Reicher and Haslam (2006) The BBC Prison Study

Question 1

Method

Answer 1

• Controlled observation in a mock prison, filmed for television,
• Participants were 15 male volunteers who had responded to an advert,
• Randomly assigned to 2 groups - 5 guards and 10 prisoners,
• They had daily tests to measure levels of depression, compliance with rules, and stress,
• The prisoners knew that one of them, chosen at random, would become a guard after 3 days,
• An independent ethics committee had the power to stop the experiment at any time in order to protect participants.

Question 2

Results

Answer 2

• The guards failed to form a united group and identify with their role,
• They didn’t always exercise their power and said they felt uncomfortable with the inequality of the situation,
• In the first three days, prisoners tried to act in a way that would get them promoted to guard status,
• After one was promoted, they became a much stronger group; they knew there was no more chance of promotion,
• The system collapsed due to the unwillingness of the guards and the strength of the prisoner group,
• On day 6 the prisoners rebelled and the participants decided to live in a democracy, this also collapsed due to group tensions,
• Some of the former prisoners then wanted to set up a stricter regime with them as the leaders,
• The study was abandoned early on the advice of the ethics committee; participants had been showing signs of stress.

Question 3

Conclusion

Answer 3

• The participants didn’t fit into their expected roles; these roles are flexible.

Question 4

Evaluation

Answer 4

• Reicher and Haslam’s prisoners were a strong group, and the guards were weak, unlike Zimbardo,
• It is possible that Zimbardo’s guards were more empowered, and actively encouraged to maintain order,
• Study is criticised for being made for TV,
• Zimbardo, and other critics, argues that elements of it were staged and the participants played it up for the camera,
• Was an artificial situation; lacks ecological validity,
• Ethics were good; weren’t deceived, participants able to give informed consent,
• Participants protected by the ethics committee,
• Participants were debriefed and offered counselling afterwards.