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: [email protected]
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
Questioning Zimbardo’s analysis
C: Social identity and the psychology of resistance
Social identity theory
Explaining social change
Aims of The Experiment
D: Setting up the study
Selection of participants
Consent
The participants
Assignment to groups
Planned interventions
The prison environment
Guards’ resources and Prisoners’ rights
Rules
Psychometric measures
Ethical safeguards
Initial set-up
2: Findings of The Experiment
A: Qualitative findings
Episode 1 — Conflict
Episode 2 — Order
Episode 3 — Rebellion
Episode 4 — Tyranny
2
4
7
7
9
14
18
18
22
25
26
27
29
33
36
39
45
48
51
51
52
64
75
87
B: Quantitative findings
100
C: Integrating the findings
107
vi The Experiment Contents
3: Discussion of The Experiment
A: Explaining the findings
Taking on social identity
The psychological consequences of social identity
The move towards tyranny
B: Critical issues
On the impact of prior knowledge
On the impact of television and surveillance
On simulation and reality
On the nature of science
108
108
109
113
117
120
121
123
125
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
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: www.prisonexp.org
Albums by Stanford Prison 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
permeability
of group
boundaries
Perceived
security of
group
relations
(legitimacy
and cognitive
alternatives)
Strategy for
achieving
positive
social identity
Course of
action
resulting from
strategy
Implications
of strategy for
outgroup and
status quo
attempt to
join high
status group
accepts
outgroup’s
superiority
Form of
behaviour
permeable
group
boundaries
individual
mobility
individualised
behaviour
The social mobility belief system
secure
relations
social
creativity
insecure
relations
social
competition
impermeable
group
boundaries
change
(a) meaning of
identity
(b) comparison
groups, or
(c) comparison
dimensions
redefines
but avoids
directly
challenging
outgroup’s
superiority
engage in
conflict, open
hostility,
antagonism
directly
challenges
outgroup’s
superiority
collective
behaviour
The social change belief system
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 universitybacked 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
number
age
Other applicants
Significant
difference
(p < .05)
15
33
317
31
no
depression
paranoia
authoritarianism
2.03
2.61
2.81
2.53
2.95
2.93
yes
yes
no
all clinical scales
all lie items
all social scales
2.03
4.51
2.48
2.49
4.34
2.63
yes
no
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
Ahmed
Frankie
Caruana
Brendan
Grennon
Tom
McElroy
Tom
Quarry
Ian
Burnett
Philip
Bimpson
Frank
Clark
Dave
Dawson
John
Edwards
Glen
Payton
Neil
Perry
Paul
Petken
Derek
McCabe
Kevin
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]
Frankie Caruana [FCg]
Tom McElroy [TMg]
Tom Quarry [TQg]
Philip Bimpson [PBp]
Glen Payton [GPp]
Neil Perry [NPp]
Guards'
Walkway
(first floor)
Guards'
Mess
Cell 1
Exercise
Area
Isolation
Cell
John Edwards [JEp]
Kevin Murray [KMp]
Paul Petken [PPp]
Cell 2
Video
Booth
Main Atrium
Entrance
Cell 3
Guards'
Observation
Post
Guards'
Dorm
Guards'
Bathroom
Delivery
Area
Ian Burnett [IBp]
(promoted Day 4)
Frank Clark [FCp]
Dave Dawson [DDp]
Derek McCabe [DMp]
(introduced Day 5,
withdrawn Day 6)
Prisoners'
Showers
10m
= 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
very negative •
3
negative
4
•
5
positive
6
7
• very positive
• Do you ever feel low or depressed?
1
not at all
2
•
3
•
4
sometimes
5
•
6
•
7
always
5
•
6
•
7
always
• Do you feel hopeless about the future?
1
not at all
2
•
3
•
4
sometimes
• Do you have difficulty dealing with everyday problems?
1
not at all
2
•
3
•
4
sometimes
5
•
6
7
• very frequently
3
•
4
slightly
5
•
6
•
• Are you self-confident?
1
not at all
2
•
7
definitely
• Do you think that you are a worthwhile person?
1
not at all
2
•
3
•
4
sometimes
5
•
6
7
• very frequently
5
•
6
7
• very frequently
• Do you think about harming yourself?
1
not at all
2
•
3
•
4
sometimes
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 outmanoeuvred 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 withingroup 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 selfgoverning 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 GuardPrisoner 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-anda-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
Social identification
The graph below presents mean social identification scores as a function of
participant group and time.
2.5
Guards
Prisoners
2
1.5
1
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
Prisoners
Depression
4
3
2
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
Organizational citizenship
The figure below presents organizational citizenship scores as a function of
participant group and time.
Guards
Prisoners
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
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
Prisoners
Authoritarianism
4
3
2
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
New Prisoners
Authoritarianism
4
3
2
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 participantexperimenter 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 farreaching. 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, thoughtprovoking 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):
theory-based
generalisation
1. Theory suggests
empirical test
Empirical finding
After the promotion, conflict
between Prisoners and
Guards escalates
Theory
Impermeability
increases low
status group
members’
motivation to
engage in social
competition
naive empiricism
Theory
Impermeability
increases low
status group
members’
motivation to
engage in social
competition
Generalisation
2. Empirical finding
supports theory
Impermeability
contributes to
increased conflict
between groups of
different status
3. Generalise on
basis of theory

Empirical finding
1. Generalise on
basis of empirical
finding
After the promotion, conflict
between Prisoners and
Guards escalates

Generalisation
Promotions
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 hypothesistesting 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 prehistory 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 wellbeing 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 wellbeing 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 perspectives 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).