مختصرات مهمه جدا من كتاب UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGY لــBARBARA WOODS

مختصرات مهمه جدا من كتاب UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGY لــBARBARA WOODS

مرحبا اعضاء نفساني

رح احط لكم مختصرات من كتاب UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGY




لطلاب علم النفس في الـSECOND EDITIObr />
وفيه اشياء حلوه كثيييييير ومفيده لكل الناس مو بس الطلاب


و على فكره اللي رح انقله لكم ما حد بيقدر ياخده من موقع الكليه تبعنا الا بكلمه السر تبع كل طالب


تحياتي للجميع


الأميرة الصغيرة

المصدر: نفساني

اولا رح نبدأ في Social Psychology

واول درس في هذا القسم من علم النفس هو CONFORMITY

CONFORMITY

Definition: "yielding to group pressures." We try to fit in or go along with the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour of whatever group we belong to. We go along with group norms or the expected behaviours of the group.

Studies of conformity:

1. Sherif: In a series of experiments he brought a group of participants into a dark room to observe a pinpoint of light and then asked them to estimate how far the light moved. When alone the participants gave various estimates. Once the participants had discussed the estimates with each other, their estimates unconsciously became more similar.
What is wrong with this experiment? – Asch thought that since there was no correct answer participants were bound to agree.

2. Asch: Participants were asked to choose a line from one of three to match a standard line. The participants were in groups where everyone else was a stooge. When tested alone individuals made mistakes less than 1% of the time but with group pressure this increased to about 32% of the time.
What is wrong with this experiment? - The task the participants were asked to do was not like real life. This experiment was carried out over 40 years ago at a time in America when there were great social pressures to conform - is Asch's study "a child of its time"?

What can affect the levels of conformity? ( these are known as the factors involved) Asch found that the number of stooges was increasingly effective up to three and then there was little increased effect; if the participant had a supporting partner then the conformity decreased; if the task was difficult conformity increased.

3. Perrin & Spencer: They achieved very different results when they replicated Asch's study with students of engineering, chemistry and. medicine in Britain in 1980. It may be that people conform less now or that students of these subjects are less likely to conform. Other studies have found similar levels of conformity to Asch - even these days.

4. Crutchfield: He tested several participants at once in booths on a series of questions like Asch's. Participants thought that a display of lights on a panel in front of them were the responses of the other participants.37% conformed. Conformity increased with the difficulty of the judgments being made.

What is wrong with all these experiments?
Do these experiments bear any relationship to real life?

Kelman identified three main types of conformity (reasons for conformity)
1. Compliance - going along with the group demands to avoid rejection or gain rewards, but not really believing them, privay disagreeing but publicly agreeing. (See Asch )
2. Identification - going along with another because of a desire to be like them, to maintain some kind of relationship.
3.Internalisation - agreeing because they believe it is correct and fits in with their own value system, privay & publicly agreeing. (See Sherif's study)

وتاني درس هو OBEDIENCE

OBEDIENCE

Definition: following another person's orders. We give in to the commands of someone who is seen as being in authority.

Studies:

1. Milgram (1965-74). He told the participants that the experiment was about the effects of punishment on learning. Participants were required to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to another person whenever he made an error while learning a list of word pairs. The learner was an actor, a "stooge" who received no shocks at all but who behaved as though he had, ing with pain and eventually becoming silent. For the participant there was intense conflict, they became very disturbed, and argued with the experimenter but were told to continue. 65% gave shocks up to the maximum possible level. They found it difficult to disobey by refusing to continue.
The following variations (these are known as the factors influencing obedience) were carried out on the original experiment with the resulting percentage of participants obeying to the end:-
a) In an office building rather than the University -50%
b) Victim in the same room and in sight of participant -40%
c) Experimenter left room and issued instructions by phone -20%

What caused such high levels of obedience?

Although the building and the nearness of the learner were obviously important factors, it seems that they were not the main influences here on the levels of obedience. The main factor seems to be the presence of the experimenter. He would be seen as a person in
authority who was responsible for what was going on and knew what he was doing. The wearing of a uniform or white coat is also a factor – participants are more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform. (Social roles and role expectations are important in determining our behaviour).

Criticisms of these experiments - how true to life is this situation? As the experiments deceived and distressed the participants how ethical were they?

2. Hofling (1966). A nurse was instructed by a phone call from a doctor to give a patient 20mg of a drug. This broke several rules - it exceeded the recommended maximum dose and orders to give drugs should not be taken on the phone from an unknown doctor. 95% did so. Here the role of the doctor is important and the fact that it is a real life situation.

3. Zimbardo (1972). He randomly assigned volunteers to play the parts of warders or prisoners in an experiment and their behaviour was observed. The experiment had to be stopped after six days because their behaviour had undergone very disturbing changes. Guards became ruthless and brutal, forcing prisoners to humiliate themselves and each other and prisoners became more and more passive and depressed. Here it seems that norms of behaviour emerged which influenced the behaviour of the two groups. The subjects became "locked into a role."

All these studies demonstrate the power of roles to influence our behaviour.

DEINDIVIDUATION

Definition: The loss of individuality and personal responsibility when we are part of a crowd. This can be seen as a reason for aggressive behaviour.

Zimbardo’s study:

Method: Groups of 4 female participants were asked to give electric shocks to confederates either when in identical coats and hoods or when in own clothes with name tags.
Results: The anonymous gave twice as many shocks as the individual group.
Criticisms:
There may have been demand characteristics involved. In a further experiment participants in nurses uniforms gave fewer shocks.

Factors affecting deindividuation:
1. Level of anonymity: people are more anonymous in large crowds and in the dark, for example.
2. External cues e.g. uniform (see above)
3. The mood of the crowd : the mood of a crowd seems to spread e.g. happy/aggressive crowds

Problems with the research:
How easy is it to replicate this behaviour in a laboratory? The laboratory experiments above are possibly unrealistic.

مشكوره بس للاسف معرف انقلش
كان ودي انه عربي لكن يالله

مشكوره

الاميره الصغيره اسمك لا يدل على علم نفس وكأبه شكرا على مشاركتك لو تترجم عربي احسن

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة الحر الأشقر

مشكوره بس للاسف معرف انقلش
كان ودي انه عربي لكن يالله

مشكوره

ولا يهمك ,,تعال ندور مع بعض على مترجمين


شكرا لمرورك



دمن بود

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة انفرانيل

الاميره الصغيره اسمك لا يدل على علم نفس وكأبه شكرا على مشاركتك لو تترجم عربي احسن

انا اخترت ادرس علم نفس مشان اتخرج دكتوره نفسانيه ,,لاني شايفه شخصيتي تناسب اني اكون دكتوره نفسانيه ,,واسمي انا حبيت انه ما يكون محزن و ددت فقط ..ان اصبح اميرة مجهوله.

شكرا لمرورك انفرانيل