Social Psychology: The Robbers Cave Experiment

Albert Bandura created the bobo doll experiment in 1961, the aim of this experiment was to show that if children where witnesses to aggressive displays by an adult of some sort they would imitate this behaviour when given an opportunity. The tested group contained 36 young girls and 36 young boys all aged between 4 and 5 years which was then divided into 3 groups of 24 – the aggressive condition, the non aggressive condition and the control group. The first group involved the children watching aggressive models, where the children where then subdivided by sex of the role model they were exposed to. The second group

(P1)The biological approach means that our behavior is the cause of biological factors. This approach looks at our genetics to construct a reason why we act the way we do and why we develop abnormal behaviors. The brain and nervous system are the biological approach and so are chemical changes in the body .This can mean chemical reactions in the brain. For instance, in eating disorders - twin studies were carried out and it was shown that if one identical twin suffered from an eating disorder then the other twin would also be more likely to suffer from a disorder as well. This did not happen with non-identical twins, suggesting that the

As the literature on serial murder increases and becomes more common, it creates an essentialist stereotype, which forms specific notions about a serial killers ‘character’. These certain notions include that the serial killer is a male, the people he goes after are defenseless, his motives for killing are internal and he gets a psychological reward from doing it. Out of all the stereotypes, the most prominent is sexual fantasy. Sexual fantasy in killers was first discovered by Reinhardt in 1957 and since then serial killers have been classified as ‘sexual sadistic killers’. This name has become an emblem for them and has shaped the way they are defined and researched. Killers that blame their actions on this will repeat their fantasies until they are played out perfectly.

The reactions of these boy’s in Robbers Cave Experiment are a prime example of self preservation and why it motivates humans. Both groups used the opportunity of evaluating themselves and the other group as a chance to degrade the other group and favor themselves. By describing themselves in a positive way, the group makes themselves look better and preserves their image. This description could be an motivated by a desire to keep doing activities of the summer camp that provide freedom, enjoyment and social bonding with others, whilst lowering the status of the other group and preventing future conflict. All of this however, stems from self preservation by lowering the other group and favoring themselves.

as a general concept, social learning theory has been applied to the many different fields of social science to explain why certain individuals develop motivation to commit (or abstain from) crime and develop the skills to commit crime through the people they associate with. Social Learning Theory (SLT) is one of the most frequently looked at theories in the criminology field. This theory was introduced by Ronald L. Akers as a reformulation of Edwin H. Sutherland 's (1947) differential association theory of crime meld with principles of behavior psychology (Bradshaw, 2011). Akers retained the concepts of differential association and definitions from Sutherland 's theory, but conceptualized them in more behavioral terms and

Detrimental psychological effects and corrupt decision-making are noticeable outcomes of groupthink situations, and in The Stanford Prison Experiment, both of these factors were found as a result of the experiment. In fact, the presence of these detrimental factors forced the experiment to be concluded before schedule: after six days instead of two weeks. The decision-making processes of the guards were skewed and crooked. This is due to the roles the guards were told to play in addition to the group situation the guards found themselves in. Many guards acted under the impression of a “false unanimity” present within their group, and saw this as justification for their inhumane and

| Bettenhausen 1991, ‘Five Years of Group Research: What Have We Learnedand What Needs to be Addressed’

The air is saturated with the smell of concrete and fear. The wailing of men echoes through the dark, unholy halls. A new face makes its way in. Only thing harder than holding back tears, are trying to not show fear. They will feed of it, off of me. It will not break me; I will not break. This is what to expect from an evil place where grown men can be molded; broken and reformed into a weaker being or into a strong piece of iron. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a study put together by Phillip Zambardo to test the psychological effects of a prisoner and guard scenario in a mock prison setting. The experiment lasted seven to fourteen days and was comprised of twenty-four male students, who were picked at random to take part in the experiment. The role of guard and prisoner were also selected at random. The mock prisoners were subjugated to psychological abuse, harsh authoritarian rule by the guards, and intense living conditions to ensure maximum results were met. The experiment concluded early and a couple prisoners left due to an intense amount of stress brought on from the ordeal. Although the experiment was brief, it gave a great deal of insight into how environment can abruptly affect the psychological well-being of an individual. Zimbardo states, “Would those good people, put in that bad, evil place—would their goodness triumph?” (Cherry, 2006) Everyone has darkness within them and all it takes is a little push. Every person picked for this experiment was not

Philip (2009) to try and see what was being said about prison treatment was true, this was called the Stanford prison experiment. This experiment only lasted 6 days due to the circumstances versus 6 weeks. Zimbardo had to find out whether the prisons were brutal due to the guards or due to the environment. It was clear that the role of the guards was the issue and not the environment. This was discovered when a sample was chosen from the population. Each induvial was set up to be a guard or a prisoner at random. In this study researchers got see the unfortunate power of social situations. Once prisoner and guard roles were assigned each group were told that they were being watched by the researcher and his colleagues, the guards were to not hit the prisoners, and debriefed about the experiment. Although all this was told the guards took situations into their own hands and the power took over. The guards began simply viewing them as prisoners and the prisoners began to fear the guards. It is important to note the researcher did not intervene but continued to observe when the hitting was taking place. This is particularly important because not only are the guards fitting the rod but the researcher is at fault for the fundamental attribution error but viewing the situation for what it

The psychological theories of criminal behavior focus on the lack of socialization, incomplete cognitive development, and bad childhood experiences. Those who study psychological theories believe that failures in cognitive development can be a major factor in malfunctioning behavior. These criminals have difficulty controlling anger and containing violence, which causes them to lash out. The results of these episodes are murder, rape, robbery, assault, and battery. Many more crimes can come about from such behavior, especially when the criminal falls into a negative cycle. Their behavior spirals out of their control, as they try to solve each of their crimes by committing another, to try and right the situation.

The Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961) involved a group of 11-12 year old boys at a summer camp. Dividing them into two teams, a series of competitive events were organised. Hostile behaviour such as fighting and refusing to eat with members of the other group ensued. (Gross, p.25). Although field experiments are rewarded for high ecological validity, this study was criticised for being artificial and not necessary representing real life. For example, middle class boys randomly allocated into separate groups does not equal rival football supporters or rival gangs. Additionally, as it only included white middle class males we cannot generalise the results. (McLeod, S. A, 2008). Ethical considerations were not taken into account. There was no experimental consent, no right to withdraw and parental visits we disallowed. (

The Sociological Imagination helps expand one’s perspective from one that emphasizes the experiences of the individual to one that understands the broader social context in which that individual lives. Crime is a perfect example to elaborate on. Considering that I have worked in the LA County Jails for a little more than a year, I feel that I have a much different outlook on criminals and criminal behavior. To reduce crime, we must first understand why it occurs. One thing that I have continuously heard from inmates, is that many of them had a bad childhood. Whether there mother or father was not around as much or they just had too much freedom, it brought them to where they are now. I believe criminal activity is a direct outcome of how a

The Stanford Prison Experiment shows the type of people we become when put in certain positions. As humans we can not truly predict what we will become in these positions of power and solitude. Another example of situational psychology is what happened in Abu Gharib. Abu Gharib became a prison for suspected terrorists against the United States. The guards of the prison, who were US military, treated the prisoners like animals. They put them on leashes, made them strip and were put in extremely awkward positions, and sometimes they went as far as killing them. Now the guards can not be completely forgiven for what they did but the situation they were put in was part of the reason for how they behaved. They were constantly reminded of their friends being killed in combat and were surrounded by violence themselves. Also, the way they were behaving became the norm, they were not getting in trouble for it and they were soldiers, killing machines. Their job is not to watch a bunch

In essence, life in and around the medical school plays a significant role in the range of attitudes and behaviours adopted by the diversity of students checking in and out of the building. With the large range of societies, interests, and cultures at large it is safe to say that students may identify with one or two groups and it was the social psychologist, Henri Tajfel [1] who was one of the first to claim an association between the groups we consort with and the attitudes we display. He explained with his own experimental evidence in the minimal groups paradigm study of 1979 [2], further supported by the independent study by Muzafer Sherif in the Robber’s Cave experiment of 1954 [3], that we embrace and endorse, on a sub-conscious and sometimes conscious level, the philosophy, work ethic and more importantly, the temperament of the groups we belong to. Recognising the impact of the ‘Doctors in Society’ lectures, SGTs as well as the CBM sessions, it becomes clear to see that the duty of candour and the weight on building upon values such as compassion, conscientiousness, must be universally accepted by medical students as fundamental to a prosperous medical career. Psychologically speaking, certain peer groups may have an impact on the timeliness and application of these values, for example the one who spends time with charity-based societies may find themselves more capable of demonstrating and appreciating compassion and conscientiousness and so therefore, a first piece

When someone’s home is broken into, it instills a sense of insecurity, in both the victim of the break-in and the surrounding neighborhood. When a burglary occurs, it is not only about the items that were taken from the home, it is also about the psychological impact it causes. Our homes are our sanctuaries; a place where one can go for comfort and security. Victims of theft often feel vulnerable and ill at ease, their home no longer feels like a safe haven. They feel an overwhelming sense of disrespect, and they feel as though they are being watched. The concern is not due to the inconvenience of replacing valuables that were stolen from the home, the concern lies in the feeling of being violated and intruded upon. Many people react differently to this type of situation. Burglary may affect some people more than others, therefore signs of stress may differ from person to person.