Reicher and Haslam (2006) - Describe and Evaluate

Yo,

Here are the slides for the Reicher and Haslam description - use these if you need to add to your handout. Remember, you only need a brief summary for the three phases (but you will need some method and results). After are some additional evaluation points.

Describe:

Evaluation:

1. The role of television:  Were the participants simply play-acting because of the cameras? If so, why did the participants’ behaviour change at the times predicted e.g. before and after permeability? In any case ‘being watched’ is not such an unusual situation as we are all frequently watched by surveillance cameras.

There may be some evidence that social desirability played a role in changing participant behaviour. However, Reicher and Haslam predicted this, and they knew after which events these behaviours would change. So you could argue being watched lowers the validity (P), the participants were recorded all the time (Ev) and explain 

2. The role of personality: Were the ‘prisoners’ especially strong characters? The fact the participants’ ‘character’ on the relevant dimensions (e.g. authoritarianism) changed over time suggests that personality cannot explain the course of events. In addition, dominance only occurred through shared identity rather than forcefulness of character. Without support, even the strongest personalities failed. This does not suggest that individual differences are not important but that interdependence between individuals and groups is necessary for a group to become dominant.

Here is a good reliability point. Because the participants were put into matched groups (so guards and prisoners had a mix of personalities) and there was a change in their social identity, authoritarian, and compliance data then personality could not be a strong argument.

3. The reality of inequality and power: Did the participants really become engaged with the role play and thus act in a meaningful way? The prisoners expressed dislike of being locked up and being deprived of e.g. cigarettes; the guards’ conversations reflected the seriousness they felt about the role e.g. the disparity between prisoners and guards. All of this points to the engagement with the situation. If the guards were engaged, why didn’t they use their power? The answer is that they chose not to because they did not want to be authoritarian.

Here is a point about validity - the ppts in the prisoner group strongly identified with their role, they behaved like prisoners (so this is valid - 'true to life'). However, because the guards had low social identification they did not use their authority - this is a validity issue because in real prisons, officers use their authority. This may have affected the behaviour that they saw.

This website has a good description and evaluation if you want to go over it.

KOP!