Class Notes (810,222)
Canada (494,004)
Psychology (7,623)
PSYB10H3 (543)

PSYB10 - Lec 5 (near verbatim) - Stanford Prison Study & Groups.doc

7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Elizabeth Page- Gould

PSYB10: Lec 5 -Stanford Prison Study -study behavioural and psychological consequences of becoming prisoner or prison guard -observe ppl in the drama in jail (either as prisoner or guard); no psychological difference between students assigned as guards or prisoners at the beginning -guards have to make sure that prisoners have no power while guards have power -chain on one leg = symbol of loss of freedom -rebellion broke out on second day but soon crushed -prisoner solidarity -prisoners were later told that they couldn’t quit = felt helpless and no more rebellion -prisoner leader acted like a crazy person so he could be released -prison chaplain said prisoners were like first-timers who were confused -first fought against guards, others broke down emotionally, others were models -3 types of guards who dictated all of the prisoners actions -no line between reality and imagination -only after reflecting on behaviour did he really feel guilt (guard) -prisoner felt his identity was lost (416 = felt he was just a number) -experience of being out of control of situation and feelings (prisoner) -guard role promotes sadism; prisoner role promotes confusion and shame -to promote prison reform; we learned about the power of situations (rules, roles, situations, uniforms = trivial situational things) -metaphorical meaning of prisoner and guard: -guard = takes away the freedom of someone else, uses power of their role to control and dominate someone else -any situation you are in where there is a power relationship btn ppl (husbands & wives, teacher & students etc;) -situations where ppl give up their freedom = shyness = self- imposed psychological prison -Stanford Shyness Clinic = try to free ppl -Stanford Prison Study: -talks about the power of social roles; tossed a coin, made someone a guard or prisoner but there was very systematic types of behaviours that were coming out from each role  emphasizes the fact that anybody can be taken over by their role -Zombardo study was one of the reasons why ppl wanted research ethics board -roles were strong = definitely taking over ppl BUT there was still individual difference btn them; not all guards/prisoners the same, they chose how to behave w/in context of their roles -it ended early b/c showing a grad student the study and she said the experiment being done on the boys is horrible  PI needed that voice to shake self back into reality -Group Cohesiveness: -degree to which a group is or is perceived to be similar to one another -standing in a store line = not cohesive, they’re standing in the same line b/c have same goal but otherwise they’re just a random group of ppl -UofT sorority = we perceive them to be particularly cohesive whether or not they are; perceive that all members are exactly the same but they are probably not -how cohesive you perceive a group to be has profound implications for the group -how cohesive is a group perceived to be in the mind of the group members (in- group members)  the more cohesive a group is, the more liking of another member just by knowing that they are part of the group -how cohesive is a group perceived to be in the mind of outsiders; the more cohesive a group is perceived to be, the more we stereotype members of that group and perceive them as being all the same and not differing from one another -3 dimensions of what make up social groups: social norms, social roles and social cohesiveness -How do groups affect us? 1) Social facilitation: how presence of others affects our performance a. Created by an interaction of 3 factors: i. How you are able to be individually evaluated as a result of your performance ii. How arousing the experience is iii. How complex the task is on which you have to perform well b. Social fac = tendency for performance to be improved when doing well- learned or dominant tasks in the presence of others; sometimes presence of others impairs our performance = occurs when we are doing something that is less practised or complex/not practiced task 2) Social Loafing: flip-side of social facilitation = tendency for ppl to slack off when there’s a group of ppl contributing to a behaviour; tendency for ppl to do worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks if they’re in a group and not being individually evaluated a. It is the individual evaluation that will differentiate btn social loafing and social facilitation b. In social loafing, if you can’t be individually evaluated, then you perform worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks in the presence of others i. Depends on your psychological perception of how complex or simple a task is  truth of that is emphasized by the fact that if it is a complex task but it is well learned, then it doesn’t matter how hard it is, you will perform better when other ppl are evaluating you 3) Evaluation: a. Evaluation apprehension is what predicts social facilitation versus social loafing = a concern about being judged or evaluated (a priori imagination about what’s coming up and how important it is to be evaluated or not); apprehension b/c starts b4 you even get to moment of performance i. Certain form of evaluation apprehension = socio-evaluative threat = very extreme evaluation apprehension (ex: when ppl have fundamental speech anxiety etc;) 1. Socio-evaluative threat = they know they’re going to be evaluated and it’s too much for them to handle  so, body responds w/ stress hormone cortisol a. Cortisol constricts blood vessels in hippo = impairs learning and memory and can’t perform your best ii. Usually social facilitation and social loafing is regular old apprehension (not socio-evaluative threat) iii. When we know we’re going to be evaluated, creates arousal 4) Arousal: a. There are 3 main things that predict behaviour when other ppl are around 5) Putting it all together: Presence of others: Evaluation: can either be individually evaluated in which case you experience a bit of evaluation apprehension OR you can’t be individually evaluated (don’t feel evaluation apprehension)  this will directly lead into arousal or not -Evaluation apprehension may make you feel physiologically aroused (cardiovascular, heart rate, respiration response) -People who aren’t being individually evaluated, tend to see that they are relaxed in the presence of others, don’t show same physiological stress response -If you are feeling aroused b/c you will be individually evaluated by ppl but task is simple/well practised  enhanced performance -However, w/ social loafing, you’re relaxed, not being individually evaluated if simple task, see impaired performance in the presence of others compared to by yourself -if complex task/not practised, if being individually evaluated, tend to perform worse -if relaxed and can’t be individually evaluated, will do bet
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.