Numerous cases in history show that identification with a particular group can lead to dreadful outcomes. Together, with historical evidence, classic psychological studies tell a very powerful story. Decent people can take on oppressive roles and succumb to oppressive leaders. However, people often resist tyranny, and their resistance tends to be most effective when it is collective. Sherif argued that intergroup conflict occurs when two groups are in competition for limited resources. This theory is supported by evidence from a famous study investigating group conflict: The Robbers Cave (Sherif, 1954, 1958, 1961). Sherif (1954) conducted an experiment with young boys in a summer camp. The participants were 24 schoolboys, came from the similar, …show more content…
In-group relationships were built through activities that will promote group identification. Stereotypes were assumed, such as believing that in-group members are brave and friendly (described in favourable terms) and members of the other group – sneaky (unfavourable terms). Hostility developed rapidly, followed by bitter conflict. The experiment focused heavily on the concept of a 'group ' and what a perception of belonging to a group can actually do to the relationships of members within it and their relationships with people outside their group. Sherif remarked that anyone who came in at this point would have concluded that these youngsters were wicked and vicious. However, it was group processes rather than the personality that had produced the conflict. However, in one of Sherif’s studies, which, unfortunately, was never published, they refused to be divided and, together, they resisted attempts by the experimenters to set them against each other. …show more content…
15 men participated in The BBC Prison Study. At the beginning of the experiment there was a possibility for the prisoners to be promoted to guards, therefore, prisoners did not identify with their group. After 3 days, prisoners started to work together, they noticed that guards could not agree on decisions and prisoners overthrown guards. Guard groups had a deviant – the over-disciplined guard. Then everyone came up with an idea of equality, but that did not work either and the experiment was stopped. This experiment’s conclusions differ from Stanford’s Experiment and therefore it opened up a discussion once
The social psychology theory that I will be analyzing is based on the Stanley Milgram experiment done in 1965 following the start of the Nazi war. He was curios on all the violence taking place during this time. As a Jew himself, he wanted to find out whether or not the Adolf Eichmann accomplice had the same intent and hate towards the Jewish people during the holocaust. Based on Solomon Asch’s past experiments on conformity, Milgram’s experiment was done to determine whether or not the power of the situation could cause average people to conform to obedience. The results of Milgram’s experiment were astounding. The research of Milgram’s experiment had such a major impact on social psychology that we still use his findings to analyze human behavior today.
Turman, P. (October 25, 2000f). Group Cohesiveness and Conflict: Group Communication [Lecture] Cedar Falls, IA. University of Northern Iowa, Communication Studies Department.
Imagine a group of friends or children were responsible for a man's life who desperately sought for help, but the children mocked or even ignored him instead. This example was the same concept used to develop the plot for the story "The Man in the Well" by Ira Sher. An interesting theme of this story is that groups of people tend to act based on their groups impulse and not their own. Though the negative effect of peer pressure might be the cause of why groups, cliques, and gangs do what they do, their behavior alone tends to be much different than when they are alone. It's as if each character themselves goes through a sudden and temporary transformation. However, it's through important concepts of personality, action, and decisions that help
Power and control are two factors in peoples lives that can change how they treat others and what actions they will take to keep the control. The experiment is a prison experiment designed to test how far humans would treat others based on how much control and power they are given. The experiment will take two weeks to determine how individual’s behavior changes with power. Power changes peoples behavior a great amount and many times it is negative. In the experiment, guards are given the power to control prisoners and they take advantage of their power by using force, cruelty and receiving pleasure.
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
Muzafer Sherif helped clarify the conditions that produce intergroup conflict and harmony. He conducted an experiment called the Robbers Cave Experiment and studied a group of eleven-year-old boys in an unlikely setting: a summer camp located at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. Sherif pretended to be camp counselors as well as staff and the researchers began their research. First, they assigned the boys into two different groups than the two groups arrived on separate buses and were in different areas of the camp. One group of the boys called themselves the Eagles and the other group assigned their name as the Rattlers. After a week of the two boys being separated and being assigned to different areas of the summer campsite, Sherif started to conduct his research and told the two group of boys to meet one another and compete in a series of competitive games.
This experiment was originally tested by Muzafer Sherif is a famous social psychologist who worked on understanding groups and their members. This experiment is to test his Realistic Conflict Theory. The Realistic Conflict Theory studies, “group conflict, negative prejudices, and stereotypes as being the result of competition between groups for desired resources” (McLeod). This study of group conflict and cooperation shows how groups favor their own members, and how in group conflict can be resolved by groups working together on a common task that neither group can complete without the help of the other group. This is proven in this experiment when two groups have to work together to solve a given problem.
Phillip Zimbardo, who was the principal investigator of the Stanford Prison Experiment, randomly selected young, male college students to participate in his study. The goal of the experiment was that “Zimbardo sought to demonstrate that it was not individuals but the prison situation itself, with its institutionalized power differentials, which generated tension and discord” (Bottoms, 2014, p. 165). The students that volunteered to be a part of his test had gone through numerous interviews and tests
This experiment is an extension of a study done by Dobbs, which examined if there was a difference between educated students and prison members when deindividuated from a situation. Using Dobbs method, this experiment explored the differences between male and female deindividuated participants. It is expected that both male and female participants when deindividuated will act in an antisocial manner. Meaning that participants will be “behavior as injuring others or depriving them of their rights.” However, it is also expected that in regards to response content males will gravitate towards criminal ac...
America had been troubled by its prison dynamic long before the experiment took place. The general sadistic personalities found on prison guards were confusing and overwhelming. Since people tend to attribute changes in behaviors or any behavior at all to internal factors, this prison phenomenon was poorly understood. However, the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment clearly demonstrate that people are clearly subject to their surrounding environment. Even if it contradicts to our day-to-day characteristics, we can still easily pick up the social roles they are expected to play, especially when it comes to roles that are strongly stereotypical like prison characters. Our individuality can be defined by the social environment and since these expectations all come from the external environments, the experiment shows how big an effect the environment has on our individual behaviors, even able to of negate our steady moral and behavioral guidelines. Because of this study, the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was explained. People started to understand that the situation wasn’t caused by a shared genetic defect among these guards but rather by the hostile prison environment. This realization is crucial to America’s judicial system. In the bloody revolts took place in San Quentin and Attica shortly after the Stanford Prison Experiment, the results from this study greatly
In the 1950’s, Muzafer Sherif conducted a study at Robber’s Cave State Park in Oklahoma (Sheriff & Sherif, 1953, p. 5). Baumeister & Bushman (2011) explained, “.22 white, middle class, 11-year old boys thought they were going on a summer camp experience. Sherif divided the group into two groups of eleven. During the first stage, the two groups had no contact with each other. The boys in each camp became good friends.
Research has shown that ingroup favoritism (the guards) is often linked to outgroup (prisoners) hate and hostility (Gaunt, R., Jacques-Philippe, L., & Denis, S., 2004). In Zimbardo 's Stanford Prison experiment, we can see this more clearly. The Stanford Prison Experiment consisted of students who were assigned to the roles of either prisoners or guards for a period of six days (Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G., 1973). This study alone, demonstrates the power of authority, conformity, moral justification, and various other phenomenons seen in Abu Ghraib. In the Stanford Prison Experiments, both prisoners and guards, conformed to their roles and as such guards began to dehumanize the prisoners, a theory attributed to the dehumanization is the sunglasses the guards wore; the sunglasses were believed to have protected the identity of the guards, resulting in abuse towards prisoners. Another factor that attributed the dehumanization and abuse towards the outgroup, is guards called prisoners by their numbers versus their names, assisting in the outgroup and dehumanization process (Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G.,
Group conflicts is a common feature associated with all kind of social organization. Intergroup conflicts occurs between different groups of people who are competing for dominance. Groups are more aggressive and competitive than individual persons. This conflict is evident with the delinquent adolescence boys in the detention camp who were members of different local gangs. Competition is the main source of these conflicts and to be specific is for valuable resources and respect in a community according to the relative deprivation theory. Group conflicts are very dangerous and statistically it is estimated that over 100 million people died of these conflicts between the years 1916-1964.
The robbers cave experiment shows that conflict can transition into cooperation when subjects are faced with a set of activities. The researchers held different stages, the first stage was the children separating into two groups and making connections with the boys within those groups. In the second stage, or conflict stage, the two groups were pitted against each other to fight for limited resources. Some boys became aggressive, causing the rest of their groups to follow suit. This occurrence proved the researchers’ hypothesis to be correct, that intergroup conflict occurs when two groups are competing over limited resources. Regardless of the results, this study was also biased due to only using young white males instead of including different ethnicities and the opposite sex to supply the researchers with more evidence on intergroup conflict and
Also, Allport took a methodological approach by discussing actual research and emphasizing that social psychology field is a scientific field which studies human behavior and impact of our actions on others ( ). Allport’s book highlights social topics that is still evident today including conformity, emotion, and the effects of an audience on others ( ). Further, early experiments among some of the most prominent social psychologists include the analysis by Triplett (1898) to investigate the performance of cyclists and how the presence of others influences overall performance ( ). Also, Lwwin et al. (1939) conducted an experiment on leadership and group process, looking at efficient work ethics under different leadership styles ( ). However, later critical research in social psychology developed following the world war II, when individuals became interested in the behavior of other people when grouped together in a social situation ( ). Some studies focused on how attitudes are formed or changed by the social context. Among some of the most famous work in social psychology is the experiment by Milgram in ( ) on obedience which looked at the role that authority figure plays in shaping behavior. Similarly, the prison simulation experiment by Zimbardo demonstrated conformity ascribed roles in the social world (). Hence, wider topics such as social perception, prosocial behavior, aggression, attribution, racism and discrimination have emerged over the