. Stanford Prison Experiment: Phillip Zimbardo Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B6–B7.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/214660796?accountid=3783&parentSessionId=YvoAl5Axs2cW800BzoThEXQEsKQR9ZBboEOpvgocZ2c%3D
5-2 Final Project Milestone Two: Similarities and Differences
Submit the second milestone of your final project.
For additional details, please refer to the Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric and the Milestone Two Learning Aid Word Document documents.
,
Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric.html
PSY 530 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
This milestone will help you to clearly see the similarities and differences between the two studies you have selected for your final project.
Prompt
In this milestone, you will write a paper that discusses the similarities and differences between the classic and newer study you have selected for the final project. Use the Milestone Two Learning Aid as a starting point for your paper.
What to Submit
Your paper must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Provide citations for the selected studies using APA style.
Milestone Two Rubric
| Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Proficient (90%) | Needs Improvement (70%) | Not Evident (0%) | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources and Citation | Correctly cites the selected studies and previous studies using APA style within the document and in the reference list | Correctly cites the selected studies using APA style within the document and in the reference list | Cites selected studies but does not properly apply APA style | Does not provide citations | 5 |
| Research Question or Hypothesis | Meets “Proficient” criteria and concisely relates similarities or differences to the history of social psychology | Accurately states research questions or hypothesis for selected studies, and notes similarities and/or differences | States research questions or hypothesis or notes similarities or differences, but the statements are inaccurate | Does not state research questions or hypotheses or note similarities or differences | 10 |
| Previous Studies Referenced | Meets “Proficient” criteria and accurately places this past research in the history of social psychology research | References two past research studies used by the authors that informed their approach and describes the similarities and/or differences in the past research used in the selected studies | References two past research studies used by the authors but the references may not be significant or the description of differences of similarities may be inaccurate or cursory | Does not reference two past research studies used by the authors of the selected studies or does not identify similarities of differences | 10 |
| Research Methodology | Meets “Proficient” criteria and concisely relates the comparison or contrast in methodologies to the history of social psychology | Describes the social psychological approach used in each of the chosen studies and identifies similarities and/or differences | Describes the social psychological approach used in each of the chosen studies but description of the approach is cursory or inaccurate | Does not describe the social psychological approach used in each of the chosen studies or does not identify similarities or differences | 10 |
| Evaluation of Measures | Meets “Proficient” criteria and concisely provides the reasoning behind the evaluation | Accurately evaluates the measures used in each study for reliability and validity and identifies similarities or differences | Evaluates the measures used in each study and identifies similarities or differences, but the evaluation or comparison may be inaccurate or superficial | Does not evaluate the measures used in each study or does not identify similarities or differences | 10 |
| Results/ Conclusions | Meets “Proficient” criteria and begins to place the similarities or differences in the context of the history of social psychology | Accurately describes the results or conclusions of the selected studies and identifies similarities or differences in results or conclusions | Describes the results or conclusions of the selected studies and identifies similarities or differences, but the description or identification is incomplete or inaccurate | Does not describe the results or conclusions of the selected studies or identify similarities or differences | 10 |
| Ethical Considerations: Ethical Issues | Meets “Proficient” criteria and concisely relates ethical issues and similarities or differences to the time period and history of social psychology | Accurately lists potential ethical issues in the research design of the selected studies and notes similarities or differences in these ethical issues | Lists potential ethical issues in research design and similarities or differences in these issues; however, this list is inaccurate or incomplete | Does not list potential ethical issues in the research design or similarities or differences in ethical issues | 10 |
| Social Wellbeing/ Social Welfare | Meets “Proficient” criteria and connects the similarities or differences to the broader history of social psychology | Concisely describes results or conclusions of the studies that may promote social welfare or positive social change. Also describes the differences and similarities in these studies regarding social welfare and the potential for social change | Lists elements in the studies that may promote social welfare or positive social change, but this list is inaccurate or incomplete or the comparison is cursory | Does not list elements in the study that may promote social welfare or positive social change or does not provide a comparison of these elements | 10 |
| Influence on Everyday Lives | Meets “Proficient” criteria and begins to explain how this influence may show the role of social psychology in the conduct or analysis of everyday life | Concisely describes several ways that the results or conclusions of the studies could be applied to everyday life in society and notes similarities and differences in this influence between the studies | Describes ways that the results or conclusions of the studies could be applied to everyday life in society and notes similarities and differences in this influence; however, the explanation is inaccurate, incomplete, or superficial | Does not describe ways that the results or conclusions of the studies could be applied to everyday life in society or does not provide a comparison | 10 |
| Influence on Society | Meets “Proficient” criteria and concisely connects the influence of these studies to social history or the history of social psychology | Briefly explains how influential the selected studies have been on society as a whole and lists similarities or differences in this influence | Explains how influential the selected studies have been on society as a whole and lists similarities or differences in this influence; however, the explanation or comparison is cursory or inaccurate | Does not explain how influential the selected studies have been on society as a whole or does not list similarities or differences in this influence | 10 |
| Articulation of Response | Submission is free of errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format | Submission has no major errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization | Submission has major errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas | Submission has critical errors related to grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas | 5 |
| Total: | 100% |
,
PSY 530 Final Project Milestone Two: Similarities and Differences Table Learning Aid
Your Classic Study: ___________________________________________________________________
Your More Recent Study: ______________________________________________________________
|
Classic and Modern Study Questions |
Responses for Classic Study |
Responses for Modern Study |
Similarities and Differences Between Your Two Responses |
|
Citation for studies in APA style |
|||
|
What is the research question or hypothesis in this study? |
|||
|
Name two studies referenced in this article that greatly contributed to the main theme of this article. |
|||
|
What type of research method was used in this study? Correlation? Experiment? |
|||
|
Were the measures used in your study reliable and valid? Explain. |
|||
|
What were the main results/conclusions in this study? |
|||
|
Did this study have ethical problems? If so, name them. |
|||
|
How does this research help improve people’s social well-being/social welfare? |
|||
|
What influence did this study have on the everyday lives of people in society? |
|||
|
How has this study changed the way you view the world? Did this study affect you personally? |
Notes and Further Discussion:
image1.jpeg
,
1
4
Research Article Summary
Name:
Institution Affiliation:
Research Article Summary
A. Classic study chosen:
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B6–B7. https://www.proquest.com/docview/214660796?accountid=3783&parentSessionId=s4PjKwhL8HOuala3OnNABJX2b1S%2BFvBLk8ppmNBDaCc%3D
1. Research question or hypothesis
The primary question was whether the situation itself, rather than inherent personality traits or moral values, would be the dominant factor in shaping the participants' actions and reactions within the prison setting.
2. Literature Review
Philip Zimbardo references several key studies in social psychology that laid the groundwork for the Stanford prison experiment. These studies include research on group dynamics, which demonstrated how groups could influence individuals' beliefs and behaviors, as well as Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments, which illustrated the power of authority figures in commanding compliance. Zimbardo also alludes to an experiment on anonymity and aggression, showing that situational factors could significantly impact behavior. Collectively, this literature review challenged the prevailing notion that inner traits alone determined behavior, emphasizing the role of situational pressures in shaping human conduct instead. This existing body of research provided the background for Zimbardo's exploration of the impact of situational factors on behavior in his own study.
3. Methodology
The research entailed randomly assigning college learners to the roles of convicts or guards in a fake jail environment set up in “Stanford's psychology department's basement.” The participants were initially physically and mentally healthy, and they were paid to participate. The experiment aimed to observe how these roles and the simulated prison setting would affect their behavior.
4. Results
The study revealed that situational factors, including power dynamics, anonymity, and dehumanization, played a significant role in transforming the behavior of participants. Guards became increasingly abusive, and prisoners exhibited extreme stress and compliance. The experiment was terminated after only six days due to the severe and unethical behaviors observed.
5. Conclusion
Zimbardo concluded that the power of the situation could lead individuals to engage in behavior that contradicts their personal values and moral upbringing. He emphasized the need to consider situational factors when understanding human behavior and highlighted the ethical implications of such research.
B. Current Article Chosen
Zia, M. Q., Naveed, M., Bashir, M. A., & Shamsi, A. F. (2020). The interaction of situational factors on individual factors and self-development. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(4/5), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-10-2019-0172
1. Research question or hypothesis
This research explored three questions, i.e., “how do individual and situational factors combine to influence self-development?; How do situational factors impact the relationship between individual factors and self-development?; What are the relationships among job autonomy, empowering environment, learning goal orientation (LGO), proactive personality, and self-development?”
2. Literature review
The literature review in the article discusses the evolution of self-development in the modern workplace, emphasizing the shift towards learner-centered perspectives and the increasing role of technology in facilitating self-driven learning. It underscores the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of informal learning programs compared to formal ones. The review also stresses the growing importance of self-development initiatives for organizational success, citing examples of organizations allocating budgets for employee self-development. Additionally, it mentions that voluntary participation in training activities often leads to more effective learning outcomes, further emphasizing the relevance of “self-development” in contemporary workplaces. The review sets the stage for the study's exploration of “individual and situational factors influencing self-development” behavior.
3. Methodology
Information was collected from two hundred and eighty middle managers in banking industries. The study used partial least squares structural equation modeling to investigate the direct and indirect relationships between personal and situational factors and self-development.
4. Results
The study found out that; “individual factors i.e., “LGO and proactive personality” and situational factors i.e., “empowering environment and job autonomy” have significant direct relationships with self-development.” It also found that an “empowering environment moderates the relationship between LGO and self-development, and that job autonomy moderates the relationship between proactive personality and self-development.”
5. Conclusions
The research concluded that organizations can enhance “self-development” by providing an “empowering environment” and “job autonomy” to their staff. Employees who are provided with these situational factors are more likely to engage in self-development activities, emphasizing their significance in promoting “voluntary” and “active involvement” in self-development behavior.
References
Zia, M. Q., Naveed, M., Bashir, M. A., & Shamsi, A. F. (2020). The interaction of situational factors on individual factors and self-development. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(4/5), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-10-2019-0172
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B6–B7. https://www.proquest.com/docview/214660796?accountid=3783&parentSessionId=s4PjKwhL8HOuala3OnNABJX2b1S%2BFvBLk8ppmNBDaCc%3D
,
PSY 530 Ten Classic Studies With Shapiro Library References
1. Stanford Prison Experiment: Phillip Zimbardo
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of situation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B6–B7.
Or Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.
2. Obedience to Authority: Stanley Milgram Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human
Relations, 18(1), 57–76.
3. Cognitive Dissonance and Insufficient Rewards: Leon Festinger Festinger, L. (1961). The psychological effects of insufficient rewards. American Psychologist,
16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045112
4. Imitation of Aggression: Albert Bandura Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048687
5. Bystander Effect, Helping Behavior: John Latane and Bibb Darley Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
6. Conformity to a Majority: Solomon Asch
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1–70.
7. Groupthink: Irving Janis
Janis, I. L. (1973). Groupthink and group dynamics: A social psychological analysis of defective policy decisions. Policy Studies Journal, 2(1), 19–26.
8. Evolution and Sexual Strategies: David Buss
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–32.
9. Intergroup Conflict and Prejudice: Muzafer Sherif
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356.
10. The Halo Effect: Richard Nisbett
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
