L1 what was Norman Triplett’s famous propositions and studies
- cycling experiment
- when in company of others/ competition, you perform better –> running example with 2 students at the lecture
L1 according to Ringelmann, does adding more people tugging the rope increase strength (chances of winning)?
no, due to social loafing and ineffective pulling
L1 william james theory of emotion
we don’t feel scared then run away, our body reacts and then we run away
e.g. you see a bear, body starts sweating and having physiological responses, due to that, your emotions are affected
L1how does cannon and bard theory of emotion differ to william james theory of emotion?
to cannon and bard, you first interpret the situation and then decide how to react
L1 cannon and bard experiment with the injections
this supports the 2 factor theory of emotion
L1 cannon and bard 2 factor theory of emotion
Physical response + cognitive attribution = interpretation of the situation then decide how to act
L1 excitation transfer model Zillman (1979)
roller coaster experiment
L2 Sheriff dot experiment
- tell experimenter the distance that the dot moved
- participants were fooled that the dot moved
- 2 phases: individual experiment, group experiment
- results: individuals established a stable answer. there was even a collective mode and median
- if one person in the room did not conform and actually gave the right answer, everyone else would also give the right answer. it only takes one person to break conformity
L2 based off sheriff’s line experiment, what did he conclude about truth?
- sheriff then suggested that norms and truths are socially constructed
- groups unite and and become powerful
L 2 a statement that describes normative
“I want to be accepted”
L2 a statement that describes informative
“i want to know the truth”
L2 what did milgram want to figure out in his shock experiment
how far people will go (how far will participant shock a participant) if they had the pressure to obey the rules of the experimenter
L2 factors that make people obey
social impact theory – strength, immediacy, and number
L2 social impact theory
Social impact theory is a model that conceives of influence from other people as being the result of social forces acting on the individual. The likelihood that someone will respond to social influence is thought to increase with the strength of the source, the immediacy of the event, and the number of sources exerting the impact.
L2 Haslam & reich experiment social identity approach to obedience
- understanding why ppl obey
- ppl went along but they saw that as soon as they told participants “you have no choice but to continue” they wanted to stop
- suggests ppl are willing to go far as long as they think it’s the right thing or they have choice/ free will
L2 name Raven’s 6 power bases
how is the black pete situation in NL an example of minority influence?
- he minority (a small group of ppl) said that this was fucked up but most ppl said black pete had to stay because it was a tradition but slowly the public opinion changed
- gradually there were changes: this is an example of minority influence. so now if you believe black pete is okay, you are the minority because social norms have changed. so now the minority became the majority
L2 Serge Moscovici private conformity
L2 Serge Moscovici personal conformity
L3 what was the aim of the stanford prison experiment
examine what a bad place can do to good ppl
L3 what is some criticism of the stanford prison experiment
- participants in an experiment really wanna be good participants because they wanna help the experimenter
- but this is a bad thing because experimenters want ppl to act naturally and not in a socially acceptable
- “screw you” effect is the opposite of this, ppl wanna rebel against the experiment
what did Banuazini & Movahedi (1975) find out/discuss about the stanford prison experiment
- SPE actually copied david jaffe’s experiment
- before the experiment even was over, zimbardo was already writing about the findings of the day, maybe this suggested he had bias towards what results he wanted to see
- participants said this didnt feel real and they were “just acting out their role”
- zimbardo said it was a misunderstanding that ppl could not leave but he explicitly stated no one was allowed to leave
did the “guards” in the experiment do cruel acts to the prisoners themselves?
no. they did not do it out of the blue and have full ill intent. they did not know they were part of the experiment, hence, they were not acting the way they usually would, they were trying to fulfill their duty so that the experiment would work. Also, they were given a list of suggestions of cruel acts to do to the inmates.
from the Stanford prison experiment, what can we learn to do better on our future experiments?
- the well-being of ppl should be most considered in the study
- strong influence of demand characteristics
- be honest when reporting data
- make your studies replicable
- don’t dramaticize the study
