Zimbardo recap

Participants were assigned to each condition…1. Based on age2. Based on health3. Randomly4. Based on ethnicity

The simulated prison was created…

1. At Zimbardo’s home2. The basement of the University of Stanford3. In a film studio4. It was an actual prison

Who was the warden of the prison?

1. Zimbardo2. Asch3. Haney4. Banks

Which item did the prisoners not wear?1. Underwear2. Smock3. Stockings4. Rubber sandals

Which item did the guards not wear?1. Khaki uniform2. Sunglasses3. Hooded tops4. Underwear

Which one of the following is true?

1. The guards were told not to use physical force2. The guards were told to maintain law and order3. The participants were all arrested from their homes4. All the above

The study was planned to last…

1. 2 weeks but finished after the first day2. 1 week but decided to carry on3. 2 weeks but stopped after 6 days4. Until the last prisoner could not cope

Evaluation

In your groups you have a question Discuss and be ready to feed back to the class

think about terminology!

HOW FAR CAN THIS STUDY BE GENERALISED?

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE SAY THE

STUDY IS RELIABLE?

HOW CAN WE APPLY THE FINDINGS?

DOES THE STUDY HAVE VALIDITY?

WHY?

THERE ARE MANY ETHICAL

CONSIDERATIONS… CONSIDER AT

LEAST 3

Weaknesses1. There are serious ethical issues here in exposing the participants to

degrading and humiliating hostility.2. While the mock guards may have pretended to be aggressive, the

physical abuse and harassment they showed went beyond mere pretending.

3. It is possible that middle-aged people would have been less affected by the mock prison than the young college students?

Strengths 1. Zimbardo showed that situational factors, such as, the power

structure of an organisation, can greatly impact the way we behave.2. Even stable individuals, like the student-participants of the

experiment- will often abuse the social power they possess, behaving in unacceptable ways.

Reicher and Haslam (2006)

•The study was a reaction to Zimbardo's 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment.

•Zimbardo wanted to test why it is that prisons fail to rehabilitate offenders.

•Zimbardo thought it was the prison setting rather than the personality of the inmates and guards that was significant.

Dispositional Hypothesis

This views explains behaviour in terms of the individual – their nature, personality, outlook,

character.

If so, then all guards are sadistic, uneducated, insensitive and all prisoners are violent,

aggressive, lawless fiends.

Situational HypothesisThe environment in which you find

yourself is the strongest influence on your behaviour.

If so, then you may enter prison as an unaggressive, sensitive person but the prison environment will turn you into a

violent, angry, hostile person.

Reicher and Haslam Aims

• To examine group behaviour in terms of unequal levels of power • To examine the conditions under which people assume their

roles, asking:• Do participants wholly accept their roles?• Do those with power, abuse it?• Do those with no power, accept it?

Briefly…On Day 3:Participants beliefs about the permeability of group boundaries were changed.At the start of the study there was the possibility of promotion from prisoner to guard. Reicher & Haslam decided that from day 3 this was no longer possible.

Likely effect on the prisoners?

Day 4:At the start of study participants were told that guards had been chosen because of their personal qualities (i.e. reliable, trustworthy). Reicher & Haslam told the participants that in fact there was no difference between prisoners and guards, the assigning of roles had been random.

Likely effect on the prisoners' sense of group identity?

Day 5:Cognitive alternatives introduced – prisoner no. 10 introduced who had been a trade union official. Reicher & Haslam expected him to bring alternative plans/action to the group and to negotiate with the guards to bring about more equality between the 2 groups.

Likely outcomes?

R & H were looking at:1. social variables (social identification, awareness of alternative plans

of action, authoritarianism, subservience)2. organisational variables (obeying rules or not, adhering to authority

commands)3. clinical variables (self-efficacy, depression, stress hormones)

Guard's authority enhanced by:

- keys to all doors

- punishment isolation cell

- surveillance system

- power to give rewards (snacks, cigarettes) or punishments (bread and water diet)

- better living conditions and uniform

What happened?Start of study – groups in control, compliant participants.

After day 3 – no promotion, participants become uncooperative, some groups uncomfortable with own authority.

Prisoners rebel (they have strong group identity and cohesion) – organised breakout.A new regime is introduced – 'a self-governing, self-disciplining commune'.

Some former prisoners and guards become the new guards – they ask for black berets and dark glasses.

Lack of shared identity and cognitive alternatives mean that the rest of the commune are aimless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJASERAwhXM

•Day 8: Reicher & Haslam stop the study as they predict it is becoming too tyrannical and too like Zimbardo's SPE in terms of brutality and abuse of power.

• Tyranny - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) • Tyrants hold

dominance through threat of punishment and violence .

Consider….

• Similarities • Differences

• Remember to support your points with evidence – give me specifics!

Reicher & Haslam's conclusions:

- Different to SPE because events not determined by social role but by failure of certain groups (ie guards had no cohesion)

- Same as SPE in that tyranny is a product of group processes, not individual evil

- Disagree with Zimbardo – people in groups can still control behaviour

- Individual identifies with group only when it makes sense to do so.