PSYC1004 Psychology 2: Understanding People in Context

Psychology Definition

study of mental processes (thinking, remembering, feeling) and behaviour

social psychology

influence of social environment on brain and behaviour

developmental psychology

how people grow, change and learn in their youth

personality psychology

whether there are stable personality traits across time and space that determine behaviour/lifestyle

Triplett (1898)

the competition machine: children shown to reel in a fishing rod faster when in the presence of their peers compared to when alone

issues with the history of social psychology

• unethical experiments- little consent

• discrimination

  • eugenics eg race-based IQ testing to support segregation

  • Sir Francis Galton- developed regression and correlation but advocated for eugenics

  • sexism eg hysteria

• most research done by WEIRD researchers, for WEIRD people, on WEIRD people

  • Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic

The Replication Crisis

many formative studies that were the basis for historically held truths are either a) too unethical to be done again (and had a small sample size the first time around) and/or b) do not produce the same seminal results that were reported the first time

Principles of Open Science

1. Preregistration- publish hypothesis before conducting experiment to avoid cherrypicking

2. Open data

3. Open access to materials/papers

empiricism (and positivism)

scientists must be an external, neutral observer to the phenomenon (not great)

good scientific evidence may include:

observation, qualitative, quantitative, careful experimental designs, longitudinal, field experiments, effective sampling practices

social influence and norms

behaviours that people agree are acceptable: endorsed, descriptive, prescriptive, obligatory, socially valued

Sherif’s Autokinetic Studies

optical illusion that a still pinpoint of light in a dark room is moving

• when consulted alone, participants reported a variety of distances moved

• across three consecutive consults in a group setting, participants changed their answers to match each other

• when consulted alone again, all participants’ reports had gravitated to be the same, despite what they initially said

concern: how do we judge group influence when there is no true correct answer?

Solomon Asch’s Line Judgement Studies

asked participants in front of a group of actors which line ABC matched the length of line X. Eventually, the actors started collectively reporting answers that were clearly visually incorrect.

• 75% of participants followed the group and were consequently wrong at least once, 25% never conformed to a wrong answer

  • participants reported following because a) it was easier, b) they didn’t trust their eyes, c) to play along with the group, d) to be accepted

• 37% of individual spoken responses conformed to the group

what factors make people more likely to conform?

larger and/or unanimous group, admirable group to belong to, behaviour will be public to group members, socialised by a culture that adheres to social norms

physical vs social reality testing

• first test using senses

• if the senses cannot be relied on, we trust the judgement of others

Informational Influence

social norms, internalisation of information, genuine intellectual conformity, even in private when norms shouldnt matter (people actually believe/change their beliefs to match the group)

Normative Influence

may privately trust their own judgement, but complies with the group to gain approval and avoid rejection (may not believe/change beliefs to adhere to group)

Stanley Milgram (1963): The Milgram Experiments

told participants it was a “memory study” at yale. Participants were assigned as a “teacher”, and an actor played a student. Participants had to tell strings of items to the student and ask them to repeat back. if they got it wrong, teachers were instructed by the researcher to shock the student. With each correct answer, the fake volts “increased” up to lethal levels. Researchers used increasingly pressured language to tell teachers to continue.

• 65% of participants went all the way to the maximum voltage, even if they expressed concern or distress

• the most effective way to encourage people to stop shocking was the presence of a Dissenting Authority, followed by a Dissenting Peer and physical closeness to the person being shocked

Cannot replicate it because of ethical concerns.

Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

Equal, all-male peers randomly assigned as Guards or Prisoners in a prison simulator and given appropriate costumes and props to match. Researchers encouraged guards to be harsh on the prisoners.

• Although at first they didn’t take it seriously, they rose to the role

• prisoners tried to rebel

• guards treated prisoners brutally, partially because the researchers didn’t stop them

doesn’t necessarily show that the symbols of power associated with a guard make people more aggressive, but does show that participants will rise to the challenge posed by an experiment.

BBC Prison Study (2002)

A prison simulator TV show with otherwise equal male participants assigned as Guards and Prisoners, except the Guards were not instructed on how to act by researchers.

• prisoners unified and revolted, the unguided guards didn’t know how to react

• prisoners and guards nearly unify into a commune, but paranoia stops this

• a military style takeover nearly occurs, and the experiment is stopped

connection to group and group identity matters: prisoners started depressed and became more proud and unified as time passed, while the reverse happened to the guards