Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

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
Q

Outline Dehumanisation in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Treatment prisoners less than human
Abuse more easily justified
Destructive consequences
Facilitates abusive and destructive actions towards those objectified

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Outline the role of The System in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Outline Reicher and Haslam 2006 criticisms of Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Outline the general criticism of Zimbardos briefing in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Zimbardos leadership may have been influential briefing guards

Gave them license behave tyrannically

Taking away from freedom of action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is the general criticism of the impact of crowds for ZimbardosStanford Prison Experiment

A

In crowd we lose individuality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Outline general question does anonymity always lead to deindividuation and Tyranny? As a criticism of the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Depend on situational cues

Ppts in dark - anonymity show compassionate approach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

How is behaviour from group members best understood in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Best understood by changed from personal to social identity

Product how well identify group and what group allows

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Outline criticism of role consistent behaviour in the Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Role consistent behaviour be reframed as identity consistent behaviour and not all groups allow tyrannical behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Outline criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment by Banuazizi and Movahedi 1975

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Who conducted a BB replication of Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment

A

Haslam and Reicher 2006

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What is the shift in perspective taken by Haslam and Reicher 2006

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What issue did Haslam and Reicher 2006 raise with Tyranny

A

Tyrannical social order becomes attractive groups ineffective their functioning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Outline the new definition of Tyranny being taken by Haslam and Reicher 2006

A

Unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use power by one group or its agents over another

38
Q

What do Haslam and Reicher 2006 highlight to focus on

A

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
Q

What are the initial hesitancies for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

What are the 2 reasons presented for why collective action occurs

A
  1. Permeability of category boundaries

2. Security intergroup relations: perceived legitimacy and stability inequality, availability cognitive alternatives

41
Q

Outline Permeability of category boundaries explanation for collective action Haslam and Reicher 2006

A

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
Q

Outline security of intergroup relations explanation for collective action Haslam and Reicher 2006

A

Perceived legitimacy (fairness) and stability inequality, availability cognitive alternatives

If no justification power, cognitive alternatives creates collective action

43
Q

What occurs when there are permeable group boundaries in social Identity approach to collective action according to Haslam and Reicher 2006

A 
Individual mobility 
Attempt join high status group
Individual avoidance
Accepts outgroup superiority 
Low collective action
44
Q

What is the route with impermeable group boundaries to LOW collective action according to Haslam and Reicher 2006

A

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
Q

What is the route with impermeable group boundaries to HIGH collective action according to Haslam and Reicher 2006

A

Insecure relations and social competition

Engage in conflict open hostility and antagonism

Collective resistance

Directly challenges out groups superiority

High collective action

46
Q

What is the FIRST aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A
  1. Provide comprehensive and systematic data interactions between groups unequal power and privilege
47
Q

What is the SECOND aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A
  1. Analyse conditions under which people:
    - define themselves as ascribed group members and act in line with group identities
    - accept or challenge intergroup inequalities
48
Q

What is the THIRD aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A
  1. Examine social organisation and clinical factors
49
Q

What is the FOURTH aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A
  1. Develop protocols for practical and ethical framework
50
Q

What was the participant sample for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

What were the data sources of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

daily psychometric and physiological tests
Social organisational and clinical variables
Cortisol levels as stress indicators
Video and audio recordings qualitative analysis - everywhere

52
Q

What was the set up for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

What was the set up for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Uniform
3 digit number
Hair shaved on arrival
List prisoners rights on cell wall - see very clearly if being violated

54
Q

What were the 3 planned interventions for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Permeability

Legitimacy

Cognitive alternatives

55
Q

Outline the planned intervention of Permeability of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

Outline the planned intervention of Legitimacy of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

Outline the planned intervention of cognitive alternatives in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

What occurred in Phase 1 of Social Identification for Prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

What shifts occur in Phase 1 Social Identification in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Shift from individual action and identification to collective action and group identification

What WE will do

Shift from compliance to conflict with guards

60
Q

What occurred in Phase 1 Social Identification for Guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

What are the results from the initial Phase 1 Social Identification of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

Outline Phase 1: Security of intergroup relations for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

After promotion normative consensus led effective organisation and mutual social support

Emergence cognitive alternatives and growing confidence ability achieve change

63
Q

Outline Phase 1: Security of intergroup relations for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

Outline Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Ppts perceptions regardless guards or prisoners awareness cognitive alternatives increases over time

Recognition not working and don’t have control situation

65
Q

Outline Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Shared social identity defined opposition guards
Work actively against regime minor/overt challenges
Collective protest
After promotion more reluctant comply

66
Q

Outline Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Compliance rules not vary over time

Neither did willingness engage citizenship behaviours (supporting regime)

67
Q

Outline Phase 1: RESULTS Acceptance and Compliance in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

Outline Phase 1: Collective self efficacy and mental health in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Efficacy - how well Group felt could handle pressures goals

Measured depression

69
Q

Outline Phase 1: Collective self efficacy and mental health for prisoners in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Progressively more dominant, extreme and successful in their efforts through planning and mutual support
Effectiveness in pursuit joint goals led positive affect

70
Q

Outline Phase 1: Collective self efficacy and mental health for guards in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Initially greater sense self efficacy

Attempts impose authority increasingly unsuccessful more divided
Mutually recriminatory
Inability to act collectively led despondency

71
Q

Outline Phase 1: RESULTS Collective self efficacy in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

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
Q

Outline Phase 1: RESULTS Mental health in Haslam and Reicher 2006 study

A

Depression decreased over time for prisoners - increased over time for guards
But overall remains very low both guards and prisoners

73
Q

What occurred at day 7 in Haslam and Reichers 2006 study

A

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
Q

How was Phase 2 embracing Inequality set up

A

Institution single self governing commune

Drew up terms operation, own rules and take away anything unequal

75
Q

What relationships were formed in Phase 2

A

Guards and prisoners formed strong and positive affective ties
-> re categorised part common group

76
Q

How did Phase 1 affect Phase 2

A 
Some felt marginalised - activate rebellious leaders in initial experiment 
Failed contribute common good 
Violated communal roles 
Plotted destroy commune 
Resist social commune
77
Q

How does Phase 2 of Haslam and Reichers study become more authoritarian

A

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
Q

Outline the results for the initial phase 2

A

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
Q

Outline Phase 2 Embracing Inequality in Haslam and Reichers 2006 study

A

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
Q

What were the results for Phase 2 Embracing Inequality

A

Self reported levels authoritarianism
Those who categorise guards end experiment where harsher regimes their authoritarianism increases over time
Doesn’t change for prisoners

81
Q

Why did Haslam and Reichers 2006 Experiment end after 7 days

A

Existing system not working
Weakening resistance to idea of new regime
Force be needed to impose regime but prohibited due to ethics

82
Q

What were the overall conclusions of Haslam and Reichers 2006 study

A

Contrary SPE do not automatically assume roles given in group context

Consistent with social Identity approach

83
Q

Why was Haslam and Reichers 2006 study seen consistent with the social Identity approach

A

Impermeable boundaries led to social identification with group

Insecure intergroup relations led to collective action

84
Q

What can’t the social Identity approach fully account for in Haslam and Reichers 2006 study

A

Guards behaviour (positive status in prison context)
But fear of negative evaluation by future audiences
Guards more weary treating and disciplining prisoners

85
Q

What were Haslam and Reichers 2006 overall findings for their study

A

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
Q

Why is the role of a TV a critique of Haslam and Reichers study

A

Continuously self monitor
Aware being observed
Fake behaviour

BUT: impossible fake psychometric and physiological data ?

87
Q

Outline the criticism of the role of Personality on Haslam and Reichers study

A

Matched groups key individual difference variables

Did counterbalancing work - did more powerful people become guards?

88
Q

Outline the counter argument to the critique of the role of personality in Haslam and Reichers study

A

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
Q

Outline the criticism of Haslam and Reichers study: reality of inequality and power

A

Failure guards exert authority due to dis-Identification

90
Q

Summarise the two studies on social influence

A

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.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions