You can probably think of countries or systems where tyranny is often present. The genocide of the Jews in World War II is an example of such tyranny. But how do power dynamics emerge? And more interestingly, can such power dynamics be changed? Psychological research has put a great effort into understanding how tyranny asserts and maintains power in social organisations, such as prisons, schools, and the workplace. Reicher and Haslam's (2006) study is an example of such research.
- This explanation will offer an introduction to how Reicher and Haslam achieved rethinking the psychology of tyranny.
- Reicher and Haslam's (2006) study on tyranny is presented.
- Following this, the findings from Reicher and Haslam's (2006) study are reviewed.
- Then, an evaluation of Reicher and Haslam's (2006) study is offered.
- Finally, a summary of Reicher and Haslam's (2006) study is provided,
Reicher and Haslam: Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny
Although punishment is an essential component of crime prevention, research has shown that punishment must be justified for rehabilitation (to prevent someone from committing a crime again).
Tyranny occurs when a group or actor in power enforces strict rules to maintain that power, usually through an unfair system that actively oppresses those without power.
Tyranny exists in dictatorship countries or in the case of a court sentencing someone to life in prison for committing petty theft. In this hypothetical situation, the court could use that person as an example to prevent others from repeating the same behaviour.
The aim of rethinking the psychology of tyranny study was to identify factors that affected the group dynamics in inferior-superior power relations and investigate if these power relations could be switched. The study attempted to conduct similar research to Zimbardo; however, the research design was adjusted to be ethical.
Reicher and Haslam (2006) Study
First, we will outline the rethinking of the psychology of tyranny: BBC Prison Study(Reicher & Haslam, 2006). Reicher and Haslam's (2006) aim was to test whether if individuals were assigned to power-imbalanced groups, they would accept their roles or not. Would those possessing power exercise such power? Moreover, would the group without power accept such a situation?
The study setting looked somewhat like a prison. It was not intended to replicate a prison setting due to ethical issues but to generate an environment that would create unequal power relations between groups, in this case, between prisoners and correctional officers.
Researchers recruited over 300 individuals. Through screening, this number diminished, and the sample included 15 males. The sample presented a range of ages, social classes and ethnicity. Participants were divided into five groups of three individuals based on personality variables and indicators of tyranny. One person from each group was randomly allocated as a correctional officer and the other two prisoners.
Researchers took a series of daily psychometric tests to measure well-being and stress. In terms of analysis, the variables measured were:
- Social: social identification, awareness of cognitive alternatives and rightwing authoritarianism (RWA).
- Organisational: compliance with rules and organisational citizenship.
- Clinical: self-efficacy and depression.
RWA is a personality trait that suggests people easily conform to rules and acceptable behaviours that authoritative figures determine.
Researchers also took saliva samples (physiological samples) from every participant to measure cortisol levels, which indicate stress.
Procedure
The study had three important milestones that were meant to affect the participants.
Although guards had been told that they were assigned the role due to their unique characteristics, all the participants were told on day one that some misassignment may have taken place and that it was likely that some participants would change groups. In preparation for this, guards were told to observe the prisoners' behaviour closely. The possibility to change groups was part of the experimental design, and on day three, one of the prisoners was promoted to become a guard. After this, all participants were told that group change was no longer an option.
This research stage was characterised by permeability, the idea that groups could change.
To see how legitimacy would impact participants after one participant was promoted, the guards were told that were no criteria to assign participants to the guards or prisoner groups. Due to the impracticality of the change that re-assigning groups involved, guards were told that groups would remain the same.
This research stage was intended to test legitimacy, which refers to the ability to conform to rules.
On day four, a new prisoner was added to the study. The prisoner had experience working in a trade union, and the researchers thought his experience could change the dynamics in prison. The purpose of this participant was to make other prisoners challenge the existing regime by challenging the inequality between prisoners and correctional officers, which increased insecurity.
The purpose of this was to make prisoners think the regime was illegitimate and changeable, which is termed cognitive alternatives.
The study was an experimental case study in a recording study. Researchers recorded all participants’ behaviour and conversations throughout the entire study.
Systems, Rules, and Roles
The researchers instructed the correctional officers to make and maintain rules to keep prisoners in line. However, they had to maintain human rights, and their rules could not include or induce violence. The prisoners were given uniforms and identity numbers (creating a prison environment).
During the phases of the study, the measures were taken almost daily. The correctional officers were better living and food conditions as compared to prisoners. This was done to increase the power-dynamic differences between groups. On the sixth day of the experiment, the guards' regime broke down; they did not show shared social identities.
As a result, prisoners and guards created a new system to equalise power relations. This new system was ineffective as it failed to punish participants when they did not do their tasks or broke the rules. Some of the members wanted to form a new, stricter system. They then proposed a hierarchical system, and the study was stopped because participants thought the experiment was not working.
Fig. 1. Picture of the power imbalance between a prisoner and a guard.
Reicher and Haslam's (2006) Study Findings
The researchers analysed the study’s results in two phases.
Phase 1 Results
Regarding social identification, prisoners were initially dissatisfied with their low conditions. Since, in the beginning, permeability was possible, prisoners aimed to show the qualities needed to be changed into the guardian's group. After permeability was no longer an option, prisoners developed a greater sense of shared social identity. This was evident since prisoners shifted from using "I" to "we". Once they realised they could not become guards, prisoners realised that the only way to change their power situation was to change the system.
Social identification manifested differently in guards. Guards were aware of their power and used it on the first day. However, contrary to researchers' predictions, guards did not feel comfortable with their influential role, and their use of power faded out, especially after the permeable phase.
Cognitive alternatives stayed consistent in guards throughout the study. However, this gradually increased in inmates from day 1 to day 6. This was measured in terms of participants' thoughts about alternative options to the existing regime.
There were several other results as well:
| More Phase 1 Results | Description |
| Compliance with rules | the analysis showed guards’ compliance scores did not significantly differ across the time points. However, prisoners’ compliance scores did reduce substantially. |
| Organisational citizenship | the guards were always more willing to engage in behaviour that supported the regime (rules guards had formed). Throughout the study, prisoners’ likelihood of doing these behaviours decreased. |
| Depression | During the pre-test, the overall mean scores showed higher depression scores in prisoners than in guards. Prisoners' depression scores were significantly reduced throughout the study. However, prison guards depression scores increased throughout the study (although this finding was non-significant). This phase was characterised by rejecting inequality. |
Phase 2 Results
After the initial regimen collapsed, another one formed. The aim was for participants to work towards establishing a single self-governing system. Participants still identified themselves with the previous role they were given. This made it impossible for a new system to be established. At the same time, those guards with higher authoritarian scores wanted to form a new and stricter regime.
Authoritarian scores refer to how much a person favours enforcing strict obedience to an authoritative figure.
By day 8 of the experiment, the strict views of the guards were accepted by the majority of participants. Researchers suggested that this was because participants' RWA scores increased throughout the study.
In this way, the second phase was characterised by participants' acceptance of inequality.
Summary of the Findings
The main result of the study is that social identity is important in maintaining shared norms and values in groups, which in turn, encourages cohesion within the group. Furthermore, the study showed that when these groups fail, tyranny becomes a problem. Based on the results, it seems that people become willing to accept alternative options when a social group cannot provide order or a working, effective system. And this can happen even if individuals initially do not show positive attitudes towards a new structure.
In addition, from this study, it can be concluded that when social structures break down, people supporting democracy are less likely to defend it against tyranny. This, in turn, can be taken as evidence that tyranny is a group process rather than an individualistic one and relies more on a failed group than a cohesive one.
Reicher and Haslam (2006) Evaluation
The strengths of rethinking the psychology of tyranny (Reicher & Haslam, 2006) study include improving on past ethical issues. The study ensured ethical research guidelines in psychology were being followed. This has been breached in previous findings such as Zimbardo. The study was stopped when the researchers thought that the ethical standards could be breached.
The study was not high in ecological validity because it was carried out in an artificial environment. However, the study did not intend to mimic a prison but the unequal power relations in prisons between prisoners and correctional officers.
The weaknesses of rethinking the psychology of tyranny (Reicher & Haslam, 2006) study include demand characteristics. As the participants knew they were being recorded, it may have affected their behaviour. This can reduce the validity of the findings. When participants know that they are being observed, they may act in a socially desirable way, or as they think researchers want them to behave.
Further weaknesses relate to the sample they used. Firstly, the study only included males, which makes the sample lack representativeness and generalisability. Further, given that only 15 participants took part in the study, the statistical analysis lacked power.
Reicher and Haslam (2006) Summary
In sum, Reicher and Haslam (2006) conducted a study to test whether individuals would accept power-imbalanced groups and whether they would exert their power. After creating a prison setting and extensive screening of volunteers, 15 participants took place in the study.
Including the presence of permeability, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives, the study presented a system of rules and roles where tyranny could be investigated.
The study showed that social identity was crucial in maintaining norms and values in a group, which led to cohesion. In the presence of permeability, individuals did not show such social solid identification as they did in the absence of permeability. Last, the results indicated that individuals are more likely to allow tyranny in the absence of a governing system.
Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny - Key takeaways
- Tyranny is where one group or agent in power enforces strict rules to maintain said power, usually through an unfair system that actively oppresses those without power.
- Reicher and Haslam (2006) conducted an experimental case study on 15 males to identify factors that affected whether participants accepted or rejected inequality.
- The study showed that social identity was essential in maintaining norms and values in a group and that tyranny was more likely to take place in the absence of a governing system.
- Including the presence of permeability, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives, the study presented a system of rules and roles where tyranny could be investigated.
- The study showed that social identity was crucial in maintaining norms and values in a group, which led to cohesion. In the presence of permeability, individuals did not show such social solid identification as they did in the absence of permeability. Last, the results indicated that individuals are more likely to allow tyranny in the absence of a governing system.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
