Social Roles, Power and Tyranny

Question 1

outline the Stanford Prison experiment on power and influence

Answer 1

• UG students volunteered to participate in the 2-week study
• Randomly assigned to roles of prisoners (N=12) and guards (N=12)
• Entire basement of Stanford University Psychology Department in California used to setup a ‘mock’ prison
• Behaviour video-taped and behavioural observations recorded by research assistants
• Orientation day for guards:
  Suggestions about controlling ‘prisoners’ without using physical force, Could not use torture, but create fear and a sense of lack of freedom
• Prisoners were ‘arrested’ at their residences, made to wear prison issue uniforms (‘dresses’), placed in cells, limited freedom to exercise, interact
• Guards in uniforms including sunglasses, to be referred to as ‘Mr Correctional Officer’
• Guards in uniforms including sunglasses, to be referred to as ‘Mr Correctional Officer’
• Must obey the guards’ rules, and failure to do so ‘may result in punishment’
• Guards tasked to keep prisoners and anti-social behaviours in line.
• Guards given power over prisoners: control of resources (e.g. toilet), give rewards and punishment
• Guards began to display cruelty towards prisoners:demands became more arbitrary, locked in solitary confinement (small cupboard), ‘divide and rule’ tactics, manhandled, handcuffed, dragged…

Question 2

what happened as a result in the stanford prison experiment?

Answer 2

• Line between experimental simulation/role playing and reality became blurred: Zimbardo decided ‘not to intervene at this point but to watch the confrontation and the attempts to restore law and order’, persuaded prisoners to stay on by reminding them about compensation, talked parents out of having their son removed from the study despite ill-health
• Brutality of the ‘guards’ and suffering of the prisoners resulted in the experiment being abandoned after only 6 days (scheduled for 2 weeks)
• Crucial was reaction of fellow researchers‘… feeling sick to my stomach by the sight of these sad boys so totally dehumanised’
• Zimbardo reflected that he and others had ‘…internalised a set of destructive prison values that distances them from their own humanitarian values’ (2007, p.171)

Question 3

conclusions from Stanford prison experiement

Answer 3

• Administered number of psychological tests:prisoners and guards not psychologically different to each other or from general population norms.
• Situations that permit abusive or aggressive actions can result in dangerous behaviour.
• When people are deindividuated, this increases whatever behaviour the group are doing (good or bad).

Question 4

Roles in SPE

Answer 4

• Roles emerge as a key factor: Power of roles operated on both, guards and prisoners
• Role itself can bring about reduced responsibility
• Separate role-related actions from sense of self
• Morals and ethics of everyday self do not need to be relevant to or interfere with functioning in highly specific, separate role

Question 5

deindividuation in SPE

Answer 5

• External situation of anonymity gave rise to inner psychological state of deindividuation
• Guards were depersonalised in the group and their ‘role’ -> losing their individuality
• Therefore ‘tyranny’ was ‘embedded’ in the psychology of powerful groups: People in high status and powerful groups naturally enact the roles permitted by their groups, Group membership to powerful high status groups can lead to a reduction in the constraints around anti-social behaviour.

Question 6

Dehuminisation in SPE

Answer 6

• Treatment as if prisoners were less than human: abuse more easily justified
• Restraints of harming another human being reduced
• Destructive consequences of conceptualising the other as an object or non-human creature
• ‘Dehuminisation typically facilitates abusive and destructive actions towards those so objectified’ (Zimbardo, Maslach & Haney, 2000, p.223)

Question 7

The system in SPE

Answer 7

• creates, legitimises and sustains roles, anonymity and dehuminisation
• seeks validation by means of ideology or views of the world
• does not enact the behaviour directly but brings it about
  The situation is important for shaping behaviour, BUT, the situation is shaped by the system!

Question 8

Criticisms of the SPE

Answer 8

• Zimbardo’s leadership may have been influential, briefing the guards gave them some license to behave tyrannically
• Researchers have questioned whether anonymity always leads to deindividuation and tyranny. Some have shown it depends on the situational cues (Gergen, 1973; Johnson & Downing, 1973).
• Behaviour from group members best understood by change from personal to social-identity (Brown, 2000).: Role-consistent behaviour can be reframed as identity-consistent behaviour and not all groups allow tyrannical behaviour!

Question 9

what were Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) criticism of SPE

Answer 9

• Questions about how realistic the environment was
• SPE is different from a real prison: participants know they have committed no crime, can leave any time etc.
• ‘Walls of prison’ remind prisoners that they are different form outsiders (“decent people”) whereas participants believe they are “good” people taking part in prestigious research.

Question 10

The BBC prison study Reicher, S., Haslam, A. (2006).

Answer 10

• replicated Zimabdo’s prison experiment however produced different results

Question 11

Psychology of Tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control) - what are the theoretical issues

Answer 11

• Shift away from focus on individual characteristics towards nature of group processes as explanation
• Endorse group-level psychology of tyranny = an unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use of power by one group or its agents over another
• SPE: guard aggression simply a natural consequence of being in uniform and asserting power inherent to this role
• BUT: groups per se are not the root of the problem, Tyrannical social order becomes attractive when groups are ineffective in their functioning
• Need to focus on:
  1. Conditions under which people do or do not assume roles
  2. Balance between tyranny and resistance
• Role account: people act automatically in terms of group membership (or roles) ascribed
• Whether they do depends on whether they internalize membership as part of self-concept (Turner, 1982)
• Thus, self-categorisation /social identification forms the basis of group behaviour and acceptance of norms, values etc

Question 12

Psychology of Tyranny (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control) - what are the questions and hypotheses?

Answer 12

For subordinate groups, collective action depends on…
1. Permeability of category boundaries: belief about ones ability to advance through the social systems despite group membership
2. Security of intergroup relations:perceived legitimacy (fairness) and stability of inequality,availability of cognitive alternatives to the status quo

Question 13

what were the aims of the BBC replication?

Answer 13

1. Provide comprehensive and systematic data for interactions between groups of unequal power and privilege
2. Analyse conditions under which people: (i) define themselves as (ascribed) group members and act in line with group identities, and(ii) accept or challenge intergroup inequalities
3. Examine social, organizational and clinical factors
4. Develop protocols for practical and ethical framework

Question 14

method of BBC replication

Answer 14

Participant Selection:
- based on psychometric tests
- 15 men (from 332!) – diversity of age, SES, ethnic backgrounds
- 5 guards, 9+1 prisoners matched on key dimensions
- Ethical considerations: careful control over experiment

Data Sources - daily psychometric and physiological tests
- social, organizational and clinical variables
- cortisol levels as stress indicators
- video and audio recordings for qualitative analysis (recorded everywhere! Not like SPE…)

Question 15

set up of the BBC replication

Answer 15

Guards (limited guidance given):
- Ensure institution runs as smoothly as possible
- Draw up own set of ‘rules’ including non-violence/basic rights
- Control and power over resources + punishment given to ‘guards’
- Far better conditions than prisoners (snacks, cigarettes) -> inequality!

Prisoners:
- Uniform with 3-digit number
- Hair shaved on arrival
- List of prisoner’s rights on cell wall

Question 16

Planned intervention of BBC experiment

Answer 16

Manipulation of theoretically relevant variables

Permeability:
- Guards told that they were selected on basis of reliability, trustworthiness and initiative, but possible some prisoners were mis-assigned -> observe behaviour and decide who better off as a guard.
- Provision for promotion from prisoner to guard on day 3

Legitimacy:
- 3 days after promotion, participants were informed that really there are no differences between guards and prisoners. Group division had seemed legitimate, but no longer so

Cognitive alternatives:
- 10th prisoner on day 5 – experienced trade union official

Question 17

Social identification results BBC experiment

Answer 17

Prisoners:
- initially individual display of qualities for promotion, no shared identity, consensus or collective challenge
- after promotion, development of social identity and consensual norms, recognition and discussion of changeability of system
- dissatisfaction with inferior conditions

Shift from individual action and identification to collective action and group identification “what WE will do”
Shift from compliance to conflict with the guards

guards:
- Wary to exert authority, no development of identity and consensus about rules and priorities

Question 18

security of intergroup of inter-relation results of BBC prison experiment results

Answer 18

Prisoners:
- After promotion, normative consensus led to effective organisation and mutual social support
- Emergence of cognitive alternatives & growing confidence in ability to achieve change

Guards
- Inability to agree on norms/priorities -> could not trust each other, weak, inconsistent, ineffective as a group

• Undermined perceived legitimacy of regime and inter-group inequality
• Growing realisation that the system was open to change

Question 19

acceptance of compliance results BCC experiment

Answer 19

Prisoners:
- Shared social identity defined in opposition to guards
- Started to work actively against the regime (minor/overt challenges, collective protest etc.)
- After promotion, became more reluctant to comply with rules

Guards:
- Compliance to rules did not vary over time
- Neither did their willingness to engage in citizenship behaviours (supporting the regime)

Over time, prisoners became much more reluctant to support the guards regime

Question 20

Embracing the government (Day 6) results BBC experiment

Answer 20

Decided to continue study through the institution of a single self-governing commune
- Drew up terms of operation, initially highly effective
- Former guards and prisoners were recategorised as part of a common group
- Collectively performed tasks with more effort and higher standard
- BUT: some felt marginalised – violated communal rules and plotted to destroy commune

Question 21

embracing inequality results 2006

Answer 21

Emergent crisis exploited by opponents of commune
- Introduced plans for new hierarchy/authoritarian regime
- Commune supporters despondent and passive
- Less opposed to strong social order in which someone else assumed responsibility for system
- Experiment was terminated by the researchers early on day 7

Question 22

conclusions of the BBC experiment

Answer 22

• Contrary to SPE, people do not automatically assume roles given to them in group contexts.
  Consistent with the social identity approach:
• Impermeable boundaries leads to social identification with the group.
• Insecure intergroup relations lead to collective action.

But, social identity approach cannot fully account for the guards’ behaviour (e.g., positive status in prison context, but fear of negative evaluation by future audiences).