Welcome to AP Psychology at North-Grand!
Be sure to sign up for our Remind 101 text alerts using the code I gave you the last week of school.
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.
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. http://cantorsbiologyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-to-send-e-mail-to-teacher-really.html
Keep working on the rest of your summer assignment from the Bernstein Textbook and the Phineas Gage book.
18 comments:
Post your comments down here.
Obedience to Authority was an experiment started in the 1960s by a psychologist named Stanley Milgrim at Yale University. This experiment measured to what extent a person would go to cause pain for another person, assuming that they were ordered to do so by an authority figure. The goal of this experiment was to figure out how the people involved in the Holocaust were able to imprison human beings even if they were following orders.
The experiment goes as followed: Three people were chosen to do this experiment; the learner, the teacher and the experimenter. The teacher was told by the experimenter to ask a series of questions to the learner, and each time they got it wrong, to shock them; although, the learner wasn’t being tested on how smart he/she was. But how long it took the teacher to show discomfort in what they were doing. The twist in the experiment was that there were no real shocks. The sounds were pre-recorded to make the teacher think he was hurting the learner.
What was concluded from this experiment was that people obey when they are feared into something or if they want to. I can relate this to Law and Order shows I watch on TV. Yes, it is just Tv, but things like this can happen. For example, when there are three people going to rape a girl and the leader tells one of the guys that he’s a punk if he doesn’t get a little. There is always someone who isn’t sure about it. Who thinks it’s a bad idea, but someone else forces them to do it anyway. The leader fears him into it and gets what he wants.
Stanley Milgrim’s experiment depicts how much a person can be influenced to obey an authority figure by or by choosing to do it. This opens a whole new door on how the mind works and how this is a factor on what the human mind decides to do in the end. The psychologists now believe that it has something to do with our most innate behavior that we should do as told, especially from an authority figure.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
https://explorable.com/stanley-milgram-experiment
April A
In the Lord of the Flies Experiment aka Robbers Cave Experiment Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues decided to develop an experiment to test the conflict and remedies of inter-group conflict. This experiment was conducted after World War 2 in Oklahoma City at Robbers Cave State Park at a summer camp. The researchers gathered 22 boys around the same age who all had similar backgrounds and similar characteristics. These boys were known as campers. They were put in stages where they tested the boys’ behavior, and the boys were divided into two groups of 11 campers. In stage 1 the campers would settle in unaware of each other’s existence. In stage 2 the campers would compete in competitions and be awarded with prizes. Once the campers started to become aware of each other it caused hostility among the groups in which another stage was added which was stage 3. In stage 3 the researchers tried to reduce the friction between both groups by having them both attend pleasant events together to try and bond the two groups together.
The Robbers Cave Experiment is a valuable insight into how people think and act because in the experiment once the boys got to know each other as they spent time bonding with other. They all felt that those that where a part of their group meant something to them as they formed a brother hood. Once the teams made up names for one another which was Rattlers and Eagles. That bond that they each formed and the actions that they took to protect their identity and their groups name. Demonstrates how we as humans take extreme measures to protect the people we care about. How sometimes it can make us make bad decisions.
Not only does it demonstrate that, but this experiment also shows how when we are granted power how it changes who we are also. What I mean by this is when in stage 2 when both groups were competing and when Rattlers won the overall competition and got the winning prize which was the trophy. The victory went over their head and they started to act as if they were better than the Eagles and claimed everything in the summer camp as theirs writing their groups name everywhere. Another way also how this experiment demonstrates how people think and act because it also demonstrates the act of retaliation and how much people can take. What I mean by this the taunting from the Rattlers and their move of empowerment over the Eagles made the Eagles want to retaliate and soon once the hostility started to rise. In stage 3 every time the researchers tried to put the two groups together a fight always broke out to protect both groups reputation.
This experiment can apply to everyday life by as today because it demonstrates conflicts between gang violence. This experiment shows the violence and retaliation that rivals between gangs today and wanting to protect their group’s reputation. Which is similar to what happened in the experiment with both groups as Rattlers took their power to extreme measures and to protect their reputation; the Eagles felt the need to fight back and retaliate to show that the Rattlers had no power over them. Such as when the Rattlers would claim that certain things on the camp was theirs as they wrote their names on things. Just like today with gang violence graffiti around their territory. Once gangs come around their enemies nothing but violence happens. Just like in stage 3 when the researchers tried to create a bond between both groups, but instead violence acts occurred because neither groups could be around each other.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/
http://brainz.org/ten-most-revealing-psych-experiments/
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/war-peace-and-role-of-power-in-sherifs.php
The Asch Experiment was conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950’s. The lab experiment was taken by 50 male students from Swarthmore College in the USA located in Pennsylvania. These male students were placed to take a ‘vision test’. The reason why Asch made this experiment was to prove if a persons conformity would change if social pressure from a large group was experienced. Asch made several experiments throughout the 1950’s placing one ‘real tester’ and staged actors to take the same test. He examined if that one person would respond differently or the same as the others, since these staged actors were all answering wrong on purpose. He also had a control group where there was no social pressure just to make sure if there was a difference with the rest of the groups.
The importance of this experiment, in particular to human behavior, is very valuable to the way a person acts and thinks because it demonstrates that Asch’s hypothesis was in fact true. The results to Asch’s experiment where there were people giving the wrong answers, showed that more than one third of the ‘real testers’ answered incorrectly as well. At least a 75% of the testers answered one question wrong and even though it could have been experimental error it was known that peer pressure affected a persons conform. However, in the control group everyone seemed to answer correctly in exception of one wrong response out of 35 questions. This experiment provided a clear understanding to human behavior because the data claims that whenever there is a larger group of people making the wrong decision/choice we as human fall into the pressure and go along with what others have to say: we disbelief in what we think or we hide our own opinions.
Arch’s experiment could apply to everyday life because honestly you can find peer pressure everywhere. Take for instance, a regular teenager. Speaking from experience there will always be good people and bad people who will try and mess with your head one way or another. For example, teenagers have this influence that smoking marijuana is something that ‘cool kids’ do, and if you want to be ‘cool’ you have to follow that trend. Some teenagers have their priorities straight and won’t fall into the pressure but others don’t have the same capacity to do so. In the experiment the staged actors put the subject to the test to see if their answer influenced that one persons response. This experiment compares to the situation of smoking marijuana because again, teenagers are falling into pressure and make the wrong decision just like the subjects that were tested. Whether its because these teenagers are afraid of expressing their opinion or they want to fit in so badly that they agree with others beliefs to see the world in their way.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
• https://explorable.com/asch-experiment
• http://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
• http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA
Jacqueline E.
In the 1950’s Soloman Asch conducted the “Asch Experiment”. This was a famous experiment designed to test how peer pressure influences others judgments. This experiment took place in a room with a table and eight people around the table. Only one subject didn’t know that the rest of the group were confederates. The seating plan was carefully thought of so there was no suspicious raised. The fake participants were trained to give pre-selected answers. This would vary the amount of peer pressure on the individual test to subject. The questions for this experiment were simple; all the participants were asked to answer a series of questions, such as which line was longest or which matched the reference line.
The Asch Experiment reveals the insight of how people will deny what they see with their own eyes and submit to peer pressure. A human will avoid discomfort and simply go with what a group says. This experiment showed that peer pressure has a powerful insight on us humans. Most humans are full of conformity instead of stating their own opinions. Our understanding on human behavior is very simple. Human behavior depends on other humans. Humans influence one another.
I can apply this experiment to my everyday life in high school. So many students pressure each other to act a certain way. People act like others because they are afraid of discomfort. During class there are ignorant fools who disturb the teacher and students laugh simply to go with the group, but they know they’re being disrespectful. They know they shouldn’t give the fool that is disturbing the class the upper hand, but humans simply give in to the peer pressure. This experiment is merely a great example of our everyday life, and our everyday life is peer pressure.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/images/architecture.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/arch4interaction.htm&h=195&w=259&tbnid=iXX-FU6e93PPjM:&zoom=1&q=human+behavior&tbnh=160&tbnw=212&usg=__MRKhWCaWOOlp_M1r6qhwGVkos3E=&docid=GNlGOttlgV4F2M&itg=1&hl=en&client=tablet-android-asus&sa=X&ei=ayrIU_T1O5a0yAT6noLIAw&ved=0CEIQ_B0wAg
Andrea S.
The experiment I found most interesting was “…a classic 1956 experiment.” This experiment focuses on the topic of Cognitive Dissonance. This ‘theory’ of Cognitive Dissonance was based on previous research by Psychologists Janis and King (1954; 1956) and Kelman (1953) The experiment in 1959 performed by Psychologists Festinger and Carlsmith studied 71 students in an introductory course at Stanford University. The experiment was advertised as managing “Measures of Performance.” Throughout the experiment there are two vital phases.
Phase 1: Participants were to place spools on a tray and remove them for 30 minutes; then participants turned 48 pegs clockwise for another 30 minutes. The purpose of this (not known to the participant) was to create a task so boring that it was almost certain that the participants would form a negative opinion about it. The participants were told that there would be extra time after the tasks, so the participants could use that time to leave feedback on the tasks.
Phase 2: During this phase, the experiment diverges into three groups, but the researcher tells the participant that the experiment consists of two groups. In the control group Group#1 the participants are simply sent to another room to complete a survey with four questions on an 11 point scale asking about how ‘fun’ the experiment really was. However, the other two groups (Group#2 and Group#3) are asked a “favor” before filling out the feedback survey. The researcher told the two remain groups that he needed help. He told both groups that the student confederate who tells some of the participants that the task is fun and exciting did not show up and asked the participant if he or she could maybe play that role (in reality, there was no confederate) Group#2 was offered twenty $20 dollar and Group#3 was offered one $1 dollar to lie about how much fun the tasks were to what they believed was another student.
The results:
Group#1-Control group: Participants were offered no reward for lying. This groups’ feedback was based on pure honesty. On a scale from -5 (Horrible) to +5(Amazing) the participants in Group#1 rated the tasks an average of -.45.
Group#2-Twenty-dollar group: Participants were offered twenty dollar to lie about how much fun and exciting the experiment was. On a scale from -5 (Horrible) to +5(Amazing) the participants in Group#2 rated the tasks an average of -.05.
Group#3-One-dollar group: Participants were offered one dollar to lie about how much fun and exciting the experiment was. On a scale from -5 (Horrible) to +5(Amazing) the participants in Group#3 rated the tasks an average of +1.35.
The reason why Group#3 rated a higher task average is because those participants were experiencing cognitive dissonance. This is a state in which one holds two contrasting cognitions. Being paid one dollar was not a good enough reward for lying and so they overcame that dissonance by believing that the tasks really were interesting and fun. Being paid twenty-dollar provides a good enough reason for turning pegs and lying so there is no need for dissonance. People have a way of thinking/acting because humans as a specie want to be in a place of “balance” and “harmony,” so humans change the way they behave and/or change their attitude to fulfil their “balance.” An example of a human experiencing cognitive dissonance would be smoking marijuana. Lets’ say I smoke marijuana (In reality I don’t), but I know it’s bad and kills brain cells. I still chose to smoke it. But, why? This is because I make myself believe that everyone else is doing it and they do not get caught. Another factor I might throw in to keep smoking marijuana is that cigarettes are worst, and marijuana is only a plant, all natural! And it makes me feel relaxed. The reason I tell myself these things are because I feel a place of discomfort and my behavior and attitude are not in sync. This works as defense mechanism to reduce the discomfort I feel between inconsistencies.
Miguel E.
Milgram’s Experiment #3
The experiment that caught my most interest is called, obedience to Authority. It was created in 1963 by a social psychologist named Stanley Milgram, in which it took place at Yale University. Its purpose was to show how far a human being is capable to go when a higher authority demands them to harm another person. This experiment consisted of a teacher, who was the participant, and the learner, who was in reality an actor, and as well the experimenter, who was the one conducting the experiment itself. The participant being the teacher was told by the experimenter to shock the learner every time he answered incorrectly and each time to increase the voltage from the shock generator. The generator went to 15 volts up to 450 the highest. At the moment of the experiment the learner was separated from where the teacher was, not being able to see each other. As the learner answered incorrectly purposely, it meant higher voltage each time. While that was taking place, the learner first began grunting as the voltage was lower, but as it kept increasing the learners ‘’reaction’’ sounded more desperate, louder, and intense. As that was happening the teachers were getting concern. Some spoke up, but then continue as they were reminded that the experiment had to continue. The experiment resulted with 65% of participants that actually continue shocking the learner to the highest level of 450 volts, the rest just made it through 300 volts only.
The importance of the experiment to our understanding of human behavior is significantly meaningful, in which it explains why we have the tendency to obey our higher authorities. First, because it’s a manner that comes naturally from us. We deal with it in our daily lives and we have faced it since we were toddlers. It’s a natural action we take physically and mentally when we dealt with higher authority, we feel and make our self’s smaller in control, because we know we have to make way for the higher person. Secondly because, we as humans know that when we are in the presence of higher authority, it means they have the power to control us in a way they want us to, and we let them, either for obedience, respect, fear, or obligation. As it is shown in Millar’s experiment, even thought when the teachers didn’t want to proceed on shocking the learner, the experimenter in this case was seen as a scientist, who demanded and reminded the participants that the experiment had to continue, meaning there was no other options for the participants to choose from, but to finish the experiment thoroughly. This part of the experiment shows how the participants were obligated to do so and more than half continue the process. If they had the option to leave, most would have done it. But they knew who was boss, because the experimenter showed authority by the orders he gave out to increase to a specific voltage to shock the learner as it is heard on Millar’s video, as well as not allowing the participants to leave in the middle of the experiment. Let’s not forget the motivation that was set up for the participants, which was the paying at the end of the experiment. Who was giving the paying? The person in charge.
Part 1 - Daisy R.
Milgram’s Experiment #3 - Part 2
Milgram's experiment can be applied to our everyday lives in many ways. But there’s one in particular that closely reflects to Millar’s experiment but also differentiates of scenario. When I was younger there came a day when my brother had badly hurt my little bother’s arm. My mother was so upset of how careless my brother was to our youngest one. She went chasing him to give him a good spank but she couldn’t catch him, until she told me to grave him for her. I didn’t want to, I felt sorry for my brother. At the same time I had no choice, because if I didn’t listen to my mother she would have got me next. I forcefully caught my brother and then heard him cry as my heart broke, and I fisted my hand as if I was feeling the spank. In my personal example, you could see myself as the participant (teacher), my mother as the experimenter (higher authority), and my brother as the learner, except he was not an actor. You could compare me with the Teachers in Millar’s experiment of how I similarly reacted like them when they wanted to refuse shocking the learner.
• http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
• http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
• http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
- Daisy R.
Note - If your post is more than 4000 ish characters you may need to break it into two parts. Please see Daisy's post, for example.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
In 1971, psychologist Phillip Zimbardo created an experiment to see how becoming a prisoner/prison guard would impact a person. The mock prison took place in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University. 24 middle class, white males who were undergraduate students (out of the 70 applicants) were chosen to take place in this experiment. 12 were randomly chosen to be guards, & 12 were randomly chosen to be the prisoners, while Zimbardo served as the head warden of this prison. The experiment was set to last 14 days, & the volunteers were offered $15/day as a part of their services. 9 prisoners were placed in 3 separate rooms that were able to hold 3 people each. 9 guards were place in 3 3-men groups, & each group worked 8 hour shifts. However, the experiment had to be stopped after 6 days, due to the guards becoming too aggressive & abusive, while the prisoners had shown extreme signs of stress, anxiety, & depression.
This experiment showed how a person can change when being put in a position of power/being placed in a position with no power. There were no signs of criminal records, psychological issues, or major medical conditions among the students, so each person seemed to show normal behavior. As stated in the last paragraph, the students who were chosen to be guards had shown abusive behavior towards the prisoners. This further shows that there’s a chance that human behaviour & emotions may change depending on how much power/authority a person may have. In my opinion, despite the evidence that was shown in this experiment, I believe that there are people out there who have enough self-discipline to not let the power “go to their head”.
An example of how the experiment can be applied to everyday life is if a student were to be assigned the role of a teacher, while other people would be assigned the role of students. While the person portraying the teacher may understand that their role is just part of an experiment, the “teacher” may show signs of annoyance & anger if the students do not listen to/do what the teacher tells them to do. This may result in the teacher possibly giving the students consequences, just like an actual teacher would (kind of like how the people who were guards in the Stanford experiment would punish prisoners, just like how some guards at most prisons would).
http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/4
http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
Mariana Deras
Obedience to authority
In 1963 psychologist Stanley Milgram organized an experiment called “obedience to authority” which took place in the prestigious yale university located in New Haven, Connecticut. The experiment was mostly conducted to test human tendency to obey orders even when they affect others as long as they are dictated by an authority figure.
Milgram’s experiment consisted of two groups of people the “teachers” and the “learners” each participant took the role of the teacher who had to deliver a shock to the “learner” every time an answer was incorrect the voltage ranked from 15 to 450 volts, the results of the experiment were shocking 65% of the teachers continued giving shocks to the learner up until the maximum voltage level and only 35% denied to continue with the experiment
Milgram’s experiment is important because it shows that most people will obey the requests or demands of an authority figure, also it tells us that the majority of the people will obey without questioning the authority figure just to not disturb them. This gives us an alternative to evaluate the way people think or act in a different manner. People have morals and beliefs but when it comes to obedience and authority figures people tend to often do what they are order to do even if it means going against their morals or beliefs. Milgram’s experiment helped us understand a little bit about the way people behaved during the holocaust, the experiment showed that people will obey to authority even if it is wrong and it is believed that many Nazi crimes were performed in an act of obedience
Milgram’s experiment can be applied to my everyday life for example in school teachers often tell me what to think and write about and even if I don’t agree with what I have to think or do I still have to obey them because they have the authority and my grade depends on me following their orders, in conclusion people have a tendency to follow orders because they are induced to believe that if they don’t follow the orders given their actions could have a bad effect, on the other hand people are taught that if they obey they will be rewarded.
https://explorable.com/stanley-milgram-experiment
http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
Stanford Prison Experiment
In 1971, psychology professor, Phil Zimbardo, and a group of researchers organized an experiment that would examine the psychological effects of roles in a prison setting. Known as the Stanford Prison Experiment, it was conducted in the basement of Stanford’s Psychology Department building and was initially scheduled to take place over the course of two weeks but was cut short, lasting only six days. The basement was set up to portray a similar setting as that of a real prison, the corridor being “the yard”, and three six by nine foot laboratory rooms being used as prison cells that were only large enough for three cots to fit. There were also rooms for the warden, played by Zimbardo, and the prison guards, as well as a small isolated room that was used as the solitary confinement room. Out of the 72 candidates that answered a newspaper ad to participate in the experiment, only 24 college students were selected, all of whom were free of psychological issues and had no previous criminal record. The participants were randomly assigned the role of prisoner or prison guard and would earn $15/day for taking part in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, guards were heightening their forms of abuse towards prisoners and exercising their new found power in a manner that made some question the morality of the study. Embarrassing prisoners became a common form of punishment, along with the physical punishment of push-ups. As previously indicated, the study only lasted six of the scheduled 14 days due to the aggressive behavior of the guards and the tremendous stress and anxiety the prisoners were exhibiting.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is considered to be an unethical experimentation, but it did offer much beneficial information. When the participants were placed in a position of power, they behaved in a manner differently than they usually would. The guards carried a hostile, abusive attitude towards the prisoners. The prisoners, having no power or control in the situation, became depressed and lifeless. The study is shown to demonstrate the “Lucifer Effect”, in which good, ordinary people turn evil. Some suggest that this study displays the true human nature. The environment that the participants were placed in played a large role in how they acted, the guards were encouraged to exercise their power and hold their position as dominant, taking it to the extremes and abusing the control given, allowing themselves to forget who they were in reality and losing their morals. The prisoners, knowing they were inferior, blindly obeyed and became submissive to the guards every demand, also forgetting that they too had rights.
What was shown in the study can be seen in everyday life for most. It can most commonly be seen in a workplace where a person of a higher position abuses their authority. This recently happened to someone I knew. A woman who had been working in the same office as her had my friend running errands and basically doing her job for her. Since the woman had seniority with the company and my friend had recently been hired, she obeyed her out of fear of being fired. The woman knew she had control of my friend because of fear and the status she was given, much like the guards relationship with the prisoners.
http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/3
http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpDVFp3FM_4
Mirna C.
On the summer of 1971, Psychologist Philip Zimbardo decided to create The Stanford Prison Experiment. In this experiment, 24 out of 70 college students were selected for the experiment. They needed to have clean records—healthy, intelligent, and middle- class males. The setting took place in a “mock-up” prison installed in the basement of Stanford University. It was supposed to be a 14-day experiment, in which they had chosen the males at random for the roles of guards and prisoners. When all of the 24 males began the experiment, there was no difference between them. They replaced the laboratory room doors with steel bars and cell numbers. They also had a small room installed were they would record and videotaped everything happening, and everything being said in the cells. There were no windows or clocks that would allow either prisoners or guards determined the time or day, and that made things worse. Prisoners were given the uniform of a dress and were tied up in chains. They were identified by their ID numbers and not by their names. On the other hand, guards weren’t given any rules on how to act. They were free to do what was necessary to do in order to follow the law. Unfortunately, the experiment wasn’t able to last the whole 14 days. After the 6th day, they had to halt the experiment because the level of abuse sky-rocket. The prisoners had rebelled on the second day, and some had either become depressed, or had signs of extreme stress. However, power over ruled and the guards became sadistic and were taunting and abusing their charges.
Patricia M. Part 1
The importance of this experiment to our understanding of human behavior provided us with in sight on how too much power can overrule the innocence of one. All 24 males were the same at the beginning of the experiment. In the end it can be said that the experiment impacted them immensely. It showed how many of those guards allow power get to them and change them into someone they weren’t at the beginning of all this. The experiment gave us a valuable insight that power can really change/affect someone when it comes to having authority or none at all. I think that when it came to the guards, they felt confident because they knew they were the ones with authority and made prisoners do whatever the guards pleased, in which gave the males a pleasurable sense that they hold the power to make prisoners do as the guards pleased. As for the prisoners, I think that they felt a lot of vulnerable from the start—the clothing, being chained up and not being able to move, being identified by numbers, and getting their heads shaved. They didn’t have that sense of confidence as the guards. Power might not seem much of a big deal too many people, but to others who aren’t strong enough and not allow power to get to their heads can impact their lives.
An example that can be applied in everyday life can be us kids in high school. We all start as freshman in high school, and are the underdogs, as for the seniors; their students who are ready to leave and start their new journey. However, we have all seen how when new freshman enter the building, they are treated badly. Seniors believe they “run” the school and treat under classmates different. I can personally say that I myself have been in that position, and I’m not proud. Some people take it to a whole different level and are rude to under classmates. There’s the “tradition” of freshy Friday. The first Friday of the first week of school, everyone throws pennies at the freshmen. We allow that “power” that we are older than them get to us and treat them differently.
http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/14
http://brainz.org/ten-most-revealing-psych-experiments/
Patricia M. Part 2
The Bystander Effect Experiment:
“The bystander effect experiment” is when in the presence of others; cripple one’s ability to interfere in an emergency situation. Social psychologist John Darley and Bibb Latané further scrutinize the “bystander effect,” with investigating the notorious 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese. Genovese’s murder was witnessed by many, but none took action to prevent the murder, as Darley and Latané attributed the bystander effect to the diffusion of responsibility and social influence. The onlookers concluded that from the neighbors apathy in the murder, that their own assistance was not needed. John Darley and Bibb Latané conducted a study at Columbia University, in which they handed a candidate a survey to fill out in a room by themselves, but smoke would start to exude inside the room in a matter of seconds. The study revealed that the solo candidate was faster at reporting the smoke than the group candidates who had the same experience, but with multiple people. Darley and Latané also conducted an additional experiment, where they had a recording of an actor pretending to have a seizure in the headphones of a person, who then believed they were hearing a real medical emergency. Again, the candidates were quicker to react when they thought they were the only person who could hear the seizure.
The bystander effect experiments are important to our understandings of human behavior. Because of these experiments, psychologist will further begin to understand why some people will not intervene in certain situations because they do not feel obligated to take that responsibility if there are other eligible witnesses. This provides a valuable insight in the way people think or act because how would one let one’s sense of responsibility be manipulated from the thought of hoping someone would step in and accept that liability.
An example of the bystander effect in everyday life would be domestic abuse. I personally believe this is the most common example of the bystander effect because most people would stop and think “this isn’t my business” or “I’m sure there are both sides to the story.” The bystander effect would fall into where one’s self would not intervene for the simple fact the one believes it’s not their moral responsibility or that it would be best for it to be someone else’s. The bystander effect would also fall into child abuse, and or bullying in general, but like I said, I personally believe that domestic abuse is the one example that would always have the outcome of the bystander effect. Even I would go under the effect because I tend to think ahead of the consequences of my actions, so therefore, in some cases I would not step in for domestic abuse because in one case, the abused person could then forgive their significant other and I am left with the possible horrible consequences of my actions. Most people would turn the other cheek and accept that someone else would do the right thing, or that the matter would soon resolve itself. But then again, in most cases people may be wrong like the tragic murder of Kitty Genovese.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/bystander-effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdpdUbW8vbw
http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.htm
Julio cancel.
Stanford. Prison experiment
in the year of 1971, Philip zambardo , a psychologist at the University of Stanford conducted an experiment to test human behavior. the experiment tested how people behave during their time in prison. 24 male college students with no previous criminal history were selected to partake in a two week experiment. they were offered $15 a day. The men were split into two groups, 12 guards and 12 prisoners and were selected to each group randomly. the experiment was conducted in the basement of the school which had been redesigned to have the same architectural setting of the average prison. fake arrests were conducted to give the the prisoner grow the feeling of actually being arrested and prison. The first day, all was well with the guards and prisoners with no violence occurring because If it were to happen, the testwill be stopped and no one will receive pay. the second day is one the prisoners decided to take the guards not so serious. they disobey the rules of the prison, ignored guard and did what they want. the guards were in raged enforce the prisoners who disobey to do physical labor such as pushups, transport storage items etc. if prisoners still disobeyed the guards they began to humiliate the individuals and extremely disrespectful ways semicolon heavily affecting the victims and mindset and stress levels.
in the final days of the experiment, the guards had abused her power. They never use physical acts of violence to her to prisoners were broke the mental state and stress levels of the prisoners. They continue the public humiliation boss I gave them poor living conditions inside of their cells. the experiment was ended after the wife of Mr Zimbardo told her husband that the things he allow these men to do was horrible. after 6 your day 30 pyramid was over. That's very much change away some of the prisoners thought. It affected them very heavily. Some of the guards and prisoners were friends but after the guard did the thing they did, all it did was give horrible flashbacks of the things at Stanfords basement prison.
this experiment depicts on how a person can change the input into a new environment. The garden reactants in a new living by being assholes and ruining the mindset of another human being. The present is reacted by becoming rebellious and I can no longer have to obey rules as they did before. This experiment can be applied to real life is average citizens to become cops for a limited amount of time. at first, the go after every criminal thise committing a active crying. Then, they'll go after people who just look for this position. Finally they will be with their power and start pulling tons of people over I'm trying to find ways to enrage the innocent victim into doing something illegal. And lead to abuse of power.
Julio Cancel
Asch conformity experiment
The "Asch conformity experiment" included putting a participant in a group of people together and ask them to match line lengths. Each person was asked to announce which of these three lines was the closest in length to the reference line. Four of the participants in the group were actors who were all told to give the correct answer twice then switch to each saying the same incorrect answer. This experiment was created by Soloman Asch in 1951 at Swarthmore College. He did this experiment to test conformity within a group of people to see if they would give the wrong answer as well.
The importance of this experiment was to show how despite your own opinions and ideas; people will agree to what everyone else says to avoid being singled out. Asch's experiment show that thirty-seven out of fifty participants will agree to the answer the group gave. Despite it being the wrong one; people tend to with everyone else in fear of being an outsider.
This experiment applies to everyday life because most teens even adults succumb to peer pressure. This experiment shows that people will go against what they believe and write and go along with others in fear of being an outsider.
http://m.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html
Jazilyn C
Post a Comment