Social Pyschology Part 2 Flashcards
background on Jonestown
november 18,1978 - 914 members of the “people’s temple” commited suicide at the order of their cult leader, self-professed messiah, James Jones
group started out as a church group
Jones used “foot in the door” technique to get people to commit to the group
then he took the group to South America (unfamiliar land)
classic example of power of social influence and mind control techniques…
what were some of Jones techniques?
alienated population in a time of fear
had the “big brother is watching you” technique - would be confronted/punished if they didn’t conform
self incrimination - “tell me all of your fears and mistakes,” would broadcast these if they didn’t conform
suicide drills (foot in the door technique) - got this action integrated into the mind, used koolaid laced with cyanide, told them it was better to kill themselves then having others kill them
distorted perceptions - “thanks for all the food” (although did not get much food) - cognitive dissonence - no resistance when bad things happen
once they joined, they left US and gave money
*cults get people to do extreme things (if not followed, ostracized or killed)
Holocaust
got people to do things they normally wouldn’t do
gradual process - led through propoganda, labels, taking away rights, dehumanization and deindividualization, *language (foot in the door techniques used)
behavior of nazis? deindividuated the jews (less focus on individuals - completely grouped them)
put all jews in same clothes, shaved heads, and treated as one (started out early)
Eichman
entrusted to implement the “final soluation”
master like hitler
through propoganda, he led people on paths to convince them to do what he wanted them to do
My Lai Massacre
background and how people acted under pressure
Hugh Thompson
people in vietnam were under intense pressure - soilders in the jungle were not sure who was enemy and who wasnt
medina gave orders to kill everyone in the town - village was massacred (thought the people were enemies) but everyone was innocent
soldiers listened to orders - calley (charged for the murder of the people) testified that he was ordered to kill everyone in village
Hugh Thomson - helped efforts
does not conform/ obey orders although placed under the pressure to conform - he is a hero but was not rewarded until 30 years after
Iraq
general karpinski
later removed from command
stated that surpervisors told her the people were “dogs” and to “take off kid gloves” - both dehumanizing and prepared the people for more intensive torture
iraq was predictable - given the social context of the situation (dehumanizaiton and roles given)
how does the environment validate behavior?
affects how one behaves in the situation
deindividualization of offenders and victims
dehumanization of victimes
*in these situations, you are not your self (seen as an individual - labels, language, and appearance) and not in normal environment
what are the 4 factors Bandura determined to affect our interaction with people?
- we redefine harmful behavior as honorable
- minimize our personal responsibility
- ignore, distort, minimize negative consequences of our behavior
- reconstruct our perception of the victims as deserving the punishment
ex. dehumanization by appearance and language (they deserve it mentality)
*moral engagement and disengagement
how can we promote moral engagement?
humanization
when you are unable to morally disengage from the situation
countless examples of risking self to save others (sheltering jews, helping others out of twin towers, etc.)
thompson ending the massacre at my lai - people became humanized (rather than a mass of people that were being killed)
what is bystander apathy?
when one stands by and watches something occur without doing anything
the case of kitty genovese
1964
38 witnesses over 30 minute assault - she was eventually killed without anyone helping her
*bystander apathy
what are some situations that lead to bystander apathy?
- a diffusion of responsibility occurs, such that people expect other bystanders to help
- people fear making social blunders in an ambiguous situation
- people are less likely to help when they are anonymous and can remain so
- a cost-benefit analysis occurs - weigh out danger and other factors
what must happen before helping occurs
a potential helper must…
notice the event
interpret it as an emergency
assume responsibility (not diffused)
decide to intervene (and act on decision)
*if any of the above cognitive processes fails to get activated, no helping occurs
*involves a cognitive process
“the good samaritan” research
people who were studying in the seminary were learning about the good semaritan bible passage
they had to give a presentation - purposefully had very little time to get across the capmus
someone is on the side of the road and needs help
most likey, people didn’t stop and they were more likely to stop if they were alone
this occured even though this story primed them to help the person on the side of the road
when are people most likely to help people?
when others look like them
when they are alone
ex. smoke filling room - least likely with confederates, if naive more likely. if alone most likely
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study
took college students and split them up into prison gaurds and inmates randomly - was set up to reflect prisons
gaurds had status through uniforms/ power given to them while inmates were dehumanized and deindividuized(nylon caps, smocks, numbers for names, don’t look like themselves)
ended after 6 days - inmates deteriorated pyschologically even though they knew they wouldn’t have to stay, rebelled
gaurds became sadistic and cruel, “drunk” on power
*random assignment made it interesting how people acted - all was created by social situation and context
Doing Time Video
lewisburg- fed prison on east coast
holds 1500 people (45% black, 30% white, 25% hispanic)
harsh conditions - little air and long times in prison cells, cramped conditions, etc
deindividuation, dehumanization
us vs. them roles were given (ex. checking them when they arrived, putting them in cells)
defining roles
behaved in ways they wouldn’t if they weren’t put in that situation
Central Park Rape Case
woman was brutally raped in central park (1989) - white, well educated
much media attention was put on this case, especially with the pressure to catch the offender
5 teens were interrogated, they eventually confessed (only videotaped the confession and not the interrogation)
2002- an imprisoned rapist confessed - dna matched (didn’t match 5 teens)
teens later released after further examination
why did they confess to a rape they didn’t commit? interrogation was brutal, under high stress
why did police believe them? expectation bias but all 5 gave different accounts and descriptions
false confessions video clip
katie was murdered and police hunted for the confession of 20 year old roberto
police lied about evidence and threatened him with jail
roberto confessed and though he would be able to be let go - crushed spirit, brain washed, false confession by agreeing
but he was not in the country when katie was killed
was not released for a year - when heard confession, assumed it was true
what was saul kassin’s research on false confessions?
includes 2 factors…
- an authority figure insisting on guilt
- lying to suspects about false evidence connecting them to a crime
suspect is under intense pressure and often times think that once they tell the investigator what he wants to hear, they will get to leave
how can you judge the accuracy of a confession?
a confession is compelling evidence… but caution is needed to avoid confirmation bias
questions to ask…
are the details consistent? (ex. central park case had many incosistent details)
are their facts knowable only to the offender?
consider the confession in it’s context, not just a videotape obtained without “prep”
anything incosistent they ignored = expectation bias
what are the factors that increase likelihood of coercion in a confession?
age and competency
conditions of custody and interrogation - how many hours was the confession, confess right away?
what happens with confirmation bias?
look at info that confirmed theory they committed the offenses
ignored all the inconsistencies that suggested they did not know important details of offense
Kassin’s lessons to remember in confessions…
stereotypes
reinforcement - person gets convinced that he can leave and wants interrogation to stop
motivation - food, water, sleep, rest
social impact - situation? conformitiy and obedience
adolescence - particualarily vulnerable and easily manipulated
memory - distorted memory, get convinced that something happened
fundamental attribution error and other biases - not believing that people will falsely confess
