Wednesday, June 17, 2015


Welcome to AP Psychology at North-Grand!

Be sure to sign up for our Remind 101 text alerts using the code on your syllabus. 

Ten Most Revealing Psychology Experiments!

Read all these instructions carefully before beginning!

Go to this link about the Ten Most Revealing Psychology Experiments and read through the summaries of all ten of them. 

***** If the above link is broken (or even if it's not) you can use the following link as an alternative set of experiments to get you started : 10 Famous Psychology Experiments that Could Never Happen Today  This link is really about the ethics of doing these experiments on humans and animals, but you can use it as a starting point, then use Google to find other sources about the experiments themselves. 

Select one of the experiments that you think is interesting. Click on the link in the summary to start your research about that experiment. Read through the information and seek out other information online. There may be good YouTube videos or other sources you should investigate. You can also look up some of the experiments or the experimenters in your textbook. 

In your comment to THIS BLOG POST please do the following to complete the assignment:

1. Summarize the experiment. Include who did it, when they did it,where they did it, and what they did.
2. Explain the importance of the experiment to our understanding of human behavior. Make a claim about why you think the experiment is considered to have provided a valuable insight into the way people think and/or act?
3. Give one example of how the experiment can be applied to everyday life. You can use yourself or someone you know in the example, or make up an example that you think the experiment might apply to in normal life.
4. At the end of your post include all sources (full URLs, please) and sign the post with your first name and just the initial letter of your last name (for example: Phillip D.)
5. To send your comment please click the "Name/URL" option and put your first name and last initial in the "Name" box. Don't fill in the URL box.  

I strongly suggest that you write your comment in Word or other program first so you can check your spelling etc. and then just paste it into the comments at the end of this post.This will also allow you to save your work in case the blog does something strange. 

Your post should be 3 to 5 paragraphs long and should demonstrate some original thinking on your part. Do not cut-and-paste or copy any text directly.

Your comment will not show up on the blog until close to the due-date, as I want everyone to approach the project without being biased by seeing the posted work of others in the class. If you aren't sure if your comment went through you may e-mail me and I'll let you know. Please don't keep re-sending it over and over. If your comment is too long, it may not let you post it and show an error message. If this happens, try breaking your comment up into 2 or 3 parts and label them appropriately. 

If you have any questions please e-mail me. I usually reply to e-mails within a day or two. Before sending me an e-mail, please read my "How to email a teacher" post from my biology blog ... really.

If you're having trouble figuring out how to comment, you can watch this handy video

Keep working on the rest of your summer assignment from the Bernstein Textbook and the Phineas Gage book. 


Daisy Roa said...

Daisy R.

In 1957, an American social psychologist of the name Leon Festinger conducted a experiment.
This experiment had the name of ‘’ The Cognitive Theory.’’ Festinger believed ''that people have the need of keeping themselves consistent.'' The word ‘’ Cognitive’’ in psychology terms means the study of language use, attention , memory, problem solving and thinking. The word ‘’ Dissonance’’ in psychological terms means the discomfort , even guilty feeling toward doing something that is against your belief. The idea of this experiment was to see how beliefs or morals have an affect on action, and visa versa , and how people react in order to get rid of the discomforting feeling.
Sometimes the actions we take have an impact on our beliefs, which can be both negative and positive. According to the experiment done by the psychologist Festinger , there is many factors that influence the amount of ‘’ Dissonance.’’ The more dissonance that is felt the more is the urge to get rid of it. An example for this is : A lady on a diet walking into McDonalds with her friends, she orders that salad but can't resist the Double Big Mac on the menu and eats that instead. She now has a variation of options , she can go workout immediately after to loose weight she gained by eating that , she could also have fruit or something lite for the rest of the day to not add more calories, or she can drink a lot of water to help her metabolism get faster. This options are all meant to make up for the fact that she broke her diet. By breaking up the diet she went against herself , which caused her a great amount of Dissonance. This is where Cognitive comes in an she starts thinking about her options to solve this problem , and her options will be those that are meant to make her feel better and getting rid of the discomfort and guilty feel. She could have always have not done anything about it but going back to what Festinger believed ''that people have the need of keeping themselves consistent,'' and try to make it up to themselves.
This experiment gives a insight on how many of the decisions that are made in everyday lives can be based of this discomforting feel and trying to cope with it. Depending on the problem affects the amount of Dissonance , which triggers the need to getting rid of the discomfort. This experiment made me realize about this Dissonance that has always been present in my decisions and I never really payed attention to it , it really helped me understand why sometimes I made the choices I have done. Really understanding how beliefs affect decision making can help you have better choices in life.

Anonymous said...

This is my comment – your blog is so amazing, Mr. Cantor! Yay!

- Phil C

Anonymous said...

On the 14th of August, 1971, Professor Philip G. Zimbardo started an experiment to see how healthy, reasonable Standford college students would act in a hostile environment -- willingly going to a place that stripped them of their civil rights. This experiment was named The Standford Prison Experiment. This experiment consisted of two groups: the prisoners and the guards; both were made of people in the Standford area.
This experiment showed how common college students -- all without any psychological or health problems and without criminal records -- ordinary US and Canadian citizens can turn into abusive brutes when they hold too much "power". The guards were given clubs and were allowed to interact with each other in any way they chose, but no physical harm is to be done, yet they chose to be abusive. They knew the prisoners couldn't beat them, and they took advantage of that treating them in inhumane ways: making them urinate and deficate in small buckets that they could only empty on the guard's demand, and they constantly harassed them and made up stories to attack them either mentally or physically.
The prisoners tried to revolt, but the guards simply beat them and, to a certain degree, tortured them. The guards kept harassing them leading the prisoners exponentially to depression and passive behavior. The situation had gotten so severe, five students had to be released due to severe negative emotions such as crying and acute anxiety. Even the researchers and Zimbardo, who acted as the supervisor , were affected by this -- they saw these behaviors and saw it as normal -- even well behavior. He even wanted to trick someone who left into coming back against his will. The ex-convict and Zimbardo discouraged the idea of leaving as much as they could. It wasn't until Christina Maslach, an undergraduate, brought their cruelty into light.
An experiment that was meant to last 14 days had to end early, barely reaching the sixth day. In six days, most of the guards had become abusive. Most, if not all, of the prisoners were physically and mentally scarred. Six days had changed and twisted their morals and their very definition of human worth.
This very thing can be seen everywhere. Sometimes slower, taking years. Sometimes in the same amount of time. Sometimes in smaller degrees, sometimes in drastic outbursts and anywhere in between. In abusive relationships where one partner is too passive and lets the other walk all over them. In prisons, like this experiment. Even in politics and schools. The times and places where one can become a tyrannical, power-crazed individual seems infinite given the systems we run (political systems, school systems, social classes, even the subconscious system we have in our relationships). However, it seems almost guaranteed that there will be people who starve for complete control and a chance to demonstrate their dominance over others with or without systems due to our level of consciousness and our pampered lifestyle.

URLs: ; ;

Valeria G. said...

Valeria G.

In the summer of 1971, an experiment was created by Philip Zimbardo in order to observe the impact of developing roles such as becoming a prisoner or a prison guard and the effect it caused in the setting of a mock prison. He designed this experiment by setting up a newspaper ad that called for volunteers to be used in an experiment to see the psychological effects based on the volunteers. After choosing the volunteers half were then picked to be the prison guards while the other half were “arrested” and became the prisoners. Throughout the days the prison guards began as being timid and the prisoners following the “rules” the guards have established yet, as the days pass the guards start to expose the prisoners and begin to physically hurt the prisoners which then begin the start of a rebellion and rumors of escaping. This experiment gives examples of how the role of power can influence a person to change their ideas of behavior towards others and themselves. While also shows examples of the physical punishment that is used in prison such as exposing the prisoners and the mental abuse that prisoners also can have when in prison since in this experiment two of the prisoners had a mental break down during the first days of the experiment. Little do people know but this also doesn't happen in prisons it can happen in real life since, people can play a role in a political office such as being a governor where they have control they then start to believe that they are able to do whatever they want in such cases they faces legal problems since they abuse their role in power such as most people do when given a greater role over others.Thus showing how the prison guards abused their power over the prisoners since they had the mentality that they had a greater role over the prisoners.

Dennisse Q said...

Dennisse Q. said….
Dennisse Q.

In this particular study in 1974 Loftus and Palmer’s main focus is how the memory reacts when someone has been given misleading information, and how original the memory can be modified/changed. This study consists of two experiments. The first one is 45 students from the University of Washington, they are shown seven videos of car accidents. Each video is about 5 to 30 seconds long, and after these videos, the 45 students wrote about what they had seen in the accident. They also answered some critical questions that involved the speed of each car that was involved in the accident. They were,” five conditions in the experiment and the independent variable was manipulated by means of wording.” Basically how the question was asked in the same way but in a different phrase.
Based on the information given the results they can conclude that the way they rephrase the question changed the way they answer it, in this case the change in speed. In the second experiment which was similar as the first one, the main idea here was to find out if the participants memory had been, “distorted by a verbal label.” Here 150 students were watched a video that was one minute long, additionally with a, “4 second scene of multiple car accidents,” the students also had to answer 10 questions about the videos. It’s interesting how they manipulate the students when 50 of them were asked, “How fast was the car going when they hit each other?” Another 50 students were asked, “How fast the car was going when they smashed each other?” In this experiment they also had another critical question which was if they saw broken glass when the accident occurred although there wasn’t in the video. We can say that the memory can be easily, “distorted by questioning them.” According to the information experiment two demonstrates that this effect is not only due to response-bias, but the experiment can conclude the fact that leading questions can alternate the memory.
These two experiments provide valuable insight because when people see something they think they’ve seen in detail but in reality they haven’t. Especially an event that they’ve gone through the next day or a couple days after, they won’t remember exactly that day as they would’ve that it happened. Usually this would happen in real life today for example in court cases they would rely on the eyewitness’s testimony, but they either have been questioned how reliable they are or how they haven’t been as accurate.

Kimberly Sanchez said...

In 1951, Solomon Asch tested conformity at Swarthmore College. His experiment was tested by putting a participant in a group of people and they had to solve the task of matching line lenghts. Each person had to say which of the three lines were the closest to match line lenghts. Amusingly, the participant was place in a group of actors, who were told to say the correct answer then switch to each saying the same incorrect answer. Asch wanted to see if the participant would follow the trend and give the wrong answer as well. Out of fifty participants, thirty seven followed and said the incorrect answer despite having physical evidence that showed them the actual correct answer. This experiment shows that people would copy others so they won't be an outcast, this is also known as the psychological term of mirroring. In Wikipedia it states that mirroring is the behavior in which one person subconciously imitates the gesture, speech pattern, or attitude of another. Over the past years, people follow trends such as dressing a certain way, using certain trending applications (apps), and even acting a certain way. Around July and August 2014, there was a trend that people all over the world did which promoted awarness of the disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and also encourage donations. This trend was known as the “Ice bucket challenge”, a person would have to dump a bucket full of ice water over their head and they would have to nominate another person to do the same. The other person would have 24 hours to comply or forefeit by giving a donation to charity. This experiment made me realize that this affects anyone and it shows me that people would do anything to not be an outcast.


Anonymous said...

The “Robbers Cave Experiment” took place at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma.
The experiment was carried out by the psychologists /researchers Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif. These two psychologists were also apart of a research group at the University of Oklahoma, which is also the school that created the experiment. The experiment was created to study “Interpersonal relations” in children.In this experiment the researchers gathered up 22 12 year old Caucasian boys that were all in the middle class of society and took them to the camp. The researchers separated the 22 boys into two groups based on their mental differences.
The researchers divided the children but they made their own group name; these groups were the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”. In the beginning of the experiment the two groups acknowledged each others presence but they didn't have issues until the researchers began to hold competitions involving a Trophy for the winners but nothing for the losers. The Rattlers became very arrogant by putting up their flags claiming territory and saying that they will win the competition; this started problems with the Eagles. After the rattlers won the competition the relationship between the groups became worse.The relationship between the groups came to the point where they argued and went the extremes of looking for knives; they didn't even want to eat in the same mess hall.
After this point in the experiment the researchers began to try to bring the groups together using activities like shooting films and watching the fireworks on the fourth of July. These activities did not change their behavior. It wasn't until the researchers created the “Drinking Water Problem” which made the children become very thirsty from the activities throughout the day. The water supply was cut off and there was only one source of water on the campus. When the water pump finally started to work the Rattlers didn't fight the eagles for the water. They let the eagles go because they knew they were also very thirsty. After this occurred the two groups began to get along and there was no longer anymore problems between them.
This experiment showed that when it comes to competition, proving yourself and or gaining material things, conflict, jealousy, and tension always play a big role in the outcome, but when it comes to helping a person or someone’s well being one cannot just sit and watch. This experiment applies to my life because i can become very competitive in a sport where my actions and attitude would change from positive to negative in a minute, but when someone on the other team was to get hurt i would feel sympathy for them just as the boys did at the water pump.

Psychology is awesome,Cant wait to start!!!

Tyra L.

Jocelyn R said...

In 1974, psychologists Loftus and Palmer had a hypothesis that certain words or new information can alter an eyewitness's memory of an event which then makes the human memory less reliable, so they conducted two experiments.
The first experiment was showing students videos of cars crashing. After the students would watch the videos they were asked how fast the cars were going when they hit/collided/smashed/bumped each other. The verb used implied information about the car's speed, the more serious the verb sounded the more the car's speed was. The second experiment was showing 150 students a video of a car crash. Loftus and Palmer asked 50 students if they saw broken glass, asked another 50 students if they didn't see broken glass, and didn't ask another 50 students anything as a control group. Participants who were asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed instead of hit were more likely to report they saw broken glass.
The importance of the experiment demonstrates how humans mental processes/cognitions work. Our mental processes include thinking, language, memory and perception, and the experiments demonstrates how the mental process can be distorted with new or misleading information after an event. It also shows how the brain is not just a tape recorder but is a process which can be influenced by many events, like leading questions, and also changes to make sense of experiences.
This experiment is applied in everyday life through actually anything. A woman could be mugged in the middle of the night but not see her attacker at all, but she tells police officers that she was pretty sure it had to have been a white male. The officers could tell the woman that she was in a hispanic neighborhood and with this new information it could influence her mind to believe it actually was a hispanic male who attacked her, and she would not be sticking to her original story which makes her an unreliable source in court. Our minds can easily intertwine new information that seems valid and our memories together to make them seem as one experience.

Kennedy C. said...

During the summer of 1954, at a boys scout camp ground, Muzafer Sherif conducted the Robbers Cave experiment with the help of a research program at the University State of Oklahoma. The purpose of the experiment was to prove that if strangers were put together to complete tasks/actives they would form roles and structure within the group. In addition , the purpose was also to show that putting two groups in the same environment would result in a competitive atmosphere.
Twenty-two boys , all around the age of 12 years old, were put into two groups; The boys all had similar physical, mental, and environmental characteristics and influences.For the first part of the experiment the two groups didn’t know another group existed so they became close to their own group and created a name to call themselves.One group was the “The Rattlers” and the other was known as “The Eagles”; The naming of their groups instilled a sense of belonging among the boys. Later on , each team became aware of each other resulting in a sense of pride about their own groups. Afterwards, the researchers built tension between the groups with competitions to participate in.The second to last stage of the experiment was to bring the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles” together with an activity. The activity presented a problem that they had to fix ; The water lines were blocked and all the boys came together to fix it. They took suggestions and worked as one big team so they could drink again. The last stage of their experiment held the task of deciding what movie, out of two, should be played. The “Rattlers” and the “Eagles” needed to vote together and in order to secure the chosen movie , they needed to pay $15 themselves.This was to test out whether or not they would give up or find a way to ensure the movie would be played; Together they chipped in to pay for the movie. At the end of the experiment there was no fighting or arguing between the groups. Friendship between the group was developed and labels were not longer a worry , as each boy sat by whoever they wanted and a bus they decided to share together; A team even bought the other group milk, showing that they really did move past their rivalry.
Humans are social creatures and require a sense of belonging to be satisfied; This experiment proved this as well as providing insight on how strangers, when thrown into the same setting, are truly able to develop a bond. The boys developing a team name exhibited the official stamp of their bond; A name gave them a sense of belonging and made their bond a little stronger and reassured everyone in the group that they are not alone. This experiment also proves that people are competitive and if there is something/someone that is questioning their strength they became the enemy. However, when a situation arises that requires everyone to pull together , it is possible to push aside our differences and work towards a common goal.
This experiment can easily be applied to an everyday setting; Take gym class for example, we are put into teams with people we have probably never talked to and are forced to work together. A name might be given ,whether you like it or not , and is the start to developing closer bonds than the initial encounter.By the end of the game, players within their teams high five each other with victory and reflect on the good moments with compliments to each other;Or the players ,within each team, yell together as a team to their opponent claiming they were cheating because their own team lost. You become a unit when forced to work together and forget your differences because the only way to move forward and have a chance at success is to work together.

Kennedy C.

Soraya P. said...

In 1974, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer decided to perform an experiment that would demonstrate how our memory isn't an actual "recording" of what occurred, but a distorted one influenced by outside information that happened after the event. In the procedure there were two experiments. A group of students from the University of Washington were shown 7 video clips of car accidents. After each clip, the group was told to write about what they had just witnessed. They were also asked to answer a series of questions, including to estimate the speed at which each vehicle was going in the collision.
The independent variable in both experiments were the verbs used in the speed questions (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted). The dependent variable in the first experiment was the estimate of the speed of the cars, and in the second experiment it was whether the individual witnessed broken glass in the video clips. The results of the first experiment showed that the way the questions were phrased influenced the speed estimate, with the word smashed having a higher speed than the word contacted. The findings of the second experiment were that the verb "smashed" greatly influenced what the individuals remembered of the video clip, making them recall broken glass in the videos when in reality there wasn't any.
This experiment in particular has definitely helped us understand the way our mind and memory works, making us realize how we unconsciously let outside information influence our mind, particularly in changing the way we perceive and remember memories to a way that makes the most sense to us. Because of this, now we are able to understand the reason why some people remember events one way, while others recall it slightly different. Reconstructive memory is affected by what an individual has learned since the incident.
When I think of this experiment and its results, I think of a group of people watching a show. For example, a group watching a show without interruptions. Then a group watching the show but with somebody walking into the room interrupting the event. After, make a series of questions about the show to each group and compare their answers to see if they differ, and make a conclusion whether it was because of the interruption or not.
Thanks to Loftus and Palmer, beyond valuable insight has been brought into human behavior and the human mind. Not only that, but it has been of great help during situations of justice, when it comes to the testimonies of witnesses that were present at the scene and part of the judge's decision will be based on them. And although there's been many successful experiments that have given great insight into the way people think and act, us humans continue to evolve and change. We still have a lot to learn.

Soraya P.

Ana C. said...

Ana C.
Obedience to Authority: Human Capacity for Cruelty

This experiment was conducted by psychologist, Stanley Milgram in 1963, is to test the tendency of people to obey when told to harm another people. In this research the subjects were a ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’. Where the ‘teacher’ had to harm the ‘learner’ every time the he got a wrong answer, that’s what the teacher was told to do by the experimenter in the lab coat. The teacher obeyed to what experimenter will tell him to do.
This experiment expresses how us humans, are capable of easily harming another human being when told so by an authority. Although, us humans are to have our own minds, and conscious, we can easily be manipulated by an authority that seem to be higher than ourselves. I watched a video about this experiment, and it seems that when people get the chance to harm people, they will take it.
In a video about the experiment, I have seen how even though the ‘learner’ kept getting wrong answers in purpose, the actual ‘teacher’ himself will continue shocking him with higher volts. He could hear the way that the ‘learner’ screamed and wanted to get out of there, but that really didn’t stop the ‘teacher’. The ‘teacher’ didn’t bother to think twice about shocking him dramatically stronger every time. There was a point to when the ‘learner’ was unconscious, but when the ‘teacher’ asked him a question and heard no response, he still continued to give him shocks. The ‘teacher’ didn’t bother thinking twice about it, he didn’t took time to ask the experimenter if he should continue. Agreeing with the article, people can quickly forget all about the everyday moral and harm others when told so.
It might seem like now a days we don't really do that anymore. Maybe its because now we are more understanding, but back during WW-2, Hitler managed to get all the soldiers he could to kill and harm millions of people. How or why would the Nazi not think twice about what they are doing, they obviously knew they were killing other humans. Surely today we don't kill people just because told so, at least we are not suppose to, but we do a lot of harming. Sometimes we are told that if our children continue to do something wrong that we are to hit them, or harm them, but its only to discipline them. IT's not done just because we want to hit them.
There's a strong example that I want to share, and lately we've seen this around a lot. When people are trying to join a certain group or gangs, they are told that in order to be completely in, they have to prove themselves and harm somebody or just take them out. So easy for them just to take a weapon and use it. People need to think twice about everything, "why harm this person?" "What did he/she do to me?", "Do I seriously need to dirty my hands when its not necessary?"
We can easily obey the authority to harm anyone.

Tatyana W said...

In 1938 a radio station aired their version of the “Wars of the Worlds” by H.G Wells and caused panic to millions of people. The broadcast was aired on Orson Welles’s Mercury Theatre on Air show as a Halloween episode. Orson show was broadcast on CBS programing in Los Angeles. The episode made the invasion of aliens in “Wars of the Worlds” come to life but conducting several different broadcast of the invasion. The broadcast rage from fake weather reports to imitations of scientific reporting of the invasion by famous scientist.
Although the episode wasn’t a planned experiment it still displayed a great understanding of human behavior. The specific behavior that was shown from the reaction of the radio series episode was people manipulation towards the media. It is easily shown how people can listen to something on the radio and ultimately believe it even though it isn’t physical proof in front of them. The effect of the broadcast also shows how important it is to have a monitor on the things that’s aired to the public.
As stated the “experiment” cause major panic when only radio made. Now broadcasts can occur not only on radios but televisions, phones, and internet. The rages of ways that announcements get to the public allows many ways for one wrong story to spread easily around the world. Many people especially teen seek to Facebook to tell them current events. If someone were to falsely put an article or status that someone has died or if the school is closing, many would believe it.

Tatyana W

Jose M said...

The Robbers Cave experiment was conducted by Muzafer Sherif in 1954 at Robber’s Cave State Park, Oklahoma, to prove the Realistic Conflict Theory. This theory stated that when two groups compete over limited resources, enmity arises between them. The “limited resources” could include anything from worldly goods, like land or food, to effects, like political power or social status. Hostility arises between groups the most when one group wins the resource while the other group is unable to obtain it. The most relatable example of how this theory is used in real life is a sports competition. When one team wins the championship and takes the trophy home, the other teams begin to feel resentment towards the champions.
Muzafer Sherif conducted the experiment by taking 22 boys, all from similar backgrounds who have never met each other. Each boy was assigned to one of two groups, but was unaware of the existence of the other group. Both groups stayed at opposite sides of the 200 acre park. During the first stage of the experiment the groups were put through teambuilding activities, as well as hiking and sports like swimming. The groups bonded very well and eventually created their group names, The Rattlers and The Eagles. The boys even took it upon themselves to make group flags and shirts.
Sherif then began the “Competition Stage” of the experiment. The groups were introduced to each other and put into several different competitions, such as baseball, and tug-of-war. A trophy was given to the winner of each competition and nothing was given to the “losers”. Once the Rattlers learned about the competitions coming soon, they immediately began discussing how they were going to win. The Rattlers even put their flag on the ballfield and claimed it as their own. The conflict between the groups started out small. Verbal remarks and taunts were the most of it. But as the competitions continued, the situations grew worse and worse. The Eagles eventually burned The Rattlers flag, then cabins were raided, and the conflicts between the groups took a turn for the worse.
This experiment created an equation for how to start conflicts. Create two groups, make them compete, and hostility naturally arises. Such is the way conflict is created between people in the entire world. Nations compete for land and natural resources, employees compete for promotions, and corporations compete for consumers. This experiment sheds light on how it's human nature to become hostile to rivals who compete for the same goal as you, even if it's not intentional. The Robbers Cave Experiment showed us how it is human nature to start conflicts and how creating them isn't the problem, solving them is.

Jose M

Anonymous said...

The “Robbers Cave Experiment”, which was seen as a “Lord of The Flies” lookalike, was directed by researcher Muzafer Sherif on the year 1954. The entire experiment was actually split into 3 separate experiments on which to examine the people that were being used for the project, which were a group of boys, at least 24 of them, and to seek out the oncoming problems and solutions that appear from them once they start working. It turns out that the boys were taken to a boy scouts’ camp which was surrounded by the Robbers Cave State Park in California. The experiment was basically used to see how people in certain groups react to “outsiders” of the group which usually involves violence or other negative types of actions. Since the entire experiment was split into 3 parts; part one involved the boys begin their process of creating groups for themselves which eventually gave birth to two separate groups called “The Ratters” and “The Eagles”; part two was the dark stage since it turns out the researchers wanted the groups to turn against each other by making them compete in events which lead the winners, The Rattlers, to start getting the idea that they were superior but eventually both groups were placed in the same room on the camp, the mess hall or lunchroom, which lead to both sides saying crude language to the opposite group and eventually leading to the groups stating that they don’t want to be eating in the same room with them; part three was the reconciliation stage on which the researchers wanted both groups to unite and forget about all the events of stage two. At the near end of stage three, two major events were created which were “The Drinking Water Problem” and “The Problem of Securing a Movie”. The water problem was basically an event on which the researchers cut off the water but eventually bringing it back which lead to both groups react in happiness towards each other. The movie problem was actually a good problem since the boys all united to choose a movie and to help pay for it.
This was a great experiment to hold since it shows the power of uniting groups and to show the negative side of even having separate groups. Separated groups only help themselves while the other groups suffer with their own problems. I claim that separated groups cause problems while a single united group solves problems. Keeping life against life creates disaster, not survival. So if everyone from different groups unites with the other groups then eventually all problems will be solved and the prevention of problems will be at such high levels that no problems will ever occur.
An example for this can be two groups of people are seen surviving in an abandoned island resulting in them to only work in their separate group. This can eventually lead to problems since one group can have something the other group needs while that same group has something the other group needs, this usually gets confusing since both sides don’t even bother to work together yet. Eventually, both groups know that in order to survive they will need to work together or they will die from each others hand. So one single group is still good, but not having a group is even better since eventually other groups will appear which will begin another reign of terror towards other group, and this is also known as the concept on how wars start.
(URL stuff and things with sources!)

(Not a source! Just my name!) Angel R

Sergio G said...

In the “Loftus and Palmer” experiment 45 college students participated. In this experiment, these students watched a video of a car accident, then were asked a series of questions. These questions were broken down to five groups where one verb of the question were switched among the groups. The base question was “about how fast were the cars going when they ________ each other?”, and the 5 verbs to fill in the blank were Smashed, Collided, Bumped, Hit and Contacted. The purpose of this experiment was to test a person memory for eye witness testimonies. I never knew that the meaning of just a verb can affect so much on your memory. The average speed people estimated as an answer for smashed was 40.8, then for the word collided was 39.3, then the word bumped was 38.1, then hit was 34.0 and then contacted was 31.8. this just goes to show how the more violent a word is the more your memory might change how you saw things. There was another experiment to prove this, that was very similar to this experiment. In this other experiment 150 students watched a video and were asked question on if there were any broken class when the key verb was smashed or hit even though there was no broken glass and people still answered that they saw glass. This goes to show we can’t always believe our eyes because what we see may be interpreted by our surroundings or saying.

Sergio G

Lenny W. said...

In 1971 on August 14th through the 20th an experiment called "Stanford Prison Experiment" was put into action by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. The reason for the experiment was to see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment consisted of 24 male students which were both into two groups, one being guards the other being prisoners. The SPE took place in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department building which was turned into a mock prison. The team made the prison as real as possible and the 24 students had to go along with their part in the prison. The guards were able to do or say anything to a certain extent to show their authority which made the originally 14 day experiment cut short to 6 days.
This experiment shows the punishments (physical and verbal) that takes place in prisons. It also shows how the role of having authority or power can make people change their behaviors and thoughts. When you give a person power or the role of authority they tend to change their actions in order to show authority. These actions go on because they are the person in charge and when you are the person in charge who tells you what to do?.... NOBODY!
This experiment could apply to many things we see and hear in today's society. For example when I was younger my mom would leave my older brother in charge when she would leave the house. My brother instantly went from being my friend to trying to be the boss and make me clean up and do the things he was suppose to do around the house on top of the things I already had to do. It went like this until I got a little older and one day I stopped listening and doing things he wanted me to do and we got into a fight. Neighbors called our mother from the noise and we were both grounded all because my brother wanted to abuse his power. Stanford_prison_experiment

Lenny W

Ruben Z said...

In the loftus and palmer experiment , Mr.Loftus and Mr.Palmer in 1974 at a university were trying to find out if a wording in a sentence can influence someone's memory. they showed 45 students a clip of a car crashing. After the students watched the video they were asked how fast the car was going but for every nine students they worded the question differently. the question was worded like ”how fast were the cars going when they ***** each other?. they would either say “smashed”,”collided”,”bumped”,”Hit”, or “contacted” when the students would answer with the word smashed they would say 40MPH when they worded it with contacted they says 31MPH.

This experiment is important because you can manipulate someone's answers with these techniques and can use it to your advantage. Its important to understand this so you can know how the human body works in certain ways. i dont know if you can use it in everyday life maybe by asking how long ago something was using “how long ago was that” or “how much time past since i …..”

Melody Molina said...

In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University to study about what types of psychological effects are given when a person is placed as a prisoner or a prison guard. Zimbardo randomly split 24 college students into prisoners or prison guards. The prison guards had no previous trainings on how to be a guard nor did they have any set of rules on how they would be able to treat the prisoners, the remainder of the time. In the beginning the prisoners didn’t take the rules set by the guards seriously, they were still viewing it as just an experiment .The prison guards wanted to demonstrate control over the prisoner so they made the prisoner do push up and other exercises, but over time the punishment for the prisoner became mentally and physically abusive. Simple things such as brushing their teeth or using the bathroom became privileges they would have to earn. The experiment was meant to last two weeks, but ended after the first week due to the severity of the prison guards’ actions and the outcome it was leaving on the prisoners, who soon forget that they weren't actually in prison.
The experiment demonstrates how humans have the ability to be evil when put in certain situations. Human behaviors start to shift as they gain more control. The experiment brought insight into how humans who don't have control tend to become more vulnerable, but people who do have control tend to let the evil part of their personality starts to come through.Although the prison guards knew that they were randomly selected, and had false power they still deliberately be litted the inmates that were chosen. This act of dehumanization only proves how society functions on power.
The Stanford Experiment can apply to police brutality. Many police have been abusing there powers. When the police want residents to follow an order they can take drastic measures.In the Standford Experiment when the prisoners started to rebel the prision guards started to enfore harder punishments.The police and the prison guards use similar tactics to enforce their rules.The Stanford prison experiment showed how When Humans are given authority over others, even, for a short amount of time they tend to abuse it.

Eleana G. said...

In 1951, at Swarthmore College, social psychologist Solomon Asch performed an experiment that demonstrated how one’s perception can be affected by other people’s pressure. He tested conformity by placing one real test subject into a group of scripted college students who would purposely give incorrect answers. The purpose of the incorrect answers was to see if it would affect the real subject’s answer. The students were given a variety of cards that had four lines (three on the right and one on the left). The task was to match the length of the line on the left with one line from the right. The experiment revealed that most people conform themselves to wrong answers rather than going with their own answer even if they know it’s right. A shocking 37 out of 50 people were influenced by the scripted actors.
The experiment shows how important conformity is to human behavior because we tend to follow what other people do to fit in. We act the way others do and speak the way others speak if it means they’ll accept us whether their decision is affecting themselves , or others, negatively.
Conformity can be as effective to something small like following a trend on social media, as it will be to a more severe case like peer pressuring someone to smoking a cigarette or drinking. We don't want to go beyond the "norms" because we don't want to be talked bad about or embarrassed in front of everybody. Asch believed that we should be concerned about how strong the tendency of conformity is because "it raises questions about our ways of education." Conformity leads us, including me sometimes, to be afraid to raise our hand in class when no one raises their hand because we don't want to look "ridiculous" and be the only one brave enough to answer the question. People want to fit in and would do almost anything to do so. People are afraid to be different.

Eleana G.

Sheila B. said...

Sheila B.

In 1956, psychologist George Miller wrote that he was tortured by the number 7 which affected his mind while reading journals or interpreting data. One of the characteristics of memory is limited capacity. The process of working memory can hold up to only about seven items at a time. The magic number 7 is the chunks of information a person can hold.
Miller studied short term memory task and found that a subject can hold to about seven chunks of memory at once whether it's memories, numbers, or words. He discovered that a chunk functions as one item in primary memory.
This experiment itself relates to everyday human behavior. The magic number 7 provides a valuable insight to the way people think. Miller found out that short-term memory varies for different people. We can hold about 7 chunks of memory, as stated before, like memorizing a telephone number or part of a name or given information. For instance, when you read a book, the words you read stay in short-term memory. You understand some meaning of the book which its stored in your head or forgotten. The next day you remember some information you read and forget the rest, like the actual words.
It's interesting to know how our memory revolves around the magic number 7. Our mind can hold up to seven chunks of information regardless of what you were thinking or mesmerizing. Pretty interesting that we hold so little memory especially those who think BIG and crazy.


Markus welander said...

In 1974 loftus and Palmer designed a experiment to test the reliability of memory when their memory has been affected by information supplied after the event.The experiment took place at the university of Washington. The subjects in experiment seventh minute clips of tragic accident and each group had answer a different question about the accident

.This experiment is important because it proves that different questions that seem to be asking the same thing can get different answersSecondly, this study made people think about memory differently.

Suppose a man is told to enter a room with 9 people in it and he shakes each man's hand and then leaves that room to enter another one and in that room a researcher asks the man which of the men he had just met was a killer.The test subject eventually picks one man whom he believes was the killer because he now seemed suspicious.The researcher has now effectively made the subject think one of the man was a killer when before they had just been men to him. Markus welander


Alvaro R. said...

In 1963 psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment called the Milgram’s Obedience to Authority that were tested on men from all different employments who responded to an ad in New Haven, Connecticut for what was said to be a study on the effect of learning and memory. What they did not realize, is that they would make history by being participants in perhaps the most shocking psychological experiment demonstrating that what we call evil is inside all of us, easily brought out given the right circumstances.
The researcher interviewed two men, one subject and one partner, explaining that this was a test of learning and memory, to see if negative reinforcements in the form of shocks assisted with this process. One man would be the learner, and one the teacher. This was established by a random drawing, but the subject was always the teacher and the one that would read the questions and deliver the shocks for each wrong answer. Meanwhile, the partner was strapped to what seemed to be an electric chair, and electrodes were applied for the shocks. The teacher got an opportunity to experience a very light (15v) shock, just to see what the lowest setting felt like. After the learner was strapped in, the teacher went into another room where he could not see the learner, but could hear him through a speaker system.
As the experiment begins, the teacher reads the first question, and if the subject gets it wrong, flicks a switch on a machine. The teacher hears a little "ow" that is actually coming from a pre-recorded actor and nobody is getting any shocks, but the teacher does not know this. The experiment continues and as the learner continues to get more answers wrong, the researcher, looking all official holding a clipboard in his white lab coat, instructs the teacher to increase the voltage for each wrong answer. The voltage was increased in multiples of 15 volts all the way to 450 volts, which was labeled "XXX" (as in death). As expected, with increased voltage comes increased cries of pain through the speaker, and increased agony of the teacher.
Out of the 40 subjects, 26 of them (65%) continued to increase the shocks to the final 450 volt shock. There was certainly protest by the subjects with threats to walk away, and asks to check on the health of the learner, but the researcher, with his emotionless behaving, wearing the magic lab coat that resembles that of a respected doctor, simply said "please continue" or "the experiment requires that you continue." These words in this situation are apparently all it takes. In everyday situations, people obey orders because they want to get rewards, because they want to avoid the negative consequences of disobeying, and because they believe an authority is legitimate. In more extreme situations, people obey even when they are required to violate their own values or commit crimes.

Alvaro R.

Anonymous said...

The Stanford prison experiment
In 1971 a psychologist by the name of Philip Zimbardo developed an experiment with his colleagues that took 24 young men behind bars to test their humanity when some of those men are given power and the other are forced to follow orders. Zimbardo and his colleagues set up a “Mock Prison” in the basement of Stanford University in California where they also found their participants of the experiment. Originally 70 volunteers had offered to be in the experiment but that number was cut down to 24 because they didn’t have criminal backgrounds, psychological issues, or any medical conditions. The men were then separated into two groups with one being the prisoners and the other being the guards. The group deemed the prisoners were then put into six by nine foot prison cells where the guards would watch them 24/7 while both got paid the same amount of 15 dollars a day. 15 dollars a day does not seem like a lot for some people but back then was worth about 90 dollars today.

The rules of the experiment were straight forward. The guards could do and say whatever they wanted to the prisoners but they could not physically harm them or put their hands on them while Zimbardo and his colleagues watched all their interactions. The experiment was meant to last fourteen days but was stopped after day six because of a lot of complications. The guards became abusive toward the prisoners causing them to have anxiety and depression. The experiment affected everyone who participated even Zimbardo who is said to have acted like the warden of the prison because he dismissed the abuse the guards inflicted on the prisoners. He himself didn’t even notice until his actions and the danger of the experiment was pointed out by graduate student Christina Maslach.
This experiment is important in understanding the importance of human behavior because it depicts how fast everything can change when normal people are given power and are allowed full control over someone’s lives. The experiment is also important in the way that it shows just how fast someone can submit themselves to that kind of power as the guards mentally and physically abused the prisoners they in a short while became depressed and became obedient. What this reminds me of is back in elementary school when they would put us into groups the teacher would pick a team captain and the power would go to their head and they would take over the whole group and every time me or one of my teammates would try to get an idea in and they would never want to hear it. Although researchers today have dubbed this experiment “unethical” I believe it has effected the way people think because of an interview conducted 40 years after the experiment in which the Stanford Alumni Magazine interviewed Zimbardo and one of the participants ,Richard Yacco, of the experiment who had the role of a prisoner. In the interview Yacco, now a high school teacher in Oakland California, said that he “thought of something interesting that if you believe society has assigned you a role, do you then assume the characteristics of that role”? He then proceeds to make a good point that as a teacher he has given his students the tools to succeed but the students themselves are not taking advantage of it because they flunk out or they come “unprepared” for school.
Why is that? Yacco believes that it’s because they fit into the role society puts them in. I believe that it is absolutely powerful that after 40 years Yacco can use what he learned in the experiment and teach it to his students he says that after everything this experiment was a “defining moment in his life” and that after 40 years “it's still something that had enough of an impact on society that people are still interested in it”.

Alejandra F.

Lorena L. said...

In 1959 Leon Festinger conducted an experiment to prove his Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Cognitive Dissonance is defined as anxiety that results from having inconsistent thoughts or conflicting ideas. For example, when one person enjoys the company of another, but does not agree with their beliefs, attitudes, or habits. In his experiment, Festinger asked groups of people to perform some boring tasks and then asked them to lie about how enjoyable it was for either one or twenty dollars. The contradiction between the participants’ attitudes towards the boring task and their action (lying) should have caused the participants to suffer dissonance. The control group and the group who received twenty dollars rated the task as boring, while the participants who received one dollar rated the task as enjoyable. Those who received one dollar were able to compensate for the lack of reward for lying by believing their own lie and rating the task as enjoyable. Essentially what they did was say to themselves “I’m not getting paid enough to lie, so I’m going to make up for it by believing what I’m saying. That way I won’t be lying.” This change of attitude relieved the stress caused between the conflict of their attitudes and their behaviors.

This experiment is important, because it provides an explanation as to why some people who are presented with conflict will compromise their own beliefs and values to reduce the amount of conflict they feel. People often wonder why another individual did something that contradicts previous statements against their current actions. By understanding the concept of cognitive dissonance, one will begin to understand the thought processes of someone who is experiencing such conflict. With this understanding, individuals experiencing cognitive dissonance can begin to find alternative methods for dealing with conflict. For example, instead of lying to themselves and believing a boring task is enjoyable, they can begin to recognize the signs of dissonance and convince themselves be honest with themselves despite possible rewards for doing or saying otherwise.

A classic example of cognitive dissonance can be found in the movie Grease. In the movie, a girl (Sandy) and a boy (Danny) come from different lifestyles, but they meet and fall in love. Sandy, at first, does not agree with Danny’s lifestyle choices and tries to stay away from him and his influence, but she still struggled with her feelings of affection for him. By the end of the movie, Sandy has decided to change her previous customs and beliefs in order to be with Danny, reducing the conflict between the two. Sandy experienced cognitive dissonance when presented with someone she liked, but customs she did not. This situation not only happens in movies, but it is very common amongst couples. More often than not, one person in a relationship will change what they believe in to reduce the amount of conflict they experience; therefore reducing the amount of cognitive dissonance.

Lorena L.

Ricardo V. said...

At 44 years of age Solomon Elliot Asch sets up a psychological experiment that will later be known as the “Asch Conformity Experiments”, or the “Asch Paradigm”. These experiments are not only an insight on how society affects individuals, but how much a person is willing to wrong themselves just to fit in with a majority group. The project led by Asch was created and executed at Swarthmore College, in Pennsylvania. The project consisted on having between 5 to 7 seven confederates, and 1 test subject. The confederates as described by the video in the link, were people who knew of what they were actually being tested on, and were there to help deceive the actual person who was being tested into believing that all of them were being tested. The experimenter which in this case would have been Asch gave simple questions based on a diagram. The diagram would show three lines with different lengths, and then the experimenter would show them a picture of another line to compare to the original three lines. He would ask the group one by one, to say out loud what line is closest in length from the diagram to the new line. The project overall shows how an individual may change his opinion or idea based on what others may say. At the end it was seen that 1/3 of the people being tested chose the wrong answer although they knew the right answer, because all the previous group members chose that answer. While astonishingly only ¼ stuck to the right answer although they were going against the herd. This is proof that majority really does rule. The majority of the students preferred to be wrong, rather than right, just to not seem out of place, or create any disagreements. Many may ask how this may be important, and how it can be applied to daily lives. Well for starters, it’s greatly important. It shows that an individual can choose wrong over right, just like in the trials, simply to appease and not contradict what the majority of the group of people is saying. And how can this be experiment of Asch be tied back to real life? To put this into perspective, what could have drove people to choose the wrong answer over the right? Fear. The fear of being thought of as an outsider, and going against a social belief. What event in history caused many people to stand down although they knew what was happening was incredibly wrong? The Holocaust. Hitler had created such great propaganda, that it greatly brainwashed many people into believing that he should be an idol to worship and follow. And people who went against him were not only threatened later in the holocaust to death, but were threatened by society to be an outcast. Such as today with children. Teens, as well as children, are mocked because he or she may have a difference in opinion. From what shoe brand you buy, to what artists you follow, people may find other individuals to be “weird” because they don’t follow trends. Which then leads individuals who are more timid and afraid to fall into what today may be called “brainwashing”; peer pressure. Whether it be to buy a certain kind of shoe, or simply forced into trying a drug. Society will play a great influence on one person if he or she stands alone.

Anonymous said...

In 1957 psychologists Festinger and Carlsmith constructed a study known as “cognitive dissonance” to see just how much a person will ignore their own experience, even to convince themselves and others of something that is not true. Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for people to seek consistency among their beliefs. When there is inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors, something must change to eliminate the dissonance. Not all modes of dissonance theory will reduce dissonance, but individuals will go to many different lengths to reduce dissonance.
Sometimes our behavior takes a toll on our beliefs, and produces a feeling of discomfort which leads to dissonance. We find ourselves trying to reduce the discomfort, and restore balance by lying to ourselves. For example, when a person smokes a cigarette and they know smoking causes cancer. Smoking is more than a habit, it is an addiction. One may say to others and themselves, “this is my last cigarette”, but will eventually become anxious when they believe they need to smoke another cigarette and proceed to do so. They went against what they knew to smoke a cigarette which leads to dissonance. There are many options an individual has to relieve themselves from their addiction, and their guilt of smoking.
In this experiment Festinger helped give individuals an understanding that many problems they face in their everyday lives will most likely result in cognitive dissonance. One will go against what they believe and know and make a regretful decision, such as smoking, but will lie to themselves to feel relieved for a short period of time, just too also feel discomfort and guilt later on. I’ve made decisions that I’ve felt guilty about, and found myself lying to others because I made myself believe my own lie that what I decided wasn’t so bad. I never knew that there was a name for this experience. This experiment helped me realize the significance of our decisions, and how we can prevent finding ourselves in the state of dissonance, and having the control to restore the balance in our lives.
Kyleah L

MelodyM said...

In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University to study about what types of psychological effects are given when a person is placed as a prisoner or a prison guard. Zimbardo randomly split 24 college students into prisoners or prison guards. The prison guards had no previous trainings on how to be a guard nor did they have any set of rules on how they would be able to treat the prisoners, the remainder of the time. In the beginning the prisoners didn’t take the rules set by the guards seriously, they were still viewing it as just an experiment .The prison guards wanted to demonstrate control over the prisoner so they made the prisoner do push up and other exercises, but over time the punishment for the prisoner became mentally and physically abusive. Simple things such as brushing their teeth or using the bathroom became privileges they would have to earn. The experiment was meant to last two weeks, but ended after the first week due to the severity of the prison guards’ actions and the outcome it was leaving on the prisoners, who soon forget that they weren’t actually in prison.
The experiment demonstrates how humans have the ability to be evil when put in certain situations. Human behaviors start to shift as they gain more control. The experiment brought insight into how humans who don’t have control tend to become more vulnerable, but people who do have control tend to let the evil part of their personality starts to come through.Although the prison guards knew that they were randomly selected, and had false power they still deliberately be litted the inmates that were chosen. This act of dehumanization only proves how society functions on power.
The Stanford Experiment can apply to police brutality. Many police have been abusing there powers. When the police want residents to follow an order they can take drastic measures.In the Stanford Experiment when the prisoners started to rebel the prision guards started to enforce harder punishments.The police and the prison guards use similar tactics to enforce their rules.When Humans are given authority over others, even, for a short amount of time they tend to abuse it.
Melody M

Anonymous said...

In 1971, a man named Philip G. Zimbardo conducted an experiment to see how human behavior changes given the roles of guard or prisoner. Researchers created a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford University’s psychology building. Participants consisted of 24 young college students who had nothing wrong with them ( good backgrounds and lacked medical and psychological problems). 12 were randomly chosen to be guards and the other 12 were prisoners. Prisoners were given prisoner like essentials such as: cells, smocks, chains around one ankle and also numbers to be referred by. Guards were given: batons, mirror glasses to hide eye to eye contact and khaki uniforms. Zimbardo wanted the experiment to run 14 days until a student named Christina Maslach saw his experiment up close and personal. She became disgusted by the fact of everyone just letting it go on especially Zimbardo knowing how he is. Leading the experiment to end after six days.
Although Zimbardo conducted an unethical experiment, the experiment still gives us insight on human behavior. The human behavior changed drastically throughout the six days of the experiment. Prisoners went from being independent to gaining some sort of psychological issue. Guards went from being nice to abusive. Despite the fact the guards were allowed to interact with the prisoners in any way they chose, they chose to dehumanizing. This shows us how given a certain role containing power in relation to the environment we would say and do things we wouldn't normally do.
This over taking power can be shown in lots of place such as: Relationships, jobs, parenting, friendships, etc. The power may be small, overwhelming or chaotic. Someone somewhere has mental and/or physical power over someone and may not even know it. This may cause them to become upset and physically assault the other or it may cause them to become obsessive. Thus causes them to become hungry to the pleasure of power and thus gaining dominance.


Dominique D.

Jennifer B said...

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues came up with the idea to create an experiment that looked at the effect of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. Zimbardo selected 24 out of 70 undergraduate student volunteers to act out the roles of both prisoners and guards. The volunteers that were selected had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues, and had no significant medical conditions. Zimbardo and researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. The 24 volunteers agreed to participate for a two-week period. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison for 24 hours while Guards worked eight hour shifts. They were able to return home after their shift until the next shift. Researchers used hidden cameras and microphones to observe the behavior of both prisoners and guards.

The experiment was meant to be a two-week trial but because of the abuse and aggressiveness portrayed by the guards, the experiment had to be stopped after only 6 days. The “guards” became hostile towards the students. They began to abuse their power and beat the prisoners. Students began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety. Five of the students had to be released early because of their negative emotions. The Stanford prison experiment was conducted to depict the abuse of power one feels when they are in higher authority than others. This provided an insight in how the environment in which someone is in projects off their attitude and behavior.
The guards feel superior among the prisoners, causing them to dictate the mock prison. For example, in everyday life if a cop feels threatened, he or she is entitled to arrest a civilian just because of the authority they obtain. Recently there have been many cases where a police officer becomes aggressive and abusive towards a ‘suspected” criminal. Most of the time, the suspect isn’t known to be guilty, yet authority figures react and abuse them as if they were.