Lecture 8 - Social Influence and Tyranny Flashcards
Who investigated the Stanford Prison Experiment
Haney Banks and Zimbardo 1973
What was the purpose of the Stanford Prison Experiment Haney Banks and Zimbardo 1973
Aftermath WW2 - understand extremes behaviour
Started ethical debate
Look at controlled lab experiment
What did the SPE end
Ended series post war studies
Moving minimal group paradigms
Move away from personality
Shift from individual to group behaviour
What is the modern day relevance of Stanford Prison Experiment
Abuse of Iraqi pows by GIS probed 2004
American forces violated Iraqi prisoners of war
Beating, humiliating prisoners. Encouraged get uncooperative prisoners speak
What does Zimbardo, Massachusetts and Haney 2007 say about the move from the focus on personality
Understand evil that good people readily do other good people within context of socially approved roles, rules and norms
How were participants were recruited for the Stanford Prison Experiment
UG students volunteered 2 week study
Respond adverts
Paid $15 a week
How were participants assigned to roles in Stanford Prison Experiment
Randomly assigned
Prisoners = 12 Guards = 12
Where was the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted
Basement of Stanford University Psychology department California
Mock Prison - bars on windows, reduced exists, cleaners cupboard became solitary confinement
Outline the orientation for guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment
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 did ppts get to the Prison in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Arrested at their residence made wear prison issued uniforms Placed cells Limited freedom Basic human rights taken away Refer to each other by number
What was the guards role
Uniforms including sunglasses
Referred to as Mr Correctional Officer
Keep behaviours in line
Power over prisoners control resources give rewards and punishment
How did prisoners originally react to guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Reacted, rallied against and asked Zimbardo help regulate officers behaviours
What was the result of the initial rallying against guards by prisoners in the Stanford Prison Experiment
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
Did Zimbardo intervene after initial conflict between prisoners and officers in the Stanford Prison Experiment
No
Watched confrontation and attempts restore law and order
Line between experiment and reality became blurred
Did Zimbardo persuade ppts to stay in his Stanford Prison Experiment
Yes
Reminded them of compensation
Talked parents out of removing their son
How does Zimbardo believe he acted in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Evil person administrator not the good hearted professor like to think I am
After how long was the Stanford Prison Experiment abandoned
6 days
Instead of 2 weeks
What was critical in the ending of the Stanford Prison Experiment
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 did Zimbardo reflect on the Stanford Prison Experiment
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
Were prisoners and guards psychologically different in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Administered number psychological tests
NOT psychologically different
Terms of aggression, authoritarianism, or from general population norms
What is the power of the situation demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Permits abusive or aggressive actions
Take away from responsibility
Deindividuated increased Whatever behaviour group going
Single lesson = situation matters
What is the power of Roles in the Stanford Prison Experiment
Prisoners weren’t supported became withdrawn zombie like
Role being reduced responsibilities - even without authority figure
Not reflective of identity
Separate role related actions
Outline Zimbardos own role transformation
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 was deindividuation given rise to in the Stanford Prison Experiment
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
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
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
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
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
What is the general criticism of the impact of crowds for ZimbardosStanford Prison Experiment
In crowd we lose individuality
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
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
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
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
Who conducted a BB replication of Zimbardos Stanford Prison Experiment
Haslam and Reicher 2006
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
What issue did Haslam and Reicher 2006 raise with Tyranny
Tyrannical social order becomes attractive groups ineffective their functioning
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
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
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
What are the 2 reasons presented for why collective action occurs
- Permeability of category boundaries
2. Security intergroup relations: perceived legitimacy and stability inequality, availability cognitive alternatives
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
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
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
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
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
What is the FIRST aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
- Provide comprehensive and systematic data interactions between groups unequal power and privilege
What is the SECOND aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
- Analyse conditions under which people:
- define themselves as ascribed group members and act in line with group identities
- accept or challenge intergroup inequalities
What is the THIRD aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
- Examine social organisation and clinical factors
What is the FOURTH aim of Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
- Develop protocols for practical and ethical framework
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
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
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
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
What were the 3 planned interventions for Haslam and Reicher 2006 study
Permeability
Legitimacy
Cognitive alternatives
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
How was Phase 2 embracing Inequality set up
Institution single self governing commune
Drew up terms operation, own rules and take away anything unequal
What relationships were formed in Phase 2
Guards and prisoners formed strong and positive affective ties
-> re categorised part common group
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ?
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?
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
Outline the criticism of Haslam and Reichers study: reality of inequality and power
Failure guards exert authority due to dis-Identification
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
