Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Summer Assignment Part 1 - Due July 20


Be sure to sign up for our Remind text alerts and Google Classroom using the codes 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. Be sure to keep track of all your sources and stick to authoritative sources for your main research.

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. **NOTE: some of these studies have turned out to be problematic in terms of ethics and scientific methodology. See if there are any solid critiques of the study you chose. Did the study put people at unnecessary risk? Have other researchers been able to replicate it? Was it affected by experimenter bias? 
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, Docs 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. Include full URLs of all sources you use at the end of your post. 

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. http://cantorsbiologyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-to-send-e-mail-to-teacher-really.html

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. 


Anonymous said...

This is a sample comment...

Mr. C

Itzayanna S. said...

The Stanford Prison Experiment was lead by professor Philip Zimbardo the experiment consists of two test groups the “Prisoners” and the “Guards”.They have help from a man who was in prison for about seventeen years. This experiment took place on August 14, 1971-August 20,1971 only six days when it was initially supposed to last two weeks but because of the excessive abuse was cut short. Initially, 70 men applied, anyone with psychological, medical disabilities or history of crime or drug abuse were eliminated. Only 24 men were chosen and 18 were used the rest would be backups then they were split up into two groups. They were being paid 15 dollars a day for participating in this study.
The two groups were held in the Stanford basement that was turned into a mock prison. The mock prison included a hole or solitary confinement which was a dark janitors closet. The prisoners were subjected to arrest, strip searches, delousing, head shaving and other abuses. The prisoners were given ID number which where what they should be called by and guards were not given proper training they were only given limits. By the first day, the guard started to act aggressively towards the prisoner by getting them naked blindfolding them and conducting searches. The second day the prisoners rebelled against the guards. The professor stated that “How we went about testing these questions that we found may astound you… In only a few days our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.”This experiment ended up affecting the people who lead it and the ones involved to this day more than 40 years later both groups state to remember every detail.
This experiment provided a valuable insight into the way people act by demonstrating what happens when a person is given the power but in reality are equal. This study did put people at unnecessary risk because the prisoners became depressed and stopped eating they pledged to be released but the professor wanted to finish the experiment forgetting that they were a human being and were not actually prisoners. In December of 2001, a British university replicated the experiment and documented it. It was later aired on BBC and had a lot of controversies it was then put at a halt. Professor Zimbardo stated that it shouldn't be repeated, It should not be redone for sensational TV he also stated the fact that he was surprised that a British University would be involved in it. This experiment lasted 10 days with 15 men and was lead by psychologist Alex Haslam and Steven Richer on December 21.
This experiment applies to today's life because it can be applied to actual prisoners and guard. We as outsiders don't know and don't understand what goes on in prisons. In a way, we can compare this to schools. If a student was ever to be put as a teacher and a teacher as a student we can assume that the student would now have the power to write up teachers and kick them out or even give special treatment to their “favorites” Not saying that teacher is overpowered but if you really think about it they have the authority over students and are to be respected . Although not all students see that way and they think things like “they are just teachers” But if the student were to be in the teacher's shoes what would they say then?
Itzayanna S.

Anonymous said...

In 1971, a social psychology experiment by Philip Zimbardo took place. This Experiment tested effects of obtaining power and how people got in to the roles of guards and prisoners in a prison environment. 24 males were chosen to participate in this experiment after physical and mental exams were paid $15 a day. Guard and prisoner ropes were given at random after a few people left leaving 11 guards and 10 prisoners. Prisoners were arrested in their real lives at random times as part of the experiment and were only allowed to be called by their prison numbers. Guards were give whistles, billy clubs , and special sunglasses. The experiment was supposed to last two weeks but only lasted 6 days due to bad outcomes. Only a few hours after the experiment started, guards were already harassing prisoners. So much so that the prisoners revelled on the second day. As time went on prisoners started to go crazy due to the harassment by the guards and guards continued treating the prisoners worse every day. Two prisoners ended up leaving early because they “snapped” . Only after the experiment was stopped did Zimbardo notice he was too into his prison role. The outcome of the experiment was that people will conform in to social roles when stereotyped strongly.

This experiment got many criticisms for the abuse the “prisoners” went through. Some people thought the participants were not fully aware of what they were getting themselves in to while other people said the participants signed themselves up for it therefore not Zimbardo’s fault. A lot of people also think nothing good came from this experiment , that no thesis was confirmed or denied . That all that was done was psychological harm to the participants. Yet other argue that the thesis was confirmed the thesis being that people will conform to any given roles. The only insight to the way people act or think on instinct that came from this experiment is that humans will confirm to any environment in order to survive. In the end after years of checking in with participants it was found that nobody has permanent effects.

This experiment proves that humans are capable of surviving in any environment if they have to and that humans are capable of adapting to any role necessary. For example, if any group of people was lost at a jungle or in the woods or any environment they are not used to being in they will quickly adopt in to survival role. They will learn how to survive and adjust to the environment. They will do whatever they have to do like fight off any animals , find food, and make shelter. This experiment taught us that by showing how quickly the participants adopted to being in a prison environment and how the prisoners learned to survive the abuse of the guards.

McLeod, S. A. (2017). Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html

Angelica R.

Estefanie S. said...

The experiment I picked was the Stanford Prison Experiment and it is a social science experiment. A psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, constructed an experiment that will show people’s moral identity; also how power brings out the best in some people and the worst in others. This experiment was constructed in August 14-20, 1971 at a mock-up prison in a Stanford University basement. The experiment involved two groups- prisoners and guards- who were students that had participated. The prisoners were to be physically/verbally abused, stripped search, head shaved, etc; the guards were to abuse those prisoners. Philip’s experiment was planned to be for 14 days, but ended being six days due to the high levels of abuse.

The importance of the experiment is to show how far people can go when having power. According to a video I saw the prisoners stated that they know how evil the guards could get or what the guards were capable of doing to them. The guards were regular students that seemed caring until they were given the capacity to do what they wanted to the prisoners; the guards got creative with their verbal abuse toward the prisoners. I think once people gain power or fame they get comfortable or use to that, so they start to think they are the most important and do what their minds tell them to do. For example, the prisoners started being obedient and the guards increased their level of abuse to make things hard for the prisoners, which is why the experiment ended sooner than expected- the prisoners were traumatized and/or scared.

An example would be someone I know that verbally and physically abused their spouse. This person cheated on their significant other and they separated, but this person’s spouse went back with them and since then this person has been jealous when their significant other had no intent of being with someone else. I think once people do something they think others will do the same thing to them. This person would make up things in their mind and would yell out to their spouse about it when it did not happen. I think the problem started once this person’s spouse gave them a second chance because it gave them the ability to hurt them again.



-Estefanie S.

Arnold Rodriguez said...

Arnold Rodriguez
The Stanford Prison Experiment was a social psychology experiment to understand the effects of roles, labels, social expectations on subjects in the set environment, and the effects prisons can have on human behavior. The experiment was lead by Philip Zimbardo a professor at Stanford University and the StanFord University Psychology Department in 1971. What they did was in the basement of the school it was simulated to be a prison environment and students from the school were chosen to either play the role of a prisoner or a prison guard. The experiment was planned to be 14 days but lasted 6 days due to prison prison guards showing high levels of abuse and prisoners going crazy.
The Importance of this experiment was that it highlighted the effect on someone's actions and also it showed how one is stripped from their basic needs while in an environment such as prison and is later seen to change physically and mentally in effect of the people around and or the living environment the person is in. The experiment also lead us to believe that after it was concluded we were able to see that the environment such as prison where one is striped of basic needs and the confinement they are put in and knowing that once they’re in prison they’re just a number can lead us to know that the environment you’re in can change you mentally and physically. The experiment did lead to unnecessary risk when the prison guards were told since the beginning that were not by any circumstances to hit the prisoners but Phillip did not know that it would lead to that point, thus causing for the experiment to be concluded early.
An example to how the experiment can be applied to everyday life would be if for simplicity someone was taken to jail and after their sentence has been completed they aren't the same when they come out as to when they went in to prison. Or another example would be an animal such as a polar bear taken out of his environment and put in another without the basic needs to keep him well and functioning just like he would be in his regular environment. After time the polar bear starts to show changes in behavior, health, signs of discomfort, etc.

Anonymous said...

In 1920, John B. Watson managed an experiment at John Hopkins University, to assess whether emotional responses could be conditioned in humans. John Watson executed this experiment after gaining knowledge of Ivan Pavlov’s research from his experiment. Ivan Pavlov’s experiment consisted of a dog and a bell, Pavlov ’s intention was to see if the dog would salivate if he perceived the bell being rung with feeding time- as a result, it was so. Pavlov’s experiment was done after he noted a sum of dogs responding to him when he entered his room by salivating, this was due to the dogs’ associating food with Pavlov,  as was the sounding of the bell with food.

In John B. Watson’s experiment, 9-month-old Albert was the main subject used. This experiment consisted of John B. Watson associating something the infant was familiar with something he was unfamiliar to- which happened to be a white rat and a loud noise. Albert was first shown things he liked such as a rabbit, fire, a monkey and a rat. Afterward, whenever the boy reached for the white rat a loud noise (coming from a  hammer being hit to metal) was made. After a while of this reoccurrence, Albert disliked the rat, any fury objects, and animals because of him associating reaching for the rat with his present fear of the loud noise resulting.

I believe this experiment has noted that humans become conditioned throughout life due to prior experiences and exposures that are analogous and persistent with a specified other. These exposures include fears- pertaining to certain aspects of life which one also becomes conditioned to. I believe valuable insight was also gained from this experiment when it comes to the way people act and think. This is because of one’s association with an action done from a previous experience to a current experience or a reaction to one’s words, which corresponds to what the individual has said or heard before.

Although there was valuable insight from Watson’s experience, an infant was never desensitized of the phobias he was conditioned to. Due to this, this experiment cannot be replicated, to prevent psychological disorders and trauma from occurring. Despite the harshness of this experiment, current psychologists are gaining a lot of knowledge from it. Here’s an example of one who is now conditioned: Alaysia is sitting outside and eating her lunch, when all of a sudden she hears something, something that sounds like someone calling a name, but it happens to be her name-immediately she turns around, seeking a sign from an individual who could’ve called her name, but there was no one. That’s an example of a conditioned activity that she didn’t respond to until after she began to associate it with something she was not conditioned to- which in this case is getting her attention. Humans responding to their names are one of many conditioned stimuli we become associated with at a young age- that later becomes a norm in our life.


Alaysia F

Unknown said...

I'm 1959 at Stanford University; Festinger and Carlsmith did an experiment in students about Cognitive Dissonance.The experiment has to groups of people.One group had particular expectations and the other group had no expectations.Selected students among the groups was offered $1 to lie to the next students that was coming about staying the experiment was “ interesting “.Students who told the truth was offered $20.Students who lied about the experiment tried to actually believe that the experiment was interesting VS students who thought it was boring actually stuck to their belief.

Cognitive Dissonance is when an individual has 2 thoughts that are contradictory to one another; which leads them to be inconsistency.Cognitive experiment can show individuals that when they try to have focus on their belief other things around them and their thoughts and feelings can impact on their consistency to think.For Example a male can have 2 thoughts that are inconsistent with each other.Thought 1 is: I smoke a lot, meanwhile thought 2 is: Smoking is unhealthy.People have this issue throughout the mankind times.Rathers is what to cook ? What they like or not ? Everyone has been consistent at least once in their life.

My claim about Festinger experiment is the experiment showed how humans tend to think I'm a regular bases.Rather they are testing their way of thinking or someone's else's.During this experiment no one was put 1st risk for anything.To me that's a pro for a experiment.Other researchers have tried to tape into Festinger experiment such as Elliot Aronson in 1997.The experimenter did show bias in the experiment when students who were told to lie receive $1 and the others receive $20.Overall this experiment was great.




Juanita V

Mya M. said...

Human cruelty is a widespread disease that can sometimes be psychological and can be inflicted by manipulation. The infamous Stanford Prison Experiment has gathered popularity from books to movies, and was designed and implemented to affect both the researcher and the subjects into believing that humans are manipulated into harming and doing such acts of evil. The experiment was funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and was also designed to measure the effect of “role-playing, labeling, and social expectations on behavior over a period of two weeks.”
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo gathered a group of college students in August of 1971 in Stanford University and divided his participants into two groups labeled “prisoners” and “guards”. The mock prison was in a Stanford University basement, and the prisoners were arrested, subjected to a strip search, delousing, head shaving and other abuses. The guards were given clubs. The prisoners rebelled against the abuse of the guards during the second day of the experiment, and was then given the rather quick, harsh, and brutal reaction of the guards.
As the experiment progressed, the prisoners were behaving apprehensively and followed all orders blindly, while the guards fully dictated their roles by abusing and taunting their charges. The experiment confirmed the scientific idea of humans harboring “evil tendencies.” Although the experiment was outlined for 14 days, the experiment came to an abrupt stop after just 6 days due to the increasing levels of abuse observed from the guards.
The importance of the experiment, in my view, is to observe human nature and to investigate the human behaviors based on manipulation and the idea of power and complete control. It shed light on the idea of humans harvesting evil psychologically using forces of manipulation and role play. Although some people believe that this experiment was a “fraud” and a “hoax”, many people believed that the experiment was too “unbelievably true” to not be a hoax. Some have found the experiment “enlightening”and a chance to speak on this subject. One critique says “The ensemble shines in demonstrating the complexities of the individuals who either endure or exploit this system of abusive power dynamics.” Although the experiment has been transformed into different ways of conducting it, the main idea was still found throughout.
This experiment can be used in schools or even in homes, in which two groups are split up so that one group has a title of power and the other group are abused. The “abuse” can only be verbal, and the abusers are told by two overseers what to do. The researchers record the observations. The abusers do receive slight consequences if chosen not to do the act upon the demand, but are given such authority that the power of evil might direct them onto doing such acts. It will not only show evidence of psychological power, but shed light on the idea of inflicted evil based on title.


Mya M.

Anonymous said...

In 1956, psychologist George Miller introduced an experiment of how many items you can hold in your memory at once. He discovered that you can only hold seven (plus or minus two) items in your short term memory at any time. He wrote a research paper and it was published by the Princeton University's Department of Psychology in New Jersey.

The study did not put anyone at risk; however, they did have to go through various span tests in order to prove the capacity of our short-term memory to be seven. Phone numbers are seven digits so that there is a distinguished variety as well as being easier to remember. Although it is proven that we do remember seven items in our memory there has been judgment whether it is the same in elder people.

This experiment can be used in everyday life for people trying to memorize things for a quiz or in general. They can chunk their information together into sentences or acronyms in order to be able to store it in long-term memory for later use. Individuals who are unaware of this information may try to remember all the information before the event and forget it instantly because it was too much. They may try to memorize a lot of things at a time not knowing that there is a limit.


Vanessa G.

Dulce B said...

Psychologist Stanley Milgram at Yale University set up an experiment to test obedience towards authority. The experiment initiated July 1961 in New Haven Connecticut. During the “Obedience to Authority” experiment they created two groups, one group being the “teachers” and the second group being the “Learners”, the teachers had control over the learners and were supposed to punish them if they answered the questions incorrectly by delivering shocks.

I believe the importance of this experiment was to figure out how people are manipulated, more specifically speaking Stanley Milgram was trying to figure out why people followed Adolf Eichmann’s orders. In both events one person was harming another person and yet they continued because it was an order and they were sort of under pressure but that doesn't explain how seeing other people suffering over something so small like a wrong answer is fine.

An example of how this could be applied to everyday life is at the workplace where the owner abuses his power to give orders to the manager and then the manager uses his power to manipulate the other workers he’s in charge of.


Dulce B. said...

Psychologist Stanley Milgram at Yale University set up an experiment to test obedience towards authority. The experiment initiated July 1961 in New Haven Connecticut. During the “Obedience to Authority” experiment they created two groups, one group being the “teachers” and the second group being the “Learners”, the teachers had control over the learners and were supposed to punish them if they answered the questions incorrectly by delivering shocks.

I believe the importance of this experiment was to figure out how people are manipulated, more specifically speaking Stanley Milgram was trying to figure out why people followed Adolf Eichmann’s orders. In both events one person was harming another person and yet they continued because it was an order and they were sort of under pressure but that doesn't explain how seeing other people suffering over something so small like a wrong answer is fine.

An example of how this could be applied to everyday life is at the workplace where the owner abuses his power to give orders to the manager and then the manager uses his power to manipulate the other workers he’s in charge of.


Anonymous said...

In August of 1971, the Psychology Department of Stanford University conducted a study of the psychological effects of imprisonment through a simulated prison environment. It was led by researchers Philip Zimbardo, Craig Haney, W. Curtis Banks, and David Jaffe, who had originally planned the experiment to last fourteen days. They created their own version of a prison at the basement of the department building, constructing prison cells and a room for solitary confinement. To obtain the experience of prison life, the environment was made as close to real as possible with the help of “experienced consultants”—former prisoners, correctional personnel, and a priest. The researchers were able to gather over seventy applicants who answered their newspaper ad. In order to select the most qualified participants for the grave challenge, an interview was held and tests were administered; only twenty-four students remained afterwards and were paid $15 a day. The experiment began with eighteen students—nine of whom were guards and the other nine were prisoners. The rest served as back-ups. There was no difference between the boys assigned as guards and boys assigned as prisoners; the roles were chosen at random. Guards were given no rules as to how they were supposed to act. They came up with their own rules and gave punishments (push-ups, for one) to those they deemed were disrespectful. Due to the significant impact—psychological, emotional, and physical abuse—of the experiment on the students (they were treated so closely to prisoners, the students had felt they were in real prison and couldn’t leave), the study was cut short and ended in a matter of six days.

The Stanford Prison Experiment allows people to take a peak of what prisoners go through in real life. The study took its toll immediately when the abuse of power was exhibited and prisoners were made to feel less human if not completely dehumanized was highlighted. No matter the circumstances, the experiment served a great importance, and it shocked the world for its results. It showed how people who are given power and authority can, in a snap of a finger, turn into a whole different persona. They became capable of such unimaginable deeds and caused pain and suffering to mere human beings. The guards managed to get into the prisoners’ heads and make them feel powerless, and in turn, the prisoners were trying to resist by their rebellion, but they can only do so much to the men in authority. The experiment reached points where a doctor was needed to see the “prisoners” and evaluate them. Also, the lead researcher, Philip Zimbardo, found himself carried on by the experiment when he thought the prisoners who were acting hysterically and asking for help were doing so to escape. Additionally, the study showed the importance of debriefing due to the results.

I see this experiment applied in everyday life with the current situation of the Philippines. As a Filipino, I’ve seen the effects of our president’s misuse of power firsthand. He had ordered this “war on drugs” when he was first elected to address the issue of illegal use of drugs happening in the country. However, things escalated quickly when he called on to the public to help him resolve this issue. He said that civilians could kill people who were using or dealing drugs, and the police may also kill whoever fights the arrest they have made on alleged users. All these without due process, without putting the people into trial, without the proof that the people are guilty. It really is disappointing to see what has been going on in the world, not just in the Philippines, in terms of the use of power.


Anonymous said...

The experiment I chose to research on is the Asch Conformity Experiment.This experiment was conducted by Solomon Asch, a Polish gestalt psychologist. Asch’s experiment was done in 1951 at Swarthmore College with all male participants.Solomon asch conducted an experiment in which 7 participants took part in and had to clearly state which line (A, B or C) was most similar to the target line.In Asch experiment though he had 6 of the participants play along at first and give the correct answer but then switch it up to the wrong answer to see whether that one person who didn't know that the others were in on it, would fall into peer pressure and go along with the other participants or stick out on his own with the correct answer.In the end the results were vary. Some participants gave into the peer pressure and were scared of being the outsider of the group while others say they actually thought the incorrect answers were correct.

The experiment is considered to not have provided a valuable insight into the way people think or act do to the lack of unreliable sources.The experiment only tested one group in particular which were all male in same age group instead of testing other different backgrounds like females or age groups like the elderly or the youngsters.Also the test experiment should've tested a real life experiment that is used in everyday life instead of looking at lines.That way we would actually see how the experiment affected a real life scenario. Later on Solomon did end up doing further trials but with different scenarios like adding and ally to the one person that ended up with a better result of confidence.He also had the one participant write his answers secretly on a paper while the others said it out loud. This did give him different outputs.Yet he still kept the group the same which were all male in the same group age .

One example of how this experiment can be applied to everyday life is different for every age group.For example, for kids if they see a bunch of their friends have the new video game that came out they're going to want it.Not just because they want it but because all his friends have it and they don't want to be left out.Also with young adults,even though they may have a perfectly working phone or shoes and the rest of their friends are getting the new iphone or shoes, they're more likely to ditch what they have to fit in with the others even though they know that what they have is perfectly working.If not there can be a scenario as if someone is getting bullied and see if people would help on their own with no help or if they see people helping why did they step in and help .These situations happen in real life unlike asking someone to match lines.


Jacqueline R

Fatima Aguilar said...

In the summer of 1971, psychologists Philip Zimbardo conducted a stimulation of prison life. This experiment is known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment was held in the basement of the Stanford psychology Department, which was turned into a prison. After interviewing volunteers they chose 24 of them. There were two groups, the prisoners and the guards, that were assigned at random. The prisoners were arrested and were brought to the prison. The guards weren’t given specific training and they were allowed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order within limits.

The purpose of this experiment was to help understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations. This experiment has provided a valuable insight on the way people think and act. Everyone involved in the experiment began to act as if the stimulation was their reality and not just a stimulation. They had to end the experiment after 6 days instead of the 2 weeks planned. After looking over the security tapes, the researchers saw that guards would abuse the prisoners at night when they thought they weren’t being recorded anymore. They had created a situation in which prisoners were withdrawing and behaving in pathological ways, and in which some of the guards were behaving sadistically.

This experiment can be applied to everyday life. For example a boy’s parents and older sister are all doctors. Even tho the boy has no interest in going to med school, he still goes. He feels like since his family members are doctors, he is also expected to be one too.


Fatima A

Anonymous said...

The bystander effect experiment is about how people’s reactions are different in situations where they are accompanied or by themselves and what they choose to do. When people are put in the spot to choose to help someone who may be in danger some look the other way or they are followers on what others choose to do. An experiment was done in 1968 by John Darley and Bibb Latane at Columbia University. The way they tested their participants is by giving them a survey to fill out meanwhile they would have smoke coming into their room. In the experiment they had people in groups and some were by themselves and they noticed people who were by themselves had better reactions in the situation given.
The importance of the experiment was to show to always take precaution of your surroundings and make the right choices regardless of any other bystander’s choices. For example, there was a real incident of a murder of Kitty Genovese where she was being assaulted by a physco who stabbed her in the back and she was calling for help in the streets.In the incident there were about 38 people who aware of something going on but they choose to ignore it instead. When someone finally had the courage to do something by calling 911 she had already bled out and died. As a result, of not taking actions it can be fatal.
An example of people being a bystander is when my sister’s car was damaged in the middle of the night while being parked in front of our house. Our neighbors had an argument and it escalated to the point where they got violent. The individuals started vandalizing private property. Many neighbors witnessed the incident but never reported to the police. Later on we hear people talking so we came out and many neighbors had something to say. Neighbors were being bystanders when they never alerted us even though they knew us well.

sources :https://studunnsdl.wordpress.com

Melissa. A

Marelyn V said...

We know a lot of human behavior because of past psychologist that managed different experiments based on different scenarios. One of the biggest experiment was The Stanford Prison Experiment. It was managed by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who wanted to understand the effects of roles, labels, and stereotypes in a “prison environment.” The experiment was taken place in Stanford University basement called Jordan Hall, and built in a mock prison. Zimbardo and his team conducted the experiment in Aug 14,1971 – Aug 20, 1971. The experiment was originally expected to last two weeks, but situations between guards and prisoners became extreme, that they stopped the experiment six days later. Zimbardo advertised his experiment in a newspaper asking for volunteers to participate in a study of psychological effects of prison life. They got 24 people and they were paid $15 per day during the experiment. Volunteers were randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard in a prison environment. There were ten prisoners and 11 guards. The guards worked in groups of three and worked eight-hour shifts. Prisoners, however, were housed three to a room. The room was a mock of solitary confinement cell. Prisoners were arrested at their own homes and then went to the police station, where they were fingerprinted, photographed and checked-in. When Prisoners got to the prison they were stripped naked, had all their personal objects removed, and were given prison clothes and bed sheets. They were given a uniform and called by their number only. Their clothes had a number written on it, and they had no underwear. Also, they had a nylon cap to cover their hair and a chain around one ankle. All guards were dressed in uniforms of khaki, a whistle, and sunglasses. Guards were told to do whatever they thought to keep law and order in the prison and to demand the respect of the prisoners. Although, no physical violence was permitted.

The importance of the Prison Experiment demonstrated how big an effect the environment has on our individual behavior, it has the ability to beat what we would consider our true moral and behavioral regulations. The Experiment clearly demonstrates the blame on the environment because guards and prisoners had different power in the prison. Guards were taking advantage of their power and the prisoners were somewhat rebelling, which caused harsher punishments coming from the guards, which led to a lot of mental breakdowns. In my opinion, prisoners were put in unnecessary risks because in real jail, guards have to follow various rules, and in the experiment their only rule was not to use violence. During the experiment, prisoners were being humiliated and were taking advantage of. The prisoners were treated harshly that a doctor was needed to see the prisoners and analyze them. Philip Zimbardo was also part of the act when he thought the prisoners who were exaggerating by asking for help to escape.
The experiment can be applied to everyday life because of police, and minorities. This has become a huge issue now-a-days with police brutality. Police Officers take advantage of their power by humiliating, hurting, and murdering, sometimes, innocent people. The community goes out and protest, which most of the time ends up being dangerous. For example, there was a recent police killing in the south side, and police were using violence, and physical abuse to arrest people who were protesting to murder of the young black man. It’s all a cycle which keeps repeating.

-Marelyn V.

Anonymous said...

In 1968 Jane Elliott developed one of the most famously controversial exercises which is called the blue eyed students versus the brown eyed students. The day after the Martin Luther King Jr shooting a student came In Jane's class and asked “why did they shoot that King". She then told her class it would be hard for them to understand discrimination without experiencing it. She asked them would they like to find out and they replied yes. She then decided to do an experiment not based off of race but off of eye color. The next day she separated the blue-eyed students from the brown eyed students. She told the blue eyed students they were more Superior and better than the brown eyed students. She then noticed how the blue-eyed students attitudes were changing and they were becoming “arrogant and bossy”. The brown-eyed students we’re becoming “timid and subservient”. Then the next week on that Monday she told the brown-eyed students that they were more Superior and better than the blue eyed students. The brown-eyed students started acting “arrogant and bossy” and the blue eyed students started acting “timid and subservient”. In the end she had the students write how the experiment made them feel. She showed the students how it felt to be discriminated against.

This experiment is important because once Jane made each group feel inferior they got a real taste of how it feels to be discriminated against and how Africans Americans felt decades ago. This experiment showed them How superior Caucasian felt decades ago and how inferior African-American feltl decades ago and some still do now. This experiment provided valuable insight into the way people think because once Jane made the blue eyes students feel like they were better than a brown eye students and started to give them special privileges their whole mindset change and they attitude changed and they started to feel as though they were better and they were the boss of everything.

This experiment can be applied in everyday life because everyday people are getting discriminated against if someone were to do this experiment to a group of Caucasian people it will help them to see how inferior African Americans felt back in the day and have many still feel now. If Caucasians went through this experiment I saw how African-Americans fill over a decade ago it will help stop much discrimination now.

Unknown said...

The experiment that I think is most interesting is experiment number two “Asch Conformity Experiment”. This experiment was created by Solomon Asch to test Conformity at Swarthmore College in 1951 by making a group of people, whose task was to match one of the 3 lines that were given to the reference line. This study was to show how individuals bear to or disregard as a group and the effect that persuade other beliefs and opinion.

The importance of this experiment was basically social pressure, and how other individuals answers can affect other individual answers. This experiment honestly did provide a valuable insight into this everyday life and how other answers can influence another person answer, basically being peer pressure. I also feel like this experiment is informing us how there’s a lot of people out here today in classrooms being peer pressure or scared to say the correct answer because they might think they’re wrong, even though their not.

For example in the video, the student knew he was right, but still went along with others because he didn't want to avoid the discomfort of disagreement. I mean which can be understandable at times, but if you know that your right you should 100 percent support your answer. A lot of times during English class there's a lot of students who tend to say an answer based off another person answer but cannot explain it.



Jessica T said...

On Sunday, October 30, 1938, Orson Welles performed an adaptation of the book “War of Worlds” . This book consisted of alien invaders coming from Mars and attacking Earth. At the time of the broadcast, not many people were listening to it. Most people were listening to a popular ventriloquist act by Edgar Bergen. Once a music break came on people began to change the station. The station that they landed on was the one that “War of Worlds” was being broadcasted on . At this time they miss the introduction to the play, so they believed it was an actual news story. The setting for this adaptation was changed from the original one of England to the United States. Specifically, a meteor had fallen in a field in Grover's Mills, New Jersey. Later on in the broadcast it was said that Martian ships had landed in Chicago and St. Louis.

The importance of this event was that it shows how differently people take certain information . This case shows how gullible people in an instance like this where information is quickly spread without it actually being backed up. More than one million people were convinced that there was an alien invasion . In terms of flight vs fight, their flight was highly triggered due to it being Halloween eve and the realistic acting . This broadcast caused massive panic and left many people in shock. It was affected by experimenter bias . Wells wanted to give the play an extra push and added stuff that wasn’t on the script such as a very long pause of silence to add that tension. This even gives us information about how the masses act when under certain circumstances in which they must fend for themselves.

Similar events like this have happened . There have been many weird TV interruptions where hackers interrupts news station. For example the one in 2013 in Montana where there was said to be a zombie apocalypse. Many people in Montana called 911 to ask about it. A different example of something like the “War of Worlds” is all the false alarm missile strikes. One of this false missile strikes was in Hawaii . People were terrified and in a state of panic. Another example is when people mistook popping balloons for gunshots and 9 people were injured in the panic.


Jessica T