Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Social > Social Influence And Tyranny > Flashcards

Social Influence And Tyranny Flashcards

1
Q

Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

Zimbardo, Maslach & Haney 2007

A

Understand “the evil that good people can readily do to other good people within context of socially approved roles, rules and norms”
A shift from measurement of individual behaviour to group behaviour.
•UG students volunteered to participate in the 2-week study
•Randomly assigned to roles of prisoners (N=12) and guards (N=12)
•Entire basement of Stanford University Psychology Department in California used to setup a ‘mock’ prison

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

•Orientation day for guards:

A

–without using physical force
–Could not use torture
create fear and a sense of lack of freedom
“…make them feel as though they were in prison; we should never mention this as a study or experiment… Take away their individuality… At no time call them by name; they will have numbers assigned…create in them a sense of powerlessness.”

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

Experiment Procedure

A

•Prisoners were ‘arrested’ at their residences, made to wear prison issue uniforms (‘dresses’), placed in cells, limited freedom to exercise, interact
•Guards in uniforms including sunglasses, to be
referred to as ‘Mr Correctional Officer’
•Prisoners refer to each other by ‘number, and number only!’
•Must obey the guards’ rules, and failure to do so ‘may result in punishment’

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

Guards given power over prisoners

A

–control of resources (e.g. toilet)

–give rewards and punishment

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

•Guards began to display cruelty towards prisoners

A

–demands became more arbitrary
–locked in solitary confinement (small cupboard)
–‘divide and rule’ tactics
–manhandled, handcuffed, dragged…

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

Line between experimental simulation/role playing and reality became blurred

A

–Zimbardo decided ‘not to intervene at this point but to watch the confrontation and the attempts to restore law and order’
–persuaded prisoners to stay on by reminding them about compensation
–talked parents out of having their son removed from the study despite ill-health
‘I had acted like an evil prison administrator, not the good-hearted professor I like to think I am’

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

Brutality of the ‘guards’ and suffering of the prisoners resulted in

A

the experiment being abandoned after only 6 days (scheduled for 2 weeks)

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

Crucial was reaction of fellow researchers

A

‘… feeling sick to my stomach by the sight of these sad boys so totally dehumanised’

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

Zimbardo reflected that he and others had

A

internalised a set of destructive prison values that distances them from their own humanitarian values’ (2007, p.171)

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

•Administered number of psychological tests:

A

prisoners and guards not psychologically different to each other or from general population norms.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Situations that permit abusive or aggressive actions …

A

engender dangerous behaviour.

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

When people are deindividuated…

A

increases whatever behaviour the group are doing (good or bad).
‘The primary single lesson of the SPE is that situation matters’

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

Roles emerge as a key factor

A
  • Power of roles operated on both, guards and prisoners
  • Role itself can bring about reduced responsibility
  • e.g. even without authority figure (c.f. Milgram)
  • Separate role-related actions from sense of self
  • Morals and ethics of everyday self do not need to be relevant to or interfere with functioning in highly specific, separate role.
  • Think about Zimbardo’s own transformation during the SPE!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Zimbardo’s own role transformation

A

The Lucifer Effect - Zimbardo
my role transformation from usually compassionate teacher to data-focused researcher to callous prison superintendent was most distressing… I did improper or bizarre things in that new, strange role. I so fully adopted that role it made the prison “work” as well as it did. However, by adopting that role, with its focus on the security and maintenance of “my prison,” I failed to appreciate the need to terminate the experiment as soon as the the second prisoner went over the edge.

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

External situation of anonymity gave rise to

A

inner psychological state of deindividuation

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

Guards were depersonalised in the group and their ‘role

A

losing their individuality

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

tyranny is embedded in the psychology of …

A

Powerful groups

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

Dehuminisation

A
  • Treatment as if prisoners were less than human
  • abuse more easily justified
  • Restraints of harming another human being reduced
  • Destructive consequences of conceptualising the other as an object or non-human creature

•‘Dehuminisation typically facilitates abusive and destructive actions towards those so objectified’
(2007, p.223)

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

The System

A
  • creates, legitimises and sustains roles, anonymity and dehuminisation
  • seeks validation by means of ideology or views of the world
  • does not enact the behaviour directly but brings it about
  • The situation is important for shaping behaviour, BUT, the situation is shaped by the system!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Criticisms of the SPE

Reicher & Haslam (2006):

A
  • (a) Findings difficult to verify – not all the interactions were recorded and even fewer are publicly available.
  • (b) Data was observational – no controlled measurement of behavioural data (e.g., physiological measures)
  • (c) Was participants’ behaviour due to their acceptance of their role or the leadership given by the experimenters?
  • (d) Evidence of resistance by prisoners, and that some guards did not act tyrannically has been largely ignored.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Zimbardo’s leadership may have been influential

A

–briefing the guards gave them some license to behave tyrannically:
“You can create in the Prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they’ll have no privacy…They have no freedom of action they can do nothing, say nothing that we don’t permit. We’re going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what this all leads to is a sense of powerlessness” (Zimbardo, 1989)

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

Researchers have questioned whether anonymity always leads to deindividuation and tyranny.

A

•Some have shown it depends on the situational cues (Gergen, 1973; Johnson & Downing, 1973).

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

Brown, 2000)

A

Behaviour from group members best understood by change from personal to social-identity
Role-consistent behaviour can 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
24
Q

Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975):

A
  • Questions about how realistic the environment was
  • SPE different from a real prison: participants know they have committed no crime, can leave any time etc.
  • ‘Walls of prison’ remind prisoners that they are different from outsiders (“decent people”) whereas participants believe they are “good” people taking part in prestigious research.
25
Q

‘THE EXPERIMENT’:

THE BBC PRISON STUDY

A

Haslam, A. & Reicher, S. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1-40.

26
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:

Theoretical Issues

A
  • Shift away from focus on individual characteristics towards nature of group processes as explanation
  • Endorse group-level psychology of tyranny =
  • an unequal social system involving the arbitrary or oppressive use of power by one group or its agents over another
  • SPE: guard aggression simply a natural consequence of being in uniform and asserting power inherent to this role
  • BUT: groups per se are not the root of the problem!
  • Tyrannical social order becomes attractive when groups are ineffective in their functioning
27
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
Theoretical Issues
Need to focus on:

A
  1. Conditions under which people do or do not assume roles

2. Balance between tyranny and resistance

28
Q

Role account:

A

people act automatically in terms of group membership (or roles) ascribed
• Whether they do depends on whether they internalize membership as part of self-concept (Turner, 1982)
• Thus, self-categorisation /social identification forms basis of group behaviour and acceptance of norms, values etc.

29
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
Questions & Hypotheses
For subordinate groups, collective action depends on…

A

1.Permeability of category boundaries:
belief about ones ability to advance through the social systems despite group membership
2.Security of intergroup relations:
perceived legitimacy (fairness) and stability of inequality,
availability of cognitive alternatives to the status quo

30
Q

Social Identity Approach: Collective Action

A

Haslam & Reicher (2006

31
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Study Aims:

A

1.Provide comprehensive and systematic data for interactions between groups of unequal power and privilege
2.Analyse conditions under which people:
(i) define themselves as (ascribed) group members and
act in line with group identities, and
(ii) accept or challenge intergroup inequalities
3.Examine social, organizational and clinical factors
4.Develop protocols for practical and ethical framework

32
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Methods
Participant Selection:

A

–based on psychometric tests
–15 men (from 332!) – diversity of age, SES, ethnic backgrounds
–5 guards, 9+1 prisoners matched on key dimensions
–Ethical considerations: careful control over experiment

33
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Data Sources

A

• daily psychometric and physiological tests
–social, organizational and clinical variables
–cortisol levels as stress indicators
–video and audio recordings for qualitative analysis (recorded everywhere! Not like SPE…)

34
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Set-up:

A
  • Guards (limited guidance given):
  • Ensure institution runs as smoothly as possible
  • Draw up own set of ‘rules’ including non-violence/basic rights
  • Control and power over resources and punishment given to ‘guards’ – would they be prepared to use them?
  • Far better conditions than prisoners (snacks, cigarettes) -> inequality!
  • Prisoners:
  • Uniform with 3-digit number
  • Hair shaved on arrival
  • List of prisoner’s rights on cell wall
35
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Planned Interventions
• Manipulation of theoretically relevant variables

A

• Permeability:
oGuards told that they were selected on basis of reliability, trustworthiness and initiative, but possible some prisoners were mis-assigned -> observe behaviour and decide who better off as a guard.
oProvision for promotion from prisoner to guard on day 3
• Legitimacy:
o3 days after promotion, participants were informed that really there are no differences between guards and prisoners. Group division had seemed legitimate, but no longer so!
• Cognitive alternatives:
o10th prisoner on day 5 – experienced trade union official

36
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 1: Social Identification

A

• Prisoners:
–dissatisfaction with inferior conditions
–initially individual display of qualities for promotion, no shared identity, consensus or collective challenge
–after promotion, development of social identity and consensual norms, recognition and discussion of changeability of system
➢Shift from individual action and identification to collective action and group identification “what WE will do”
➢Shift from compliance to conflict with the guards
• Guards:
–Wary to exert authority, no development of identity and consensus about rules and priorities

37
Q

Which day did prisoners have more of a social identification than guards

A

Day 3

38
Q

Prisoners social identification highest day

A

Day 5

39
Q

Guards social identification highest day

A

Day 2

40
Q

Prisoners social identification lowest day

A

Day 1

41
Q

Guards social identification lowest day

A

Day 6

42
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 1: Security of inter-group relations

A
  • Prisoners:
  • After promotion, normative consensus led to effective organisation and mutual social support
  • Emergence of cognitive alternatives & growing confidence in ability to achieve change
  • Guards:
  • Inability to agree on norms/priorities -> could not trust each other, weak, inconsistent, ineffective as a group

➢Undermined perceived legitimacy of regime and inter-group inequality
➢Growing realisation that the system was open to change

43
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:

‘The Experiment’ Results

A

4 item scale:
e.g.,

“I think it would be possible for the prisoners to have more control than the guards”

44
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 1: Acceptance and Compliance

A
  • Prisoners:
  • Shared social identity defined in opposition to guards
  • Started to work actively against the regime (minor/overt challenges, collective protest etc.)
  • After promotion, became more reluctant to comply with rules
  • Guards:
  • Compliance to rules did not vary over time
  • Neither did their willingness to engage in citizenship behaviours (supporting the regime)

➢ Over time, prisoners became much more reluctant to support the guards regime

45
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:

‘The Experiment’ Results

A

Phase 1: Collective self-efficacy and mental health
• Prisoners:
•Became progressively more dominant, extreme and successful in their efforts through planning and mutual support
•Effectiveness in pursuit of joint goals led to positive affect
• Guards:
•Initially, greater sense of self-efficacy
•Attempts to impose authority increasingly unsuccessful, more divided, mutually recriminatory
•Inability to act collectively led to despondency

➢ Over time, prisoner’s sense of self-efficacy increased, and the pattern of mental health reversed in the groups

46
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 2: Embracing inequality

A

• Decided to continue study through the institution of a single self-governing commune
•Drew up terms of operation, initially highly effective
•Former guards and prisoners formed strong and positive affective ties -> recategorised as part of a common group
•Collectively performed tasks with more effort and higher standard
•BUT: some felt marginalised – failed to contribute to common good, violated communal rules, plotted to destroy commune
➢ Commune had not developed procedures for dealing with dissidence so had no means of responding to threats to their social order!

47
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 2: Embracing inequality

A

Participants’ cortisol levels were measured on a daily basis as an indication of stress.
Day 2 - similar stress levels
Day 6 - guards higher stress levels than prisoners

48
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 2: Embracing inequality
• Emergent crisis exploited by opponents of commune

A
  • Introduced plans for new hierarchy/authoritarian regime
  • Commune supporters despondent and passive
  • Less opposed to strong social order in which someone else assumed responsibility for system
  • Demonstrated by changes in authoritarianism…
49
Q

Conclusions of SPE oversimplified

A

people do not automatically assume roles in their group.

50
Q

Group behaviour depends on the

A

norms and values associated with a particular social identity and how strongly a person identifies with that social identity.

51
Q

The breakdown of groups can lead to a

A

powerlessness and the acceptance of tyranny.

52
Q

BUT, extreme behaviour is more likely to occur within

A

groups whose norms permit it and when members’ actions are not publically visible (e.g., treatment of POW in Iraq).

53
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Potential Critiques:

A

1.Role of television and awareness of observation?
•Continuously self-monitor and fake behaviour difficult
•Impossible to fake psychometric and physiological data
2.Role of personality?
•Matched groups on key individual difference variables
•BUT: ‘character’ changed over time and individual differences more apparent at end as consequence of failure/success
3.Reality of inequality & power?
•Failure of guards to exert authority due to dis-identification
4.Impact of interventions & key variables
•Multiple data sources support that manipulation worked

54
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Findings of the experiment:

A
  • System of inequality was imposed
  • Initially almost all rejected this system, but towards end, close to instituting a more tyrannical social order
  • What are the conditions under which people create a system of inequality for themselves?

‘…we suggest that groups are the basis for collective self-realization – that is, the creation of a social order based on shared values and norms …, where groups fail, people will be more inclined to accept the imposition of a social order by others, even where that violates their values and norms.’ (p. 24)

55
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’
Conclusions of the experiment:
•Contrary to SPE, people do not automatically assume roles given to them in group contexts.

A
  • Consistent with the social identity approach:
  • Impermeable boundaries leads to social identification with the group.
  • Insecure intergroup relations lead to collective action.

•But, social identity approach cannot fully account for the guards’ behaviour (e.g., positive status in prison context, but fear of negative evaluation by future audiences).

56
Q

Psychology of Tyranny:
‘The Experiment’ Results
Phase 2: Embracing inequality

A

Phase 2: Embracing inequality
➢Existing system was not working, weakening resistance to the idea of new regime – however…
➢Force would be needed to impose new regime, but prohibited under ethical guidelines
➢Study was terminated as new system could not be imposed

57
Q

•Group of people in ‘social roles’ create…

A

group norms and members comply with them (c.f. emergent norm theory)

58
Q

Emergent norm theory

A

Groups of people in social roles create group norms and members comply with them

59
Q

•Group norms

A

•acceptable beliefs and behaviours in a group (or the group’s role!)

Social (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions