their capacity for intellectual and moral judgment in groups; hence, groups are in- herently dangerous. The second is that there is an

) inevitable impetus for people to act tyrannically once they are put in groups and given power. bottom ( Reexamining Group Power structively. In variants of Milgram’s obedience The weight of the Stanford prison experiment trials, participants were much more likely to defy lies in both its dramatic fi ndings and the simple, the experimenter when they were supported by stark conclusions that have been drawn from it. confederates who were also disobedient. Magnum Photos Photos Magnum Over the years, however, social psychologists In addition, research after Stanford has con- have developed doubts about the resulting re- fi rmed the prosocial and enriching aspects of ceived wisdom. groups. One particularly infl uential approach to First, the idea that groups with power auto- understanding groups in psychology today is the matically become tyrannical ignores the active social identity theory developed in 1979 by social

PATRICK ZACHMANN leadership that the experimenters provided. Zim- psychologists John Turner, now at the Australian ; ) bardo told his guards: “You can create in the National University, and Henri Tajfel, then at top ( prisoners ... a sense of fear to some degree, you Bristol University in England. This theory holds can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life that it is mostly in groups that people—particu- is totally controlled by us.... They’ll have no larly the individually powerless—can become ef- freedom of action, they can do nothing, say noth- fective agents who shape their own fate.

Magnum Photos Photos Magnum ing that we don’t permit.... We’re going to take When individuals share a sense of identity (for away their individuality in various ways.” example, “we are all American,” “we are all Cath- Second, we know that groups do not perpe- olic”), they seek to reach agreement, they like and trate only antisocial acts. In studies—as in soci- trust one another more, they are more willing to ety at large—the group often emerges as a means follow group leaders, and they form more effective

STUART FRANKLIN FRANKLIN STUART to resist oppression and the pressure to act de- organizations. This fact is shown, for example, in

www.sciammind.com 47 COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. extensive studies of cooperation in groups con- als. Only when they believe that they cannot es- ducted recently by Steven L. Blader and Tom R. cape—that is, when boundaries between groups Tyler of New York University. As a result, people are seen to be impermeable, as feminists argued can pull together to create a social world based on when they identiﬁ ed the “glass ceiling”—will their shared values—instilling a state of “collective they identify with the devalued group and act self-realization,” which is good for psychological collectively. In addition, they will be prepared to health. Having the social support to control one’s use their collective power to challenge the status fate results in higher self-esteem, less stress, and quo and try to improve the position of their group lower levels of anxiety and depression. only if they view the social system as unstable. People who share a sense of identity in a A large body of research, including controlled group demonstrate two social features. First, laboratory studies, extensive surveys and de-

We aimed to represent institutions in which one group ( has more power and privilege than the other. )

they do not lose the capacity for judgment; in- tailed field observations, supports the social stead the basis for their decisions shifts from identity perspective (for a review, see Social Iden- their individual notions to their commonly held tity, edited by Naomi Ellemers of Leiden Univer- understandings. As fi eld studies by one of us sity in the Netherlands and her colleagues). Yet (Reicher) have shown (a summary appears in the until recently there was no single study in the Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: mold of Sherif, Milgram or Zimbardo that might Group Processes), even the most extreme collec- illustrate and combine the theory’s various prop- tive actions, such as a riot, reveal a pattern of ositions in a comprehensive and compelling man- behavior that refl ects the beliefs, norms and val- ner. What is more, it seemed impossible to con- ues of the group involved. Second, people’s re- duct such a study. Despite all the doubts sur- sponses vary depending on which group mem- rounding Stanford, its very severity seemed to bership is most important to them in any given put further studies of its type off-limits. situation. For instance, the norms and values that This situation recently changed with the BBC we use as employees in the workplace may differ prison experiment. The two of us collaborated from those that govern us as believers at our place with the British Broadcasting Corporation, which of worship, as activists at a political rally or as funded the research and broadcast the fi ndings in patriots at the raising of the fl ag. four one-hour documentaries. Our fi rst challenge In contrast to the Stanford conclusions, how- was to develop ethical procedures that would en- ever, social identity theorists have long argued sure that, though strenuous, the study would not that people do not automatically accept the group harm participants. We put into place a raft of memberships that others give them. Quite fre- safeguards, including on-site clinical psycholo- quently people distance themselves from groups, gists and a round-the-clock independent ethics especially those that are devalued in society. For committee. As the committee’s report concludes, instance, in the 1970s Howard Giles and Jennifer we showed that it is possible to conduct dynamic Williams, both then at Bristol University, pointed fi eld studies that are also ethical. out that many women respond to inequality by downplaying their gender, emphasizing their per- The Experiment sonal qualities and seeking success as individu- Like Stanford, the BBC experiment divided men randomly into guards and prisoners within (The Authors) a custom-built environment. We modeled the setting on a prison, but more broadly we aimed to S. ALEXANDER HASLAM and STEPHEN D. REICHER have collaborated on represent a general class of institutions—such as studies of group dynamics. Haslam is professor of social psychology at the an offi ce, a barracks, a school—in which one University of Exeter in England and chief editor of the European Journal of group has more power and privilege than the Social Psychology. Reicher is professor of social psychology at the Univer- other. Throughout the study we watched the be- sity of St. Andrews in Scotland, a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, havior of participants using unobtrusive camer- and formerly chief editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology. as. We monitored their psychological states

48 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. through daily tests. We even checked their well- being by using saliva swabs to measure levels of cortisol—an indicator of stress. Although our experiment followed the same basic paradigm as that of Stanford, it differed in a number of ways. Unlike Zimbardo, we did not assume any role within the prison, so we could study the group dynamics without directly man- aging those interactions. Second, we manipulat- ed features of social hierarchy that social identity theory predicts should affect prisoners’ identiﬁ - cation with their group and the forms of behavior in which they subsequently engage. Most signiﬁ - Shifts in Group Dynamics cant, we varied the permeability of group bound-

aries by initially allowing, but then eliminating, High Prisoners’ social identiﬁ cation opportunities for promotion from prisoner to Prisoners’ depression Guards’ social identiﬁ cation guard. We expected that given the possibility of Guards’ depression advancement, prisoners would try to reject their prisoner identity and work independently to improve their position. We anticipated that this strategy would reinforce the status quo and allow the guards to maintain ascendancy. But after we ruled out promotion (on day three), we thought Psychometric Score Psychometric the prisoners would start collaborating to resist

the guards’ authority. Low I I I I I I The results upheld our predictions. At ﬁ rst the Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 prisoners were compliant and worked hard to im- Study Phase prove their situation. They started to see themselves as a group and become uncooperative with In the BBC prison study, “prisoners” developed a strong sense of the guards only when they learned that, no matter shared identity, particularly after they could not earn promotion to how industrious they were, they would remain “guards.” As a result, they became less depressed and began to chal- prisoners. What is more, this shared identity led lenge the guards. In contrast, the guards did not develop a sense of to improved organization, effectiveness and men- shared idenity and became weaker as a group and more depressed. tal well-being. As the study progressed, the pris- ) oners became more positive and empowered. The guards, however, surprised us. Several Changes in Authoritarianism graphs guards were troubled by the idea that groups and High New guards’ authoritarianism power are dangerous, and they were reluctant to New prisoners’ authoritarianism exercise control. Uncomfortable with their task, they disagreed with other guards as to how their

); PATTI NEMOTO ( NEMOTO PATTI ); role should be interpreted and never developed a shared sense of identity. This lack of identity led to a dearth of organization among the guards—

photograph which in turn meant that they became increas- ingly ineffective at maintaining order and in-

creasingly despondent and burned out. As the Score Psychometric study progressed, the guards’ administration be- Low came ever more toothless. I I I I Before Study Day 1 Day 3 Day 7 After six days, the prisoners collaborated to challenge the fragmented guards, leading to an Study Phase organized breakout and the collapse of the pris- Guards who wanted to institute a new regime after an egalitarian oner-guard structure. Then, on the ruins of the commune collapsed had been more authoritarian-minded than other old system, both prisoners and guards spontane- participants at the start of the study. By the time this new group of ously established a more equal system—in their guards proposed their coup on day 8, their views were more acceptable because other participants had become more authoritarian. BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION ( CORPORATION BROADCASTING BRITISH words, “a self-governing, self-disciplining com-

www.sciammind.com 49 COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. mune.” Once again, though, some members were ford, the path our participants took to reach that bothered by the idea of using power. They did not point was very different. In particular, the specter discipline individuals who neglected to perform of tyranny was very clearly not a product of people assigned tasks and broke the commune’s rules. acting “naturally” in terms of the groups to which At this point, we got a second surprise. Sup- they had been assigned. Instead it arose from the porters lost faith in their ability to make the com- failure of those groups: for the guards, the inabil- mune work, leaving its members in disarray. In ity to develop a cohesive bond and, in the case of response, a number of former prisoners and for- the commune, the breakdown in the attempt to mer guards proposed a coup in which they would turn collective beliefs into reality. become the new guards. They asked for black berets and black sunglasses as symbols of a new Lessons for Society authoritarian management that they wanted to Why did participants who had rejected mild impose. They talked of re-creating the guard- inequalities imposed on them at the start of the prisoner divide but this time ensuring that the study, and who had fought so hard to establish a prisoners “toed the line”—using force if neces- democratic system, end up shifting toward a self- sary. We expected those who had supported the supported tyranny? The answers lie in a basic cor- commune to defend the democratic arrangement ollary to our arguments. Groups, we have dis- they had put in place. But nothing of the kind cussed, are ultimately about collective self-real- happened. Instead they lacked the individual and ization. They use social power to make an Protesters in collective will to defy the new regime. Psycho- existence in the image of their shared beliefs and South Africa metric data also indicated that they had become values. But when groups cannot produce such a show how more authoritarian-minded and more willing to working order, their members become more will- membership in a group can give accept strict leaders. ing to accept other social structures —even if these individuals the In any event, the coup never occurred. For eth- new systems violate their existing way of life. collective power ical reasons, we could not risk the type of force Thus, when the guards could not impose their to speak out witnessed in the Stanford study, and so we brought authority, they became more willing to agree to against oppres- the study to a premature close on the eighth day. democracy. More ominously, though, when the sive regimes. But whereas the outcome resembled that of Stan- commune fell apart, its members became less Magnum Photos Magnum IAN BERRY

50 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. motivated to defend democracy against tyranny. tion of factors that can give birth to tyranny oc- From this study and other research into social curs when groups who seek to instill democratic identity processes, we can draw conclusions that and humane social values do not succeed. When have important implications for academia and a social system collapses, people will be more society at large. In general terms, we concur with open to alternatives, even those that previously Sherif, Milgram, Zimbardo and others that tyr- seemed unattractive. Moreover, when the col- anny is a product of group processes, not indi- lapse of a system wreaks such havoc that a regular vidual pathology. Yet we disagree about the na- and predictable social life becomes impossible, ture of these processes. From our standpoint the promise of a rigid and hierarchical order be- people do not lose their minds in groups, do not comes more alluring. Thus, the chaotic failure of

People do not lose their minds in groups and (do not automatically abuse collective power.)

helplessly succumb to the requirements of their the democratic Weimar led to the rise of Nazism; roles and do not automatically abuse collective the deliberate divisions imposed by ruling powers power. Instead they identify with groups only facilitated the ascendancy of brutalizing regimes when it makes sense to do so. And when they do, in postcolonial Africa and in the post-Soviet Bal- they actively and knowingly attempt to imple- kans; and the suppression of postwar organiza- ment collective values—the way in which they tion paved the way to the reemergence of anti- exercise power depends on these values. In short, democratic forces in Iraq. In each case, the rejec- groups do not deny people choice but rather pro- tion of democracy can be traced back to political vide them with both the grounds and the means strategies that deliberately sought to break down to exercise choice. groups and strip them of power. Rather than Of course, this argument does not deny that striving to make people fearful of groups and people can do terrible things in groups. But not power, we suggest, people should be encouraged all groups in charge and certainly not all prison to work together to use their power responsibly. guards are brutal. To propose that there is some- To the extent that received wisdom encour- thing inherent in group psychology that man- ages policymakers to foment the very conditions dates excessive cruelty is to take the spotlight off that can promote oppressive regimes, that think- the specifi c factors that lead particular groups to ing may be not only intellectually limited but become vicious, brutish and tyrannical. downright dangerous. It was certainly perilous Two interrelated sets of circumstances can for the participants in the BBC prison experi- lead to a tyrannical group dynamic. The fi rst ment. Their tragedy was to neglect the reason- arises from the success of groups that have op- able exercise of power for fear of tyranny. As a pressive social values. It has been pointed out, for bitterly ironic consequence, they set up the very instance, that the worst atrocities occur when conditions whereby the tyranny they feared came people believe they are acting nobly to defend back to haunt them. M against a threatening enemy. One might wonder: How do they come to hold those beliefs? In turn (Further Reading) we ask: What is the role of national leaders in ◆ Experiments in Group Confl ict. Muzafer Sherif in Scientifi c American, demonizing out-groups—such as Jews, Tutsis or Vol. 195, No. 5, pages 54–58; November 1956. Muslims? What about immediate superiors of ◆ Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination. Henri Tajfel in Scientifi c military units who actively encourage brutality American, Vol. 223, No. 5, pages 96–102; November 1970. or passively condone it? What part do ordinary ◆ Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. John C. men and women play when they laugh or turn a Turner, Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen D. Reicher and blind eye to an out-group member who is being Margaret S. Wetherell. Blackwell Publishers, 1987. ◆ Obedience to Authority. Reissue. Stanley Milgram. Harper Perennial, 2004. humiliated? As our questions imply, we believe ◆ Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach. Second that people at every level of the group help to edition. S. Alexander Haslam. Sage, 2004. foster a collective culture of hate and are respon- ◆ Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study. Stephen sible for its consequences. D. Reicher and S. Alexander Haslam in British Journal of Social Psycholo- Less straightforwardly, the second constella- gy (in press; reprint available from the authors).