Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE, image, image, image, image, image, image, when you…

- - - - findings:
        
        2 days= prisoners rebel
        
        guards harassed prisoners constantly, making them do (degrading) task**s**, punishing them e.g. clean toilets w/ hands
        
        prisoners eventually= subdued + depressed (3 in total released bc 'psych. disturbance')
        
        1 went on hunger strike=> solitary confinement
        
        cancelled on day 6 X day 14
      - EVALUATION
        
        :cry: demand characteristics
        
        Banuazizi + Mohavedi- participants were play acting > conforming to social roles
        
        one guard= admitted he watched 'Cool Hand Luke' prior + mimicked this abusive behaviour (SIT)
        
        :cry: lack of ecological validity
        
        X fully realistic as a prison avoiding unpleasant aspects e.g. racism, threat to life
        
        max anticipated sentence= 2 weeks (act differently)
        
        :cry: exaggerated situational explanation
        
        1/3 guards brutal, 1/3= fair, 1/3= actively help prisoners (reinstating privileges e.g. cigarettes)
        
        must be somewhat dispositional, less effective findings
        
        :cry: lack of research support
        
        Reicher + Haslam- partially replicated on BBC + prisoners took over, subjecting guards to harrassment
        
        less internal validity= X be replicated + suggests ^ dispositional explan.
        
        :smiley: real life app.
        
        Iraq War, Abu Ghraib prison, psych. + physical torture in the prison by US guards
        
        :cry: ethical issues
        
        lack of informed consent (X fully awatre of the nature + harm would experience)
        
        not protected from harm= psych. distress + trauma
        
        :cry: good attempted control of dispositional factors
        
        randomly allocated prisoner/guards
        
        did psych. tests (make it less dispositional)
  - - - variables affecting conformity:
        
        task difficulty, ^ difficult= ^ conformity as ISI plays greater role
        
        group size, 1-2 confederates= low conformity, 3+ ^ conformity to 31.8% (up to an optimal point)
        
        unanimity, if a confederate said a diff. answer= con. dropped to 5.5% (enabled to behave independently)
    - - :smiley: research support for task difficulty
        Lucas, 2006- ^ conformity in students when gave them a harder maths question
      - :cry: lacks real world app.
        task + situation= artificial + may display demand characteristics
      - :cry: culture bound/bias
        all American men, US=individualistic culture, women= gen. ^ likely to conform
        lacks generalisability
      - :cry: limited explanation
        conformity is ^ complex behaviour than Asch suggests incl. individual factors e.g. confidence
      - :cry:ethical issues
        X know what the actual experiment was on nor that the rest of the group were confederates= issues of deception
- - - - :smiley: real world research support
        
        Albrecht et al. evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, org. attempting to prevent pregnant adolescents from conforming to peer pressure of smoking
        
        had mentors/buddies (older advisor person)= sign. less likely to smoke if had one of these
        
        real world positive application
      - :smiley: research support for dissenters