Reicher and Haslam Flashcards
What was the background of the Reicher and Haslam study?
To raise some issues set out by Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. He raised that his prison experiment demonstrated that situations can create terror and he concluded guards aggression was an adoption of the role. Reicher and Haslam disagree saying it was the instructions given to them, and individual differences also affect the behaviour.
What is social identity theory?
People don’t act a role given to them, it depends on how much we internalise he membership of a group and of ourselves. Permeability, Legitimacy of inequalities, Cognitive alternatives.
What are the aims of Reicher and Haslam?
Create an institution to investigate behaviour of groups that were unequal in power, status and resources
1) evidence of interactions between groups of equal and unequal power
2) to investigate if dominant group members will identify their groups from the start and impose power
3) to investigate if subordinate groups will identify collectively and challenge intergroup inequalities.
4) tomes sure the social, organisational, and clinical effects of the study on participants
5) to develop practices, and ethical framework for examining social psychological issues in large scale studies
What is the method of Reicher and Haslams study?
An experimental case study, as a detailed study and experiment as number of IVS
How many participants are in Reicher and Haslam and how were they recruited?
15 males (normal, decent, well adjusted)divided into 5 guards and 10 prisoners - recruited via advert.
Psychometric tests, weekend assessment by psychologists, medical and character references are obtained with police records
What was the procedure of Reicher and Haslam?
10 days a heirachal society. Prisoners allocated 3-person cells, videoed and recorded wherever they are with daily psychometric tests. Saliva taken daily to measure cortisol levels.
Guards were invited to a hotel and told they would be guards, to run prison smoothly and assure prisoners do their tasks. Guards given no guidance as to how to achieve goals. No physical violence. Guards were taken to prison in a blacked out van,they were given a full briefing by experimenters on layout and resources. Keys to all doors, resources and ability to put prisoners on a bread water diet. Changed into their uniforms and practiced the procedure for admitting the guards.
Heads were shaved of prisoners, uniform on of shirt with 3 digit number, sandals and trousers. Participants were led to believe movement between groups was possible, 1 was promoted then all was fixed. (Permability) after 6 days they were told there was no differences between guards and prisoners. (Legit) a new prisoner was introduced, cognitive alternatives- social relations could be reconstruct in order to bring about social change.
What are the results in Reicher and Haslam?
Rejecting inequality: first phase both prisoners and guards acted individually to get promoted. After promotion day they identified as a group. Psychometric tests showed they started with higher scores of social identification this reduced whereas prisoners increased after promo day.
Embracing inequality: new guildlines with strict rules and punishments, the study had to terminate on day 8 as breached ethical guildlines. Psychometric tests showed beliefs in right wing authoritarianism increased throughout the study.
(1+2) the guards didn’t behave as accepted and didn’t identify a group most guards didn’t identify their identity. Some felt uncomfortable in the role and shared resources. The prisoners still lacked group identity so guards could manage them.
(3+4) prisoner got promoted and they began to act together. They teased the guards, humiliated them and challenged authority.
(7+8) study was stopped on day8 as on a gridlock, guards would have force to impose regime but that would breach guidelines.
What are the conclusions of Reicher and Haslam?
Tyranny occurs with power vacuum with a sense of authority and disposition all affect authoritarian
Tyranny is response to uncertainy
Least capable with dealing with authority.
