Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Social > Lecture 8 - Social Influence and Tyranny > Flashcards

Lecture 8 - Social Influence and Tyranny Flashcards

1
Q

Who investigated the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Haney Banks and Zimbardo 1973

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment Haney Banks and Zimbardo 1973

A

Aftermath WW2 - understand extremes behaviour

Started ethical debate

Look at controlled lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What did the SPE end

A

Ended series post war studies

Moving minimal group paradigms

Move away from personality

Shift from individual to group behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the modern day relevance of Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Abuse of Iraqi pows by GIS probed 2004

American forces violated Iraqi prisoners of war

Beating, humiliating prisoners. Encouraged get uncooperative prisoners speak

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What does Zimbardo, Massachusetts and Haney 2007 say about the move from the focus on personality

A

Understand evil that good people readily do other good people within context of socially approved roles, rules and norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How were participants were recruited for the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

UG students volunteered 2 week study

Respond adverts

Paid $15 a week

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How were participants assigned to roles in Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Randomly assigned

Prisoners = 12 
Guards = 12
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Where was the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted

A

Basement of Stanford University Psychology department California

Mock Prison - bars on windows, reduced exists, cleaners cupboard became solitary confinement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Outline the orientation for guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Controlling prisoners without physical force
Create fear sense lack freedom

Feel as though they were in prison, never mention it’s a study

Take away their individuality
Call them by numbers

Sense powerlessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How did ppts get to the Prison in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A 
Arrested at their residence made wear prison issued uniforms 
Placed cells 
Limited freedom 
Basic human rights taken away 
Refer to each other by number
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the guards role

A

Uniforms including sunglasses

Referred to as Mr Correctional Officer

Keep behaviours in line
Power over prisoners control resources give rewards and punishment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How did prisoners originally react to guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Reacted, rallied against and asked Zimbardo help regulate officers behaviours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the result of the initial rallying against guards by prisoners in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Reversed impact

Guards intensified, rallies against leaders and rebellious prisoners locking them in confinement

Waking them up in middle night
Feeding food ones their food

Displayed cruelty, demands more arbitrary. Divide and rule tactics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Did Zimbardo intervene after initial conflict between prisoners and officers in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

No

Watched confrontation and attempts restore law and order

Line between experiment and reality became blurred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Did Zimbardo persuade ppts to stay in his Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Yes

Reminded them of compensation
Talked parents out of removing their son

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How does Zimbardo believe he acted in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Evil person administrator not the good hearted professor like to think I am

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

After how long was the Stanford Prison Experiment abandoned

A

6 days

Instead of 2 weeks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was critical in the ending of the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Reaction fellow researchers

Researcher cam up who hadn’t been there from start and saw what was going on

Told Zimbardo had to stop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How did Zimbardo reflect on the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

He and others had

Internalised set destructive prison values that distances them from their own humanitarian values

Adopted roles forgot wasn’t reality
Triggers collective action leads mass action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Were prisoners and guards psychologically different in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Administered number psychological tests
NOT psychologically different

Terms of aggression, authoritarianism, or from general population norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is the power of the situation demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Permits abusive or aggressive actions
Take away from responsibility
Deindividuated increased Whatever behaviour group going

Single lesson = situation matters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the power of Roles in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Prisoners weren’t supported became withdrawn zombie like

Role being reduced responsibilities - even without authority figure
Not reflective of identity
Separate role related actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Outline Zimbardos own role transformation

A

From compassionate teacher to data focused researcher to callous Prison

Improper bizarre things

Fully adopting role made prison work

Failed appreciate need terminate experimenter soon 2nd prisoner went over edge - Lucifer Effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

How was deindividuation given rise to in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

External situation anonymity rise inner psychological state deindividuation
Guards depersonalised = sunglasses
Tyranny embedded powerful group
Group people social roles create group norms members comply = emergent norm theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Outline Dehumanisation in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Treatment prisoners less than human Abuse more easily justified Destructive consequences Facilitates abusive and destructive actions towards those objectified
26
Outline the role of The System in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Creates, legitimises and sustains roles, anonymity and dehumanisation Seek validation means ideology or views of world Not enact behaviour directly but brings it about = embrace time Situation important shaping behaviour but situation shaped by system
27
Outline Reicher and Haslam 2006 criticisms of Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment
Findings difficult verify - not all recorded, fewer publicly available Data observation - not controlled measurement behaviour Ppts behaviour due to acceptance of role or leadership? Experimental bias? Evidence resistance by prisoners and some guards not tyrannically - both largely ignored
28
Outline the general criticism of Zimbardos briefing in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Zimbardos leadership may have been influential briefing guards Gave them license behave tyrannically Taking away from freedom of action
29
What is the general criticism of the impact of crowds for ZimbardosStanford Prison Experiment
In crowd we lose individuality
30
Outline general question does anonymity always lead to deindividuation and Tyranny? As a criticism of the Stanford Prison Experiment
Depend on situational cues Ppts in dark - anonymity show compassionate approach
31
How is behaviour from group members best understood in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Best understood by changed from personal to social identity | Product how well identify group and what group allows
32
Outline criticism of role consistent behaviour in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Role consistent behaviour be reframed as identity consistent behaviour and not all groups allow tyrannical behaviour
33
Outline criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment by Banuazizi and Movahedi 1975
Questions how realistic environment was Different real prison: know haven’t committed crime leave any time Walls prison remind prisoners different outsiders whereas ppts believe they are good people taking part in prestigious research
34
Who conducted a BB replication of Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment
Haslam and Reicher 2006
35
What is the shift in perspective taken by Haslam and Reicher 2006
Shift away from focus individual characteristics towards nature group processes Endorse group level tyranny - unequal social system involving arbitrary or oppressive use power by one group or its agents over another
36
What issue did Haslam and Reicher 2006 raise with Tyranny
Tyrannical social order becomes attractive groups ineffective their functioning
37
Outline the new definition of Tyranny being taken by Haslam and Reicher 2006
Unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use power by one group or its agents over another
38
What do Haslam and Reicher 2006 highlight to focus on
Conditions under which people do or do not assume roles Balance between tyranny and resistance Role account: people act automatically terms group membership/roles ascribed
39
What are the initial hesitancies for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Whether they assume tyranny depend whether internalise membership part of self concept - social Identity Approach Self categorisation/social identification basis group behaviour acceptance norms - depends how much want be part group Function status - differentiation high and low status. Minorities feel positive group membership
40
What are the 2 reasons presented for why collective action occurs
1. Permeability of category boundaries | 2. Security intergroup relations: perceived legitimacy and stability inequality, availability cognitive alternatives
41
Outline Permeability of category boundaries explanation for collective action Haslam and Reicher 2006
Belief about ones ability advance through social systems despite group membership Move one group to another If can’t move - impermeable - 2nd factor comes into play
42
Outline security of intergroup relations explanation for collective action Haslam and Reicher 2006
Perceived legitimacy (fairness) and stability inequality, availability cognitive alternatives If no justification power, cognitive alternatives creates collective action
43
What occurs when there are permeable group boundaries in social Identity approach to collective action according to Haslam and Reicher 2006
``` Individual mobility Attempt join high status group Individual avoidance Accepts outgroup superiority Low collective action ```
44
What is the route with impermeable group boundaries to LOW collective action according to Haslam and Reicher 2006
Secure real action and social creativity. Change meaning identity, comparisons groups or comparison dimness. Individual or collective denial. Redefined but avoids directly challenging out groups superiority Low collective action
45
What is the route with impermeable group boundaries to HIGH collective action according to Haslam and Reicher 2006
Insecure relations and social competition Engage in conflict open hostility and antagonism Collective resistance Directly challenges out groups superiority High collective action
46
What is the FIRST aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
1. Provide comprehensive and systematic data interactions between groups unequal power and privilege
47
What is the SECOND aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
2. Analyse conditions under which people: - define themselves as ascribed group members and act in line with group identities - accept or challenge intergroup inequalities
48
What is the THIRD aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
3. Examine social organisation and clinical factors
49
What is the FOURTH aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
4. Develop protocols for practical and ethical framework
50
What was the participant sample for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Selection based psychometric tests 15 men from 332 initial applicants Screened heavily aggression social dominance authoritarianism and recorded diversity 10 days 5 guards and 9+1 prisoners matched key dimensions Equally likely be guard and prisoner
51
What were the data sources of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
daily psychometric and physiological tests Social organisational and clinical variables Cortisol levels as stress indicators Video and audio recordings qualitative analysis - everywhere
52
What was the set up for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Limited guidance given Ensure institution run smoothly Draw up own set rules - non-violence and basic rights Control and power over resources and punishment Better conditions
53
What was the set up for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Uniform 3 digit number Hair shaved on arrival List prisoners rights on cell wall - see very clearly if being violated
54
What were the 3 planned interventions for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Permeability Legitimacy Cognitive alternatives
55
Outline the planned intervention of Permeability of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Guards told selected basis reliability and initiative but some prisoners miss assigned Observe ppts see who better guard - permeability move roles Provision for promotion day 3 - closed boundaries became impermeable
56
Outline the planned intervention of Legitimacy of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
3 days after permeability promotion ppts informed no difference between prisoners and guards Division no longer legitimate Not moving anyone else - assignments seem unfair
57
Outline the planned intervention of cognitive alternatives in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
10th prisoner added on day 5 Experience trad union official as extra prisoner Given progression and skills negotiation situation seem unfair propose how make changes
58
What occurred in Phase 1 of Social Identification for Prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Dissatisfaction inferior conditions Initially individual display qualities promotion no shares identity as all try move higher status After promotion development social identities and consensual norms try resist unfair situation Discussion changing system
59
What shifts occur in Phase 1 Social Identification in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Shift from individual action and identification to collective action and group identification What WE will do Shift from compliance to conflict with guards
60
What occurred in Phase 1 Social Identification for Guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Wary exert authority no development identity and consensus of rules and priorities Group weren’t working well together no collective identity Difficult allow prison run and function appropriately
61
What are the results from the initial Phase 1 Social Identification of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Questionnaire support observational data Interaction between group and time Prisoners social identification group increases over time - peaks day 3 Social identification guards decrease over time
62
Outline Phase 1: Security of intergroup relations for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
After promotion normative consensus led effective organisation and mutual social support Emergence cognitive alternatives and growing confidence ability achieve change
63
Outline Phase 1: Security of intergroup relations for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Inability agree norms -> not trust each other Ineffective group Happened naturally Collective identity strong Undermined perceived legitimacy and inter group inequality Growing realisation system open to change
64
Outline Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Ppts perceptions regardless guards or prisoners awareness cognitive alternatives increases over time Recognition not working and don’t have control situation
65
Outline Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Shared social identity defined opposition guards Work actively against regime minor/overt challenges Collective protest After promotion more reluctant comply
66
Outline Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Compliance rules not vary over time | Neither did willingness engage citizenship behaviours (supporting regime)
67
Outline Phase 1: RESULTS Acceptance and Compliance in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Compliance same rate day 1-3 Day 5 prisoners compliance dropped/halved No change in guards Organisation citizenship (willingness share tasks to maintain social order) decreases prisoners after day 2 and particularly day 5 No change in guards
68
Outline Phase 1: Collective self efficacy and mental health in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Efficacy - how well Group felt could handle pressures goals Measured depression
69
Outline Phase 1: Collective self efficacy and mental health for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Progressively more dominant, extreme and successful in their efforts through planning and mutual support Effectiveness in pursuit joint goals led positive affect
70
Outline Phase 1: Collective self efficacy and mental health for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Initially greater sense self efficacy Attempts impose authority increasingly unsuccessful more divided Mutually recriminatory Inability to act collectively led despondency
71
Outline Phase 1: RESULTS Collective self efficacy in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Collective self efficacy - prisoners increasing peak day 4. More confident groups ability Guards decreasing over time - not significant not seeing changes guards self report
72
Outline Phase 1: RESULTS Mental health in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Depression decreased over time for prisoners - increased over time for guards But overall remains very low both guards and prisoners
73
What occurred at day 7 in Haslam and Reichers 2006 study
Day 7 marks end experiment Clear no longer going to function Guards not effective prisoners more resistant Ppts didn’t want Experiment to end
74
How was Phase 2 embracing Inequality set up
Institution single self governing commune | Drew up terms operation, own rules and take away anything unequal
75
What relationships were formed in Phase 2
Guards and prisoners formed strong and positive affective ties -> re categorised part common group
76
How did Phase 1 affect Phase 2
``` Some felt marginalised - activate rebellious leaders in initial experiment Failed contribute common good Violated communal roles Plotted destroy commune Resist social commune ```
77
How does Phase 2 of Haslam and Reichers study become more authoritarian
Commune not developed procedures dealing dissidence no means responding to threats social order More authoritarian - harsher and extreme Passive do not challenge new regimes
78
Outline the results for the initial phase 2
Cortisol levels measured daily Higher cortisol levels = more stressed Over time and by day 6 increase in stress and cortisol levels where regime failing
79
Outline Phase 2 Embracing Inequality in Haslam and Reichers 2006 study
Emergent crisis exploited by opponents commune Introduced plans new hierarchy/authoritarian regime Commune supporters despondent and passive Less opposed strong social order which someone else assumed responsibility for system Demonstrated by changes in authoritarianism
80
What were the results for Phase 2 Embracing Inequality
Self reported levels authoritarianism Those who categorise guards end experiment where harsher regimes their authoritarianism increases over time Doesn’t change for prisoners
81
Why did Haslam and Reichers 2006 Experiment end after 7 days
Existing system not working Weakening resistance to idea of new regime Force be needed to impose regime but prohibited due to ethics
82
What were the overall conclusions of Haslam and Reichers 2006 study
Contrary SPE do not automatically assume roles given in group context Consistent with social Identity approach
83
Why was Haslam and Reichers 2006 study seen consistent with the social Identity approach
Impermeable boundaries led to social identification with group Insecure intergroup relations led to collective action
84
What can’t the social Identity approach fully account for in Haslam and Reichers 2006 study
Guards behaviour (positive status in prison context) But fear of negative evaluation by future audiences Guards more weary treating and disciplining prisoners
85
What were Haslam and Reichers 2006 overall findings for their study
System Inequality was imposed Initially almost all rejected but towards end one instituting more tyrannical social order Groups basis social identity but when breaks down in social situation become confused and embrace harsher authoritarian norms as they impose structure
86
Why is the role of a TV a critique of Haslam and Reichers study
Continuously self monitor Aware being observed Fake behaviour BUT: impossible fake psychometric and physiological data ?
87
Outline the criticism of the role of Personality on Haslam and Reichers study
Matched groups key individual difference variables | Did counterbalancing work - did more powerful people become guards?
88
Outline the counter argument to the critique of the role of personality in Haslam and Reichers study
Character changed over time and individual differences more apparent at the end as consequence failure and success Refer increase in authoritarian graphs prove counterbalancing did work
89
Outline the criticism of Haslam and Reichers study: reality of inequality and power
Failure guards exert authority due to dis-Identification
90
Summarise the two studies on social influence
SPE oversimplified - do not automatically assume roles in group Group behaviour depends norms associated social identity and how strongly identify with groups Breakdown groups lead powerlessness and acceptance tyranny Extreme behaviour more likely occur within groups who’s norms permit it and when members actions not publicly visible

Social (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions