Collection of Psychological Experiments & Effects

[Supa]

One important aspect of being able to create value for other people is to understand them. Therefore it is good to have at least a basic knowledge of human psychology. To help you with this, I gonna create a thread where I will collect some interesting psychological experiments aswell as psychological effects, because I think (hope) that some of you are interested in this topic. Please note that I won't go into marketing psychology, even if some insights of those experiments and effects can also be used for your marketing. For marketing psychology I absolutely recommend Drew Eric Whitman's book 'Ca$hvertising'.

You can read about one of the most interesting experiments in The Milgram's Experiment thread I made a while ago.

I will put every experiment and effect in a seperate post in this thread to keep it clean. Let's start with the first experiment, maybe the most famous one:

The Stanford Prison Experiment​

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues set out to create an experiment that looked at the impact of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. Zimbardo, a former classmate of Stanley Milgram (who is best-known for his famous obedience experiment, was interested in expanding upon Milgram's research. He wanted to investigate further the impact of situational variables on human behavior.

The researchers wanted to know how the participants would react when placed in a simulated prison environment.

The Participants

The researchers set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building and then selected 24 undergraduate students to play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The participants were chosen from a larger group of 70 volunteers because they had no criminal background, lacked psychological issues, and had no significant medical conditions. The volunteers agreed to participate for a one to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

The Setting and Procedures

The simulated prison included three six by nine-foot prison cells.

Each cell held three prisoners and included three cots. Other rooms across from the cells were utilized for the jail guards and warden.

One tiny space was designated as the solitary confinement room, and yet another small room served as the prison yard.

The 24 volunteers were then randomly assigned to either the prisoner group or the guard group. Prisoners were to remain in the mock prison 24-hours a day for the duration of the study.

Guards were assigned to work in three-man teams for eight-hour shifts. After each shift, guards were allowed to return to their homes until their next shift. Researchers were able to observe the behavior of the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras and microphones.

Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment

While the Stanford Prison Experiment was originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive, and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety.

While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience severe negative emotions, including crying and acute anxiety and had to be released from the study early.

Even the researchers themselves began to lose sight of the reality of the situation. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, overlooked the abusive behavior of the jail guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced objections to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment.

"Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously I was not among that noble class," Zimbardo later wrote in his book The Lucifer Effect.

What Do the Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment Mean?

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment demonstrates the powerful role that the situation can play in human behavior. Because the guards were placed in a position of power, they began to behave in ways they would not usually act in their everyday lives or other situations. The prisoners, placed in a situation where they had no real control, became passive and depressed.
Criticisms of the Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment is frequently cited as an example of unethical research. The experiment could not be replicated by researchers today because it fails to meet the standards established by numerous ethical codes, including the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association. Zimbardo acknowledges the ethical problems with the study, suggesting that "although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough."

Other critics suggest that the study lacks generalizability due to a variety of factors. The unrepresentative sample of participants (mostly white and middle-class males) makes it difficult to apply the results to a wider population.

The study is also criticized for its lack of ecological validity. While the researchers did their best to recreate a prison setting, it is simply not possible to perfectly mimic all of the environmental and situational variables of prison life.

Despite some of the criticism, the Stanford Prison Experiment remains an important study in our understanding of how the situation can influence human behavior. The study recently garnered attention after reports of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq became known. Many people, including Zimbardo himself, suggest that the abuses at Abu Ghraib might be real-world examples of the same results observed in Zimbardo's experiment.

(description from http://psychology.about.com)

My Thoughts

I chose this one as the first post (or second after the Milgram Experiment), because it's the first experiment I came across, even if the first time I heard of it was a few years before I actually started researching psychology. I was maybe 14 or 15 years old when I saw a german movie about it, one night when I stayed awake late after my parents went to bed. I was absolutely shocked at that time about the things that people were able to do to others, seemingly for their own joy.

The article above pretty much sums everything up, but one thing I wanted to add are my thoughts about the roles within the guards. In my opinion it is enough if only one or two of the guards acted cruel out of joy, as long as they were seen as leaders by the rest of the guards, the others are more likely to simply follow the leaders. It kinda reminds me of bullying. If one bully is going at his victim, others are more likely to join the bully's side and doing as he does, just to not seem weak. The more that follow the bully, the more are likely to follow (following the mass). In this case the inmates can be seen as the victims and the guards as the bullys. Now add the big factor 'power' to it and you get a situation where it's probably seen as dumb to take the side of the victims (inmates).

In case that you've lost your faith in humanity after reading about this experiment, I found a nice article adding to this experiment here:

(...) If the Stanford Prison Experiment had simulated a less brutal environment, would the prisoners and guards have acted differently? In December, 2001, two psychologists, Stephen Reicher and Alexander Haslam, tried to find out. They worked with the documentaries unit of the BBC to partially recreate Zimbardo’s setup over the course of an eight-day experiment. Their guards also had uniforms, and were given latitude to dole out rewards and punishments; their prisoners were placed in three-person cells that followed the layout of the Stanford County Jail almost exactly. The main difference was that, in this prison, the preset expectations were gone. The guards were asked to come up with rules prior to the prisoners’ arrival, and were told only to make the prison run smoothly. (The BBC Prison Study, as it came to be called, differed from the Stanford experiment in a few other ways, including prisoner dress; for a while, moreover, the prisoners were told that they could become guards through good behavior, although, on the third day, that offer was revoked, and the roles were made permanent.)

Within the first few days of the BBC study, it became clear that the guards weren’t cohering as a group. “Several guards were wary of assuming and exerting their authority,” the researchers wrote. The prisoners, on the other hand, developed a collective identity. In a change from the Stanford study, the psychologists asked each participant to complete a daily survey that measured the degree to which he felt solidarity with his group; it showed that, as the guards grew further apart, the prisoners were growing closer together. On the fourth day, three cellmates decided to test their luck. At lunchtime, one threw his plate down and demanded better food, another asked to smoke, and the third asked for medical attention for a blister on his foot. The guards became disorganized; one even offered the smoker a cigarette. Reicher and Haslam reported that, after the prisoners returned to their cells, they “literally danced with joy.” (“That was F*cking sweet,” one prisoner remarked.) Soon, more prisoners began to challenge the guards. They acted out during roll call, complained about the food, and talked back. At the end of the sixth day, the three insubordinate cellmates broke out and occupied the guards’ quarters. “At this point,” the researchers wrote, “the guards’ regime was seen by all to be unworkable and at an end.”

Taken together, these two studies don’t suggest that we all have an innate capacity for tyranny or victimhood. Instead, they suggest that our behavior largely conforms to our preconceived expectations. All else being equal, we act as we think we’re expected to act—especially if that expectation comes from above. Suggest, as the Stanford setup did, that we should behave in stereotypical tough-guard fashion, and we strive to fit that role. Tell us, as the BBC experimenters did, that we shouldn’t give up hope of social mobility, and we act accordingly.

This understanding might seem to diminish the power of the Stanford Prison Experiment. But, in fact, it sharpens and clarifies the study’s meaning.

Next post gonna be about The Pygmalion Effect.​

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

The Pygmalion Effect​

The crux of this psychological phenomenon is the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy: If you believe something is true of yourself, eventually it will be.

The first test of the Pygmalion Effect was performed by psychologist Robert Rosenthal and occurred in an elementary school classroom with first and second grade students. At the beginning of the year, all the students took an assessment test, and Rosenthal led the teachers to believe that certain students were capable of great academic achievement. Rosenthal chose these students at random, regardless of the actual results of the IQ tests.

At the end of the year, when the students were retested, the group of earmarked high achievers did indeed show improvement over their peers. Why was this? Later tests concluded that teachers subconsciously gave greater opportunities, attention, and feedback to the special group. Their expectations for this group were higher, and their expectations created the reality.

Rosenthal summarized his finding:

What one person expects of another can come to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The effect was dubbed “Pygmalion,” named after the Ovid tale of a sculptor who falls in love with one of his statues.

Key Takeaway
The applications for the Pygmalion Effect can have benefits for both personal development and leadership. Individually, you can challenge yourself with more difficult goals and tasks in an effort to rise to meet the challenge. As a leader, when you expect great things of your team, you may see improved performance in return.

My Thoughts
I think this is a great example of how our beliefs can influence our actions subconsciously. We may not be able to control our subconscious triggered actions, but we can have the control over our beliefs.

Next post gonna be about The Little Albert Experiment.​

 

[Supa]

The Little Albert Experiment​

The "Little Albert" experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Raynor. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs. Watson was interested in taking Pavlov's research further to show that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

The participant in the experiment was a child that Watson and Rayner called "Albert B.", but is known popularly today as Little Albert.

Around the age of nine months, Watson and Rayner exposed the child to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks and burning newspapers and observed the boy's reactions. The boy initially showed no fear of any of the objects he was shown.

The next time Albert was exposed the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer. Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.

Watson and Rayner wrote:

"The instant the rat was shown, the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table."

Elements of Classical Conditioning in the Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert experiment presents and example of how classical conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response.

Neutral Stimulus: The white rat
Unconditioned Stimulus: The loud noise
Unconditioned Response: Fear
Conditioned Stimulus: The white rat
Conditioned Response: Fear

Stimulus Generalization in the Little Albert Experiment

In addition to demonstrating that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans, Watson and Rayner also observed that stimulus generalization had occurred. After conditioning, Albert feared not just the white rat, but a wide variety of similar white objects as well. His fear included other furry objects including Raynor's fur coat and Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard.

Criticisms of the Little Albert Experiment

While the experiment is one of psychology's most famous and is included in nearly every introductory psychology course, it has also been criticized widely for several reasons. First, the experimental design and process was not carefully constructed.

Watson and Rayner did not develop an object means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead relying on their own subjective interpretations. Secondly, the experiment also raises many ethical concerns. The Little Albert experiment could not be conducted by today's standards because it would be unethical.

What Ever Happened to Little Albert?

The question of what happened to Little Albert has long been one of psychology's mysteries. Watson and Rayner were unable to attempt to eliminate the boy's conditioned fear because he moved with his mother shortly after the experiment ended. Some envisioned the boy growing into a man with a strange phobia of white, furry objects.

Recently, however, the true identity and fate of the boy known as Little Albert was discovered. As reported in American Psychologist, a seven-year search led by psychologist Hall P. Beck led to the discovery. After tracking down the location of the original experiments and the real identity of the boy's mother, it was discovered that Little Albert was actually a boy named Douglas Merritte.

The story does not have a happy ending, however. Douglas died at the age of six on May 10, 1925 of hydrocephalus, a build-up of fluid in his brain. "Our search of seven years was longer than the little boy’s life," Beck wrote of the discovery.

In 2012, Beck and Alan J. Fridlund published their discovery that Douglas Merritte was not the "healthy" and "normal" child that Watson described in his 1920 experiment. Instead, they found that Merritte had suffered from hydrocephalus since birth and presented convincing evidence that Watson knew about the boy's condition and intentionally misrepresented the state of the child's health. These findings not only cast a shadow over Watson's legacy, they also deepens the ethical and moral issues of this well-known experiment.

In 2014, doubt was cast over Beck and Fridlund's findings when researchers presented evidence that a boy by the name of William Barger was the real Little Albert. Barger was born on the same day as Merritte to a wet-nurse who worked at the same hospital as Merritte's mother. While his first name was William, he was know his entire life by his middle name, Albert.

While experts continue to debate the true identity of the boy at the center of Watson's experiment, there is little doubt that Little Albert left a lasting impression of the field of psychology.

(article from http://psychology.about.com)

My Thoughts
At first I was pretty shocked at how someone would be able to do such experiments with a little kid, and besides it being ethically questionable it still gives some deep insights into how easy we humans are able to be conditioned.

I'm not sure yet if I will continue this thread or let it dry out, since the interest is not really big. Maybe I gonna post another Experiment or Effect or this was the last one in this thread for now.

 

[Mattie]

What Do the Results of the Stanford Prison Experiment Mean?

This happens all the time in society. If you look at Prisoners of war, and even in men and women abusive relationships, or someone who has control over someone inferior, it can get out of control very easily.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

The "Lost in the Mall" Technique​

The "Lost in the Mall" technique, formerly known as the Familial Informant Narrative Procedure, is a procedure which can be used to create false memories. The technique was first developed by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus in an effort to explain how normal people can claim to have recovered memories of experiences like alien abduction or satanic ritual abuse.

In a ground-breaking experiment, Loftus and her student Jacqueline Pickrell gave participants short narratives, all supposedly provided by family members, describing childhood events, and asked them to recall the events. Unbeknownst to the participants, however, one of the narratives was entirely false. It told of the person, as child of 5 or 6, being lost in a shopping mall for an extended period of time before finally being rescued by an elderly person and reunited with his or her family. In the study, nearly 25% of the small sample of participants reported to be able to remember this event, even though it never actually occurred. Many people were able to provide embellishing details that were not supplied by the investigators. Loftus interpreted this to mean that the very act of imagining the events led to the creation of false memories.

One potential criticism of the initial study, which created the false memory of having been lost in a shopping mall, is that being lost in a store as a child is a common occurrence. Perhaps the 25% who recalled the false memory had actually been lost in a mall as children, and were recalling that event. However, in subsequent studies performed by a variety of researchers, the lost-in-the-mall technique has been used to generate false memories of such extreme events as:

• taking a hot-air balloon ride
• being hospitalized overnight
• having a bizarre accident at a family wedding
• having nearly drowned but been rescued by a lifeguard
• being the victim of a vicious animal attack

The "lost in a shopping mall" study, and others inspired by it, have been cited to support claims that psychotherapists can implant memories of false autobiographical information of childhood trauma in their patients.

(article from http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique)

My Thoughts
While researching more about this study I found another interesting article here:
(...) Julia Shaw and Stephen Porter recently published a false memory study where they successfully planted a memory of committing a crime in the minds of 21 of 30 (70%) undergraduates. None of the participants had a criminal history. Within another group of 30 undergraduates in the same study, 23 of 30 (76%) believed they had experienced a traumatic event as a teenager. “And they were able to do it within only three hours.” In an article about this research, Susan Perry noted that neuroimaging studies have shown “that true and false memories trigger the same kind of brain activity patterns.” Again the researchers stressed the importance of independent corroboration to reliably tell the difference between true and false memories.

Initially I only wanted to post about psychological experiments and effects that can help to get a better understanding on human behaviour and the reasons behind it. But the "Lost in the Mall" study was just too interesting to not cover it in here.

 

[SmilingFrog]

Thanks for the interesting thread, a great read!

 

[Supa]

The Spotlight Effect​

Part of the human experience seems to be finding ourselves in highly embarrassing situations. At some time most of us have tripped on the stairs in a crowded area, spilled our drink on a stranger, put our foot in our mouth during an important conversation, or simply had to face the world on a really bad hair day. When I find myself in one of these situations, such as when I tripped over my own feet in the middle of campus last week, I instantly blush and put my head down, hoping to avoid the pity and humor that I’m sure is on the faces of all those who witnessed my moment of embarrassment. But, according to social psychology research, I shouldn’t be so quick to blush and look away. It turns out that the number of people who noticed my mishap are likely to be much fewer than I’d imagined, as we tend to overestimate how much our actions and appearance are noticed by others, something social psychologists call the “spotlight effect."

One set of studies by Thomas Gilovich and colleagues (2000) gave the spotlight effect its name and put it to the test. In their first two studies, they had participants put on a shirt with a big picture of someone’s face on it and then walk briefly into a room filled with students sitting at a table facing the door. After the each participant left the room, he or she was asked to estimate how many people in the room would be able to remember who was on their t-shirt, while the observers in the room were asked if they could remember who had been on the shirt. This was all done under the guise of it being a “study on memory.” What did they find? As shown below, in the first study participants drastically overestimated how many people would remember that Barry Manilow (a face they were embarrassed to wear) had been prominently featured on their shirt. Even when their t-shirt had a face that wasn’t embarrassing*, they still overestimated how many people would remember who was on their shirt, suggesting that its not just those moments when we’ve tripped on the stairs that trigger the spotlight effect.

They followed up this first set of studies with a third study where they tested whether the spotlight effect extends not just to people’s appearances, but also their actions. They had people get into groups to talk about “the problems of the inner cities” for 30 minutes. At the end of the conversation each person estimated how the whole group would view their performance and the performance of each of the other members of the group. As with the previous studies, whether the participants were thinking about what they’d done right or were asked to recall their more embarrassing moments during the conversation, they tended to overestimate how much attention had been paid to them.

So why do we think everyone’s paying attention to us? Gilovich and colleagues suggest its because we are so focused on ourselves. We are acutely aware of our own appearance and actions, and we have trouble realizing other people might not be as focused on us. This is an example of a phenomenon called “anchoring and adjustment.” We are anchored by our own experiences and we have trouble adjusting far enough away from them to accurately estimate how much attention other people are paying us. They found evidence for this when they ran the Barry Manilow t-shirt study again, but had half the participants wait for 15 minutes in a nearby room before they completed their estimations. By delaying the estimation process, the experimenters gave the participants time to get used to wearing their shirts. Once the participants were comfortable in their shirts, they were no longer as aware of Manilow’s face, and along with this, they no longer assumed everyone else was as well. These findings suggest that they had indeed been using their own experience to estimate what everyone else was thinking. I know this rings true for my own experiences – the day after an embarrassing haircut I am sure the whole world is pointing and laughing, but four days in when I’ve gotten used to the face in the mirror, I think everyone else has too, even if they are seeing if for the first time.

The bottom line: No need to blush and run the next time you embarrass yourself since you are probably the only person who was really paying attention to your mishap. But you also have to give people a break when they don’t notice your new shirt or compliment you on that really smart comment you made during a meeting. They aren’t paying as close of attention to your appearance and actions as you are because they are too busy paying attention to themselves.

*who did students of the 90’s see as not embarrassing? Bob Marley, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jerry Seinfeld)

(article from http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.de/)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

The Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes Experiment​

The day after the assassination of Martin Luther King, teacher Jane Elliott decided that she wanted to help her third-grade students understand the consequences of being a minority in a Society rife with racism, fear and hatred.

With their permission (although being given permission by an 8 year-old for such an experiment is dubious at best) she split the group into those with blue eyes and those with not.

She declared that blue-eyed people were superior and treated that group accordingly by being more relaxed about discipline with them, giving them longer recess times and paying them more attention.

The other children were ordered to sit at the back of the class and were treated harshly and with contempt.

The most staggering part of this ad lib experiment maybe the fact that by the end of just the first day massive changes had already taken place.

The blue-eyed children who had been previously struggling started to perform better and similarly the smarter brown-eyed kids were all of a sudden struggling.

Not only that, but the blue-eyed kids soon started to taunt the others and gloat.

Elliott was wise enough to flip the exercise after the first day to give both sides the opportunity to understand what it feels like to be treated in such a manner.

An important finding in an experiment that has been replicated many times with the same results, was that the dark-eyed kids didn’t taunt their fellow students to the extent that they had been taunted.

The Take Away

It seems that for the most part we find it difficult (although of course by no means impossible) to truly empathize with minorities.

Unless that is, we too have been treated poorly because we belonged to a minority group.

(article from http://www.adaringadventure.com/6-amazing-psychology-experiments/)

 

[Supa]

The Asch Conformity Experiment​

The Setup:
Solomon Asch wanted to run a series of studies that would document the power of conformity, for the purpose of depressing everyone who would ever read the results.

Subjects were told that they would be taking part in a vision test, along with a handful of people. The participants were then shown pictures, and individually asked to answer very simple and obvious questions. The catch was that everybody else in the room other than the subject was in on it, and they were were told to give obviously wrong answers. So would the subject go against the crowd, even when the crowd was clearly wrong?

The Result:
Questions the subjects were asked were like the puzzle shown here:

All they had to do was say which line on the right matched the one on the left. As you can see, Asch wasn't exactly asking these people to design the next space station. Really, the only way you could get the line questions honestly wrong is if you took two doses of LSD that morning and rubbed them directly on your eyeballs (which would have made for an even more awesome experiment, but we're getting off the point).

Yet, sadly, 32 percent of subjects would answer incorrectly if they saw that three others in the classroom gave the same wrong answer. Even when the line was plainly off by a few inches, it didn't matter. One in three would follow the group right off the proverbial cliff.

What This Says About You:
Imagine how much that 32 percent figure inflates when the answers are less black and white. We all tend to laugh with the group even when we didn't get the joke, or doubt our opinion we realize ours is unpopular among our group. So much for those lectures you got in elementary school about peer pressure and "being brave enough to be yourself."

(article from http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html)

 

[MassiveProgress]

After the little Albert experiment I find the Bystander effect the scariest, Cialdini speaks about it in his book as well. Nice post btw!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

After the little Albert experiment I find the Bystander effect the scariest, Cialdini speaks about it in his book as well. Nice post btw!

Thank you! The Bystander Effect is already next in line

 

[Supa]

The Bystander Effect​

If you witnessed an emergency happening right before you eyes, you would certainly take some sort of action to help the person in trouble, right? While we might all like to believe that this is true, psychologists suggest that whether or not you intervene might depend upon the number of other witnesses present.

The term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress.

When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses. Being part of a large crowd makes it so no single person has to take responsibility for an action (or inaction).

In a series of classic studies, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. In one experiment, subjects were placed in one of three treatment conditions: alone in a room, with two other participants or with two confederates who pretended to be normal participants.

As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. When participants were alone, 75% reported the smoke to the experimenters. In contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other people reported the smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting the smoke.

Additional experiments by Latane and Rodin (1969) found that while 70 percent would help a woman in distress when they were the only witness, only about 40 percent offered assistance when other people were also present.

Example of the Bystander Effect

The most frequently cited example of the bystander effect in introductory psychology textbooks is the brutal murder of a young woman named Catherine "Kitty" Genovese. On Friday, March 13, 1964, 28-year-old Genovese was returning home from work. As she approached her apartment entrance, she was attacked and stabbed by a man later identified as Winston Moseley.

Despite Genovese’s repeated calls for help, none of the dozen or so people in the nearby apartment building who heard her cries called police to report the incident. The attack first began at 3:20 AM, but it was not until 3:50 AM that someone first contacted police.

Initially reported in a 1964 New York Times article, the story sensationalized the case and reported a number of factual inaccuracies. While frequently cited in psychology textbooks, an article in the September 2007 issue of American Psychologist concluded that the story is largely misrepresented mostly due to the inaccuracies repeatedly published in newspaper articles and psychology textbooks.

While Genovese's case has been subject to numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies, there have been numerous other cases reported in recent years. The bystander effect can clearly have a powerful impact on social behavior, but why exactly does it happen? Why don't we help when we are part of a crowd?

Explanations for the Bystander Effect

There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present.

The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous. In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that they believed that they were witnessing a "lover's quarrel," and did not realize that the young woman was actually being murdered.

Characteristics of the situation can play a role. During a crisis, things are often chaotic and the situation is not always crystal clear. Onlookers might wonder exactly what is happening. During such chaotic moments, people often look to others in the group to determine what is appropriate. When people look at the crowd and see that no one else is reacting, it sends a signal that perhaps no action is needed.

Can You Prevent the Bystander Effect?

So what can you do to avoid falling into this trap of inaction? Some psychologists suggest that simply being aware of this tendency is perhaps the greatest way to break the cycle. When faced with a situation that requires action, understanding how the bystander effect might be holding you back and consciously taking steps to overcome it can help. However, this does not mean you should place yourself in danger.

But what if you are the person in need of assistance? How can you inspire people to lend a hand? One often-recommended tactic is to single out one person from the crowd. Make eye contact and ask that individual specifically for help. By personalizing and individualizing your request, it becomes much harder for people to turn you down.

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

My Thoughts
This will be a 3 part (part 3 gonna be seperated in 3 posts) series about The Bystander Effect, with this being part 1. I think simply knowing of the existence of this effect can save lives. Combine this with the OODA Loop, perfectly explained by @Vigilante here, you're on a good way to a better understanding of how you can actually help others, you never know in what kind of situations you get.

(Part 1/3)​

 

[Supa]

How to Overcome the Bystander Effect​

Psychologists have long been interested in exactly why and when we help other people. There has also been a tremendous amount of interest in the reasons why we sometimes don't help others. The bystander effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when people fail to help those in need due to the presence of other people. In many cases, people feel that since there are other people around, surely someone else will leap into action.

While the bystander effect can have a negative impact on prosocial behavior, altruism, and heroism, researchers have identified a number of different things that can help people overcome this tendency and increase the likelihood that they will engage in helping behaviors. Some of these include:

Witnessing Helping Behavior

Sometimes just seeing other people doing something kind or helpful makes us more willing to help others. Imagine that you are walking into a large department store. At the entrance is a bell ringer asking for donations to a charitable organization. You notice that many of the people who walk by are stopping to drop their change into the donation bucket.

As a result, you might feel more inspired to stop and donate your own change. Researchers have found that when we observe other people engaging in prosocial behaviors, such as donating blood, we are more likely to do the same.

Being Observant

One of the key reasons people often fail to take action when help is needed is that they do not notice what is happening until it is too late. Ambiguous situations can also make it difficult to determine if help is truly needed.

In one famous experiment, participants were less likely to respond when smoke began to fill a room when the other people in the room also failed to respond. Since no one else was taking action, people assumed that there must not be an emergency. Rather than relying purely on the responses of those around you, staying alert and attuned to the situation can help you best decide how to react.

Being Skilled and Knowledgeable

When faced with an emergency situation, knowing what to do greatly increases the likelihood that a person will take action. How can you apply this to your own life? While you certainly cannot be prepared for every possible event that might transpire, taking first aid classes and receiving CPR training could help you feel more competent and prepared to deal with potential emergencies.

Guilt

Researchers have found that feelings of guilt can often spur on helping behaviors. So-called "survivor guilt" is just one example. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some people who had survived the event felt driven to help others in the aftermath.

Having a Personal Relationship

Researchers have long known that we are more likely to help people that we know personally. In an emergency situation, people in trouble can help cultivate a more personalized response even in strangers by taking a few important steps.

Simple behaviors such as making direct eye contact and engaging in small talk can increase the likelihood that a person will come to your aid. So if you are in trouble, you might be better of singling out an individual from the crowd, making eye contact, and directly asking for assistance, rather than making a general plea to the group.

Seeing Others as Deserving of Help

People are also more likely to help others if they think that the person truly deserves it. In one classic study, participants were more likely to give money to a stranger if they believed that the individual's wallet had been stolen rather than that the person had simply spent all his money.

This might explain why some people are more willing to give money to the homeless while others are not. Those who believe that homeless people are in their situation due to laziness or unwillingness to work are less likely to give money, while those who believe that these individuals are genuinely deserving of help are more likely to provide assistance.

Feeling Good

Researchers have also found that feeling good about ourselves can also contribute to prosocial behaviors. People who feel happy or successful are more likely to lend assistance, and even relatively small events can trigger such feelings. Hearing your favorite song on the radio, enjoying a warm summer day, or successfully completing an important task at work can leave you feeling joyful and competent – and more likely to help out another person in need. This is often referred to as the "feel good, do good" effect.

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

(Part 2/3)​

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Imgal]

I don't really want to interrupt the flow of this thread, but I'm going to anyway because @Supa knows it's out of love Reading these at first glance can see detached from what any of us are doing in our everyday lives. The reality though is that this couldn't be any further from the truth. The principles and lessons of all of these studies all give a powerful insight into how our minds can work... and while I'm not suggesting we all turn prison guards on our clients / clients it shows how easily the mind is manipulated.

Keep up the great work Supa.

 

[Supa]

Ha yes I know that @Imgal actually I wanted to end this thread a few posts ago, but then some likes poured in which showed me that some maybe are interested in this topic, that's why I kept doing it. Yeah those experiments may sound like they are far away from our daily personal and business life, but the psychology that lays behind them is not.

Thank you! I will probably end those posts when The Bystander Effect series is done, because I think I covered the most important and interesting ones now, if I come across another good one, I gonna post it.

 

[BaraQueenbee]

Very, very interesting.

lots of great information to process! Awesome

Thanks @Supa

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

The Psychology of Heroism​

"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost." – Arthur Ashe

On January 2, 2007, approximately 75 people waiting at a busy subway station watched as a young man suffered a seizure and then fell from the platform onto the subway tracks. Onlookers watched in horror yet did nothing, but a man named Wesley Autry took action.

Handing his two young daughters to a stranger, he leapt down onto the tracks hoping to have time to drag the man out of the way of an oncoming train. When Autry realized that there was no time to move the other man, he instead held him down between the tracks as a train passed over the top of them.

"I don't feel like I did something spectacular; I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right," he told The New York Times after the incident.

What makes certain people take heroic actions in the face of great danger? When you think about heroism, several recent examples might spring to mind.

After the tragic theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado during the summer of 2012, three women who survived the shooting revealed that they had been saved by their boyfriends. The three men had had shielded their girlfriends with their own bodies and died as a result. In another 2012 shooting at a Sikh temple, one man died trying to disarm the shooter while another suffered serious injury as he tried to help.

Heroism is something that is deeply valued across cultures, but how exactly do we define a hero? What is it that inspires some people to take heroic action? While researchers know a great deal about what causes people to perform actions described as evil, our understanding of what makes people heroes is not quite so clear.

What Is Heroism?

According to the Heroic Imagination Project, a non-profit organization that focuses on teaching people to become heroes, heroism involves a behavior or action on behalf of another person or for a moral cause. They identify four key elements of heroism:

• It's voluntary
• It is done in the service of people or communities in need
• It involves some type of risk, either physical, social, or in terms of quality of life
• It is done without the need for recompense or material gain

How do psychologists and other heroism researchers define heroism? Here are just a few of the many suggestions put forth by various experts:

• "Simply put, then, the key to heroism is a concern for other people in need—a concern to defend a moral cause, knowing there is a personal risk, done without expectation of reward." (Philip Zimbardo, "What Makes a Hero?," 2011)
• "Although we find it true that heroism is in the eye of the beholder, we do acknowledge that people’s beliefs about heroes tend to follow a systematic pattern. After polling a number of people, we discovered that heroes tend to have eight traits, which we call The Great Eight. These traits are smart, strong, resilient, selfless, caring, charismatic, reliable, and inspiring. It’s unusual for a hero to possess all eight of these characteristics, but most heroes have a majority of them." (Scott T. Allison & George R. Goethals, "Our Definition of 'Hero,'" 2011)
• "Heroism consists of actions undertaken to help others, despite the possibility that they may result in the helper's death or injury." (Selwyn W. Becker & Alice H. Eagly, " The Heroism of Women and Men," 2004)

Other definitions often break heroism down by types or degrees of the personal risk and sacrifice involved. Some involve grand acts such as endangering one's life in order to save another person, while others are smaller, everyday acts designed to help another human being in need.

In a piece published on the Psychology Today website, psychologist Frank Farley made a distinction between what he calls "big H" heroism and "small h heroism." Big H heroism "involves significant risk, which could include death, injury, imprisonment, or other serious or significant consequences," he explains. Small h heroism, on the other hand, "is everyday heroism, helping others, doing good deeds, showing kindness, etc., where serious harm or major consequences are not usually a result."

What Makes a Person a Hero?

So now that we know a bit more about what heroism is, the question shifts to exactly why people become heroes? Are there any characteristics of heroism that these individuals seem to share? Farley suggests that there are two key factors underlying the grand acts of heroism that involve a risk of personal harm: risk-taking behavior and generosity. People who risk their lives in the service of another are naturally more likely to take greater risks and they also possess a great deal of compassion, kindness, empathy, and altruism.

In an article that appeared in a 2004 issues of American Psychologist, researchers Selwyn Becker and Alice Eagly suggested that heroism might also have a more self-serving purpose as a means to ensure status. In other words, sometimes engaging in self-sacrificing behavior can lead to long-term rewards.

In one small study conducted with 78 participants, researchers found that people who were willing to endure the pain of holding their hands in a tub of ice or being dunked in a tank of water were more likely to be judged as likable by the other participants. Not only did the others view these individuals more favorably, they also rewarded them by giving them much more of a pot of money amounting to $1,170 that the participants were allowed to divvy up in any way they wished.

Researchers have long known that both people and animals are more likely to help those to whom they are genetically related, a concept known as kin selection. By helping those who share our genes, we help ensure the likelihood that those genes will be passed on to future generations. In others cases, we help others with the expectation that someday they might help us in return, an idea known as reciprocal altruism.

But what about the kinds of altruism that don't hinge on helping relatives or expecting some type of payback? In such cases, situational, cultural, and personality variables can play pivotal roles. After people take heroic actions, they often claim that they don't see themselves as heroes; that they were simply doing what anyone in that situation would have done. In the face of immediate life and death situations, the power and immediacy of the situation can inspire some people to take action.

These same situational forces that galvanize some individuals to heroic acts can actually impede others from helping. When a crisis arises in the presence of many people, we often fall into a trap of inaction by assuming that someone else will offer assistance, a phenomenon known as the bystander effect. Because personal responsibility is diffused by the presence of others, we believe that someone else will take on the role of the hero.

Some people may also have personality traits that predispose them to behave in altruistic and heroic ways. Researchers have suggested that those who have a particular mind-set that leads them to behave confidently and morally in difficult situations tend to act immediately and unconsciously when an emergency occurs.

Are Heroes Born or Are They Made?

One of the biggest questions researchers face comes down to the age-old debate over nature versus nurture. Is heroism something we are born with, or is heroism something that can be learned?

"Some people argue humans are born good or born bad; I think that’s nonsense," explains Philip Zimbardo. "We are all born with this tremendous capacity to be anything, and we get shaped by our circumstances—by the family or the culture or the time period in which we happen to grow up, which are accidents of birth; whether we grow up in a war zone versus peace; if we grow up in poverty rather than prosperity."

So if heroism is something that can be cultivated, how exactly do we go about encouraging people to behave in heroic ways? In the second part of this article, we'll learn more about one program designed to foster altruism and heroism in young people.

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

(Part 3/3) ...​

 

[Supa]

...

Teaching Heroism​

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do bad things, but because of those who look on and do nothing". –Albert Einstein

Psychologist Philip Zimbardo, founder of the Heroic Imagination Project (HIP), believes that heroism can be taught and has developed a program designed to help children learn how to be heroes. Most people know Zimbardo as the man behind the famous Stanford prison experiment, a study that demonstrated how people are heavily influenced by social and situational pressures.

In the experiment, participants took on the roles of guards and prisoners in a mock-prison setting. Originally slated to last two weeks, the study had to be terminated after just six days as the guards became domineering and abusive and the prisoners became distraught and depressed.

Today, Zimbardo's HIP programs "are designed to instill in the present generation – and in future ones – the notion of heroism not as something reserved for those rare individuals who do or achieve something extraordinary, but as a mindset or behavior possible for anyone who is capable of doing an extraordinary deed."

For many, this might sound like a radical concept. After all, popular depictions of heroes often describe these individuals as having something that the average person simply does not. According to the common views of heroism, these heroes possess qualities that allow them to rise up at the right moment and assert their bravery in the face of danger, peril, or opposition. They are special. They are rare.

Simply put, they are "born with it."

Zimbardo suggests that this simply isn't true. "We've been saddled for too long with this mystical view of heroism," he suggests. "We assume heroes are demigods. But they're not. A hero is just an ordinary person who does something extraordinary. I believe we can use science to teach people how to do that."

Obstacles to Heroism

The HIP program consists of a four-week curriculum aimed at adolescents that begins with students taking a hero pledge. Over the next four weeks, students learn about the darker side of human nature including Milgram's obedience experiment (which demonstrates how far people will go to obey and authority figure), the prevalence and impact of prejudice, social roles and expectations, and the bystander effect (in which people are less likely to offer assistance to a person in need if others are present).

Building Empathy

The second stage of the program focuses on helping students overcome these problems by building empathy, including increasing their understanding of the impact of the fundamental attribution error, or our tendency to ignore how context and situational variables influence behavior. This is important, Zimbardo suggests, because one of the major reasons we fail to help other people is due to our tendency to believe that they deserve what is happening to them. By making students aware of this fallacy, they are less likely to 'blame the victim' and more likely to take action.

Studying Heroes and Putting it Into Practice

Studying the lives and stories of legendary heroes is another important part of the program. A range of real-life individuals and fictional characters ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Harry Potter serve as models of virtuous and heroic behavior. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the students are asked to start putting what they have learned during the program to work in the real-world. Like any skill, Zimbardo believes that heroism takes practice. Participants in the program start small by doing one thing each day to help another person feel better. The goal is that these baby steps will serve as a stepping stone toward a lifetime of helping behaviors.

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in teaching heroism lies in those popular perceptions of exactly what makes a hero. If you ask many people today to list some heroes, responses will likely include pop culture figures such as professional athletes and actors. "One of the problems with our culture is that we've replaced heroes with celebrities," Zimbardo says. "We worship people who haven't done anything. It's time to get back to focusing on what matters, because we need real heroes more than ever."

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

(Part 3/3) ...​

 

[Supa]

...

The Seven Characteristics of Heroism​

What makes a person a hero? Is there a hero gene? According to one recent study, the answer might rest in what type of heroism we're addressing. Researchers discovered that people who had engaged in one-time acts of bravery (like rushing into a burning building or rescuing someone from the path of an oncoming train) weren't that much different from a control group of non-heroes. People who engaged in lifelong heroism (such as professional nurses who regularly comfort the sick and dying) shared a number of important personality traits such as empathy, nurturance, and a need to live by a moral code.

"The decision to act heroically is a choice that many of us will be called upon to make at some point in time. By conceiving of heroism as a universal attribute of human nature, not as a rare feature of the few “heroic elect,” heroism becomes something that seems in the range of possibilities for every person, perhaps inspiring more of us to answer that call," write heroism researchers Zeno Franco and Philip Zimbardo.

The psychology of heroism might not be well understood, but many experts do believe that it is possible for people to learn to be heroes. Do you have what it takes? The following are just a few of the major characteristics that researchers have ascribed to heroes.

1. People who become heroes tend to be concerned with the well-being of others.

According to researchers, empathy and compassion for others are key variables that contribute to heroic behavior. People who rush in to help others in the face of danger and adversity do so because they genuinely care about the safety and well-being of other people. A 2009 study found that people who have heroic tendencies also have a much higher degree of empathy.

2. Heroes are good at seeing things from the perspective of others.

Researchers suggest that heroes aren't just compassionate and caring; they have a knack for being able to see things from the perspective of others. They can 'walk a mile in another man's shoes,' so to speak.

3. Heroes are competent and confident.

It takes both skill and self-confidence to rush in where others fear to tread. Researchers suggest that people who perform heroic acts tend to feel confident in themselves and their abilities. When faced with a crisis, they have an intrinsic belief that they are capable of handling the challenge and achieving success no matter what the odds.

Part of this confidence might stem from above-average coping skills and abilities to manage stress.

4. Heroes have a strong moral compass.

According to heroism researchers Zimbardo and Franco, heroes have two essential qualities that set them apart from non-heroes: they live by their values and they are willing to endure personal risk to protect those values.

5. Having the right skills and training can make a difference.

Clearly, having the training or physical ability to deal with a crisis can also play a major role in whether or not people become heroes. In situations where would-be rescuers lack the know-how or sheer physical strength to make a difference, people are less likely to help or are more likely to find less direct ways to take action. And in many cases, this approach is probably best; after all, people senselessly rushing into a dangerous situation can pose even more difficulties for rescue workers.

6. Heroes persist, even in the face of fear.

A person who rushes into a burning building to save another person is not just extraordinarily brave; he or she also possesses an ability to overcome fear. Researchers suggest that heroic individuals are positive thinkers by nature, which contributes to their ability to look past the immediate danger of a situation and see a more optimistic outcome. In many cases, these individuals may also have a higher tolerance for risk. Plenty of caring and kind people might shrink back in the face of danger. Those who do leap into action are typically more likely to take greater risks in multiple aspects of their lives.

7. Heroes keep working on their goals, even after multiple setbacks.

Persistence is another quality commonly shared by heroes. In one 2010 study, researchers found that people identified as heroes were more likely to put a positive spin on negative events. When faced with a potentially life-threatening illness, people with heroic tendencies might focus on the good that might come from the situation such as a renewed appreciation for life or an increased closeness with loved ones.

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

(Part 3/3)​

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

That's it. I gonna end this thread for now, because I think I covered the most important and interesting experiments and effects in it. I hope that those of you that read through it could find some interesting insights within the lines. I know it is a lot to read and that's definitely some kind of turn off, anyways I found it interesting reading through those experiments and effects while researching this topic; and if just one of you found some kind of value in it, it was already worth the time spent for this thread.

 

[Supa]

I thought it would take longer before I find something interesting that I want to post in this thread, but while looking into a few social psychology experiments and effects I came across some interesting ones, that I don't want to withold from you.

The Halo Effect​

Question: What Is the Halo Effect?

Answer: The halo effect is a type of cognitive bias in which our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about his or her character. Essentially, your overall impression of a person ("He is nice!") impacts your evaluations of that person's specific traits ("He is also smart!").

One great example of the halo effect in action is our overall impression of celebrities.

Since we perceive them as attractive, successful, and often likeable, we also tend to see them as intelligent, kind, and funny.

Definitions of the Halo Effect

• "Also known as the physical attractiveness stereotype and the "what is beautiful is good" principle, the halo effect, at the most specific level, refers to the habitual tendency of people to rate attractive individuals more favorably for their personality traits or characteristics than those who are less attractive. Halo effect is also used in a more general sense to describe the global impact of likeable personality, or some specific desirable trait, in creating biased judgments of the target person on any dimension. Thus, feelings generally overcome cognitions when we appraise others." (Standing, L. G., in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 1, 2004)

• "In a study made in 1915 of employees of two large industrial corporations, it appeared that the estimates of the same man in a number of different traits such as intelligence, industry, technical skill, reliability, ect., etc., were very highly correlated and very evenly correlated... Ratings were apparently affected by a marked tendency to think of the person in general as rather good or rather inferior and to color the judgments of the qualities by this general feeling. This same constant error toward suffusing ratings of special features with a halo belonging to the individual as a whole appeared in the ratings of officers made by their superiors in the army." (Thorndike, E. L., "A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings," 1920)

The History of the Halo Effect

Psychologist Edward Thorndike first coined the term in a 1920 paper titled "The Constant Error in Psychological Ratings." In the experiment described in the paper, Thorndike asked commanding officers in the military to evaluate a variety of qualities in their subordinate soldiers. These characteristics included such things as leadership, physical appearance, intelligence, loyalty, and dependability.

Thorndike's goal was to determine how ratings of one quality bled over onto assessments of other characteristics. He found that high ratings of a particular quality correlated to high ratings of other characteristics, while negative ratings of a specific quality also led to lower ratings of other characteristics.

"The correlations were too high and too even," Thorndike wrote. "For example, for the three raters next studied the average correlation for physique with intelligence is .31; for physique with leadership, .39; and for physique with character, .28."

So why do our overall impressions of a person create this halo that influences our evaluations of specific traits? Researchers have found that attractiveness is one factor that can play a role. Several different studies have found that when we rate people as good-looking, we also tend to believe that they have positive personality traits and that they are more intelligent. One study even found that jurors were less likely to believe that attractive people were guilty of criminal behavior.

However, this attractiveness stereotype can also be a double-edged sword. Other studies have found that while people are more likely to ascribe a host of positive qualities to attractive people, they are also more likely to believe that good-looking individuals are vain, dishonest, and likely to use their attractiveness to manipulate others.

Observations

• "In the classroom, teachers are subject to the halo effect rating error when evaluating their students. For example, a teacher who sees a well-behaved student might tend to assume this student is also bright, diligent, and engaged before that teacher has objectively evaluated the student's capacity in these areas. When these types of halo effects occur, they can affect students' approval ratings in certain areas of functioning and can even affect students' grades." (Rasmussen, Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Volume 1, 2008)

• "In the work setting, the halo effect is most likely to show up in a supervisor's appraisal of a subordinate's job performance. In fact, the halo effect is probably the most common bias in performance appraisal. Think about what happens when a supervisor evaluates the performance of a subordinate. The supervisor may give prominence to a single characteristic of the employee, such as enthusiasm, and allow the entire evaluation to be colored by how he or she judges the employee on that one characteristic. Even though the employee may lack the requisite knowledge or ability to perform the job successfully, if the employee's work shows enthusiasm, the supervisor may very well give him or her a higher performance rating than is justified by knowledge or ability." (Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M., Applied Social Psychology, 2012)

The Halo Effect at Work in the Real World

As you read above, the halo effect can influence how teachers treat students, but it can also impact how students perceive teachers. In one study, researchers found that when an instructor was viewed as warm and friendly, students also rated him as more attractive, appealing, and likeable.

Marketers take advantage of the halo effect to sell products and services. When a celebrity spokesperson endorses a particular item, our positive evaluations of that individual can spread to our perceptions of the product itself.

Job applicants are also likely to feel the impact of the halo effect. If a prospective employer views the applicant as attractive or likeable, they are more likely to also rate the individual as intelligent, competent, and qualified.

So, the next time you trying to make an evaluation of another person, whether it is deciding which political candidate to vote for or which movie to see on a Friday night, consider how your overall impressions of an individual might influence your evaluations of other characteristics. Does your impression of a candidate being a good public speaker lead you to feel that she is also smart, kind, and hard-working? Does thinking that a particular actor is good-looking also lead you to think that he is also a compelling actor?

Being aware of the halo effect, however, does not make it easy to avoid its influence on our perceptions and decisions.

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

 

[Supa]

Color Psychology​

Colors, like features, follow the changes of the emotions. - Pablo Picasso

Do you feel anxious in a yellow room? Does the color blue make you feel calm and relaxed? Artists and interior designers have long understood how color can dramatically affect moods, feelings, and emotions. It is a powerful communication tool and can be used to signal action, influence mood, and cause physiological reactions.

Certain colors have been associated with increased blood pressure, increased metabolism, and eyestrain.

"Given the prevalence of color, one would expect color psychology to be a well-developed area," note researchers Andrew Elliot and Markus Maier. "Surprisingly, little theoretical or empirical work has been conducted to date on the influence of color on psychological functioning, and the work that has been done has been driven mostly by practical concerns, not scientific rigor."

Despite the general lack of research in this area, the concept of color psychology has become a hot topic in marketing, art, design, and other areas.

What Is Color Psychology?

Much of the evidence in this emerging area is anecdotal at best, but researchers and experts have made a few important discoveries and observations about the psychology of color and the effect it has on moods, feelings, and behaviors.

Of course, your feelings about color are often deeply personal and rooted in your own experience or culture. For example, while the color white is used in many Western countries to represent purity and innocence, it is seen as a symbol of mourning in many Eastern countries.

Why is color such a powerful force in our lives? What effects can it have on our bodies and minds? Continue reading to further explore the history of color including how it's used, the effects it may have, and some of the most recent research on color psychology.

What Is Color?

In 1666, English scientist Sir Isaac Newton discovered that when pure white light passes through a prism, it separates into all of the visible colors. Newton also found that each color is made up of a single wavelength and cannot be separated any further into other colors.

Further experiments demonstrated that light could be combined to form other colors.

For example, red light mixed with yellow light creates an orange color. Some colors, such as yellow and purple, cancel each other out when mixed and result in a white light.

If you have ever painted, then you have probably noticed how certain colors can be mixed to create other colors. Marion Boddy-Evans, About.com's Guide to Painting, has an excellent overview of color theory basics including how different colors can be mixed.

The Psychological Effects of Color

While perceptions of color are somewhat subjective, there are some color effects that have universal meaning. Colors in the red area of the color spectrum are known as warm colors and include red, orange and yellow. These warm colors evoke emotions ranging from feelings of warmth and comfort to feelings of anger and hostility.

Colors on the blue side of the spectrum are known as cool colors and include blue, purple and green. These colors are often described as calm, but can also call to mind feelings of sadness or indifference.

Color Psychology as Therapy

Several ancient cultures, including the Egyptians and Chinese, practiced chromotherapy, or the use of colors to heal. Chromotherapy is sometimes referred to as light therapy or colourology and is still used today as a holistic or alternative treatment.

In this treatment:

• Red was used to stimulate the body and mind and to increase circulation.
• Yellow was thought to stimulate the nerves and purify the body.
• Orange was used to heal the lungs and to increase energy levels.
• Blue was believed to soothe illnesses and treat pain.
• Indigo shades were thought to alleviate skin problems.

Modern Research on Color Psychology

Most psychologists view color therapy with skepticism and point out that the supposed effects of color are often grossly exaggerated. Colors also have different meanings in different cultures. Research has demonstrated in many cases that the mood-altering effects of color may only be temporary. A blue room may initially cause feelings of calm, but the effect dissipates after a short period of time.

However, the existing research has found that color can impact people in a variety of surprising ways:

• One study found that warm-colored placebo pills were reported as more effective than cool-colored placebo pills.
• Anecdotal evidence has suggested that installing blue-colored streetlights can lead to a reduction of crime in those areas.
• The temperature of the environment might play a role in color preference. People who are warm tend to list cool colors as their favorites, while people who are cold prefer warmer colors.
• More recently, researchers discovered that the color red causes people to react with greater speed and force, something that might prove useful during athletic activities.
• One study that looked at historical data found that sports teams dressed in mostly black uniforms are more likely to receive penalties and that students were more likely to associate negative qualities with a player wearing a black uniform.

Color Can Influence Performance

Studies have also shown that certain colors can have an impact on performance. No one likes to see a graded test covered in red ink, but one study found that seeing the color red before taking an exam actually hurt test performance. While the color red is often described as threatening, arousing or exciting, many previous studies on the impact of the color red have been largely inconclusive. The study found, however, that exposing students to the color red prior to an exam has been shown to have a negative impact on test performance.

In the first of the six experiments described in the study, 71 U.S. colleges students were presented with a participant number colored either red, green or black prior to taking a five-minute test. The results revealed that students who were presented with the red number before taking the test scored more than 20 percent lower than those presented with the green and black numbers

Additional Research Is Still Needed

Interest in the subject of color psychology is growing, but there remain a number of unanswered questions. How do color associations develop? How powerful is the influence of these associations on real-world behavior? Can color be used to increase worker productivity or workplace safety? What colors have an impact on consumer behavior? Do certain personality types prefer certain colors? As researchers continue to explore such questions, we may soon learn more about the impact that color has on human psychology.

Zena O'Connor, a faculty member in the Department of Architecture, Design, and Planning at the University of Sydney, suggests that people should be wary of many of the claims they see about the psychology of color. "Many of these claims lack substantiation in terms of empirical support, exhibit fundamental flaws (such as causal oversimplification and subjective validation), and may include factoids presented as facts," O'Connor explains. "In addition, such claims often refer to outdated research without referring to current research findings."

So what's the bottom line? Experts have found that while color can have an influence on how we feel and act, these effects are subject to personal, cultural, and situational factors. More scientific research is needed to gain a better understanding of color psychology.

(article from http://psychology.about.com/)

(Part 1/2)​

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Supa]

Black
Black is real sensation, even if it is produced by entire absence of light. The sensation of black is distinctly different from the lack of all sensation. -Hermann von Helmholz

The Color Psychology of Black

• Black absorbs all light in the color spectrum.
• Black is often used as a symbol of menace or evil, but it is also popular as an indicator of power. It is used to represent treacherous characters such as Dracula and is often associated with witchcraft.
• Black is associated with death and mourning in many cultures. It is also associated with unhappiness, sexuality, formality, and sophistication.
• In ancient Egypt, black represented life and rebirth.
• Black is often used in fashion because of its slimming quality.
• Consider how black is used in language: Black Death, blackout, black cat, black list, black market, black tie, black belt.

White
White...is not a mere absence of colour; it is a shining and affirmative thing, as fierce as red, as definite as black...God paints in many colours; but He never paints so gorgeously, I had almost said so gaudily, as when He paints in white. - G. K. Chesterton

How does the color white make you feel? Many people find white serene and pure, while others feeling that it is stark and cold.

One thing to remember is that such color associations are not necessarily universal. Colors can have different meanings, symbolism, and associations in other cultures.

In Western cultures, the color white is often associated with weddings, hospitals, and angels and is often used to convey a sense of purity, cleanliness, and peacefulness.

In many Eastern cultures, however, white is symbolically linked to death and sadness. It is often a color used in funerals and other mourning rituals.

The Color Psychology of White

• White represents purity or innocence. Consider how white is traditionally worn by brides. While this was often thought to convey the bride's virginity, blue was once a traditional color worn by brides to symbolize purity.
• White is bright and can create a sense of space or add highlights. Designers often use the color white to make rooms seem larger and more spacious.
• White is also described as cold, bland, and sterile. Rooms painted completely white can seem spacious, but empty and unfriendly. Hospitals and hospital workers use white to create a sense of sterility.
• Some of the positive meanings that white can convey include cleanliness, freshness, and simplicity. The color white often seems like a blank slate, symbolizing a new beginning or a fresh start.
• On the negative side, white can seem stark, cold, and isolated. Consider how a large, white, empty room might seem boring, bland, and stark.

Red
Red has guts .... deep, strong, dramatic. A geranium red. A Goya red ... to be used like gold for furnishing a house ... for clothes, it is strong, like black or white. - Valentino

How does the color red make you feel? Red is often described as warm, vibrant, and intense. It is often seen as an exciting and even sexually-aggressive color, but it can also evoke feelings of love and comfort. Red is often used to grab attention, particularly in advertising and traffic signage.

The Color Psychology of Red

• Red is a bright, warm color that evokes strong emotions.
• Red is associated with love, warmth, and comfort.
• Red is also considered an intense, or even angry, color that creates feelings of excitement or intensity.
• Consider how red is used in language: redneck, red-hot, red-handed, paint the town red, seeing red

Blue
How does the color blue make you feel? People have long believed that certain colors can evoke different moods and feelings, and some research has supported the idea that colors can have psychological effects.

Blue is a color often found in nature such as the pale blue of a daytime sky or the rich dark blue of a deep pool of water. It is for this reason perhaps that people often describe the color blue as calm and serene.

Yet as a cool color, blue can sometimes seem icy, distant, or even cold.

Learn more about some of the feelings and moods created by the color blue.

The Color Psychology of Blue

• Blue is described as a favorite color by many people and is the color most preferred by men.
• Because blue is favored by so many people, it is often viewed as a non-threatening color that can seem conservative and traditional.
• Blue calls to mind feelings of calmness or serenity. It is often described as peaceful, tranquil, secure, and orderly.
• Blue is often seen as a sign of stability and reliability. Businesses that want to project an image of security often utilize blue in their advertising and marketing efforts.
• Blue can also create feelings of sadness or aloofness. Consider how a painting that heavily features blue, such as those produced by Picasso during his "blue period," can seem so lonely, sad, or forlorn.
• Blue is often used to decorate offices because research has shown that people are more productive in blue rooms.
• Blue is one of the most popular colors, but it is one of the least appetizing. Some weight loss plans even recommend eating your food off of a blue plate. Blue rarely occurs naturally in food aside from blueberries and some plums. Also, humans are geared to avoid foods that are poisonous and blue coloring in food is often a sign of spoilage or poison.
• Blue can also lower the pulse rate and body temperature.
• Consider how blue is used in language: blue moon, blue Monday, blue blood, the blues, and blue ribbon.

Green
Green, which is Nature's colour, is restful, soothing, cheerful, and health-giving. - Paul Brunton

How does the color green make you feel? For many people, it immediately brings to mind the lush green of grass, trees, and forests. Perhaps because green is so heavily associated with nature, it is often described as a refreshing and tranquil color.

The Color Psychology of Green

• Green is a cool color that symbolizes nature and the natural world.
• Green also represents tranquility, good luck, health, and jealousy.
• Researchers have also found that green can improve reading ability. Some students may find that laying a transparent sheet of green paper over reading material increases reading speed and comprehension.
• Green has long been a symbol of fertility and was once the preferred color choice for wedding gowns in the 15th-century. Even today, green M & M's (an American chocolate candy) are said to send a sexual message.
• Green is often used in decorating for its calming effect. For example, guests waiting to appear on television programs often wait in a “green room” to relax.
• Green is thought to relieve stress and help heal. Those who have a green work environment experience fewer stomachaches.
• Consider how green is used in language: green thumb, green with envy, greenhorn.

Yellow
How wonderful yellow is. It stands for the sun. -Vincent Van Gogh

The color yellow can be bright and intense, which is perhaps why it can often invoke such strong feelings. Yellow can quickly grab attention, but it can also be abrasive when overused. It can appear warm and bright, yet it can also lead to visual fatigue.

Learn more about some of the emotions and moods that the color yellow creates.

The Color Psychology of Yellow

• Yellow is a bright that is often described as cheery and warm.
• Yellow is also the most fatiguing to the eye due to the high amount of light that is reflected. Using yellow as a background on paper or computer monitors can lead to eyestrain or vision loss in extreme cases.
• Yellow can also create feelings of frustration and anger. While it is considered a cheerful color, people are more likely to lose their tempers in yellow rooms and babies tend to cry more in yellow rooms.
• Yellow can also increase the metabolism.
• Since yellow is the most visible color, it is also the most attention-getting color. Yellow can be used in small amount to draw notice, such as on traffic sign or advertisements.

Purple
How does the color purple make you feel? People often describe this color as mysterious, spiritual, and imaginative. Purple tends to occur rarely in nature, so it is viewed as rare and intriguing. While violet occurs naturally in the visible spectrum, purple is actually a combination of blue and red.

The Color Psychology of Purple

Purple is the symbol of royalty and wealth. In ancient times, creating dyes to color fabric often required a great deal of effort and expense, especially for certain colors.

Because purple is less common in nature, the resources needed to create a dye in this color were much more hard to come by and much more costly. For this reason, the color purple became associated with wealth and royalty, often the only individuals who could afford such expensive items.

During the 15th century, the city of Tyre along the coast of Ancient Phoenicia began producing purple dye by crushing the shells of a small sea snail. The resulting color became known as Tyrian purple and was so well-known it was mentioned in Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid. Alexander the Great and the kings of Egypt also wore clothing colored with the famous Tyrian purple.

This connection with royalty was not just restricted to ancient times. Purple was the color of choice for tickets to Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953.

Purple also represents wisdom and spirituality. Its rare and mysterious nature perhaps causes it to seem connected to the unknown, supernatural, and divine.

Purple does not often occur in nature, it can sometimes appear exotic or artificial. For this reason, it tends to be quite a polarizing color.

People tend to either really love purple or really hate it.

Consider some of the symbolic uses of the color purple. In the U.S., the Purple Heart is one of the highest honors for bravery in military service.

Visually, purple is one of the most difficult colors to discriminate. It also has the strongest electromagnetic wavelength, being just a few wavelengths up from x-rays and gamma rays. For this reason, it is often used in visual illusions such as the lilac chaser illusion.

Brown
How does the color brown make you feel? Brown tends to feel like a solid, earthy color, but it can sometimes seem drab and boring. Light browns such as beige are often used as neutrals in design and fashion. While they can provide a conservative and traditional backdrop, these shades are often perceived as dull.

Color Psychology of the Color Brown

• Brown is a natural color that evokes a sense of strength and reliability. It is often seen as solid, much like the earth.
• Brown can also create feelings of sadness and isolation. In large quantities, it can seem vast, stark, and empty, like an enormous desert devoid of life.
• Brown brings to mind feelings of warmth, comfort, and security. It is often described as natural, down-to-earth, and conventional, but brown can also be sophisticated.

Orange
Orange is very blatant and vulgar. It makes you immediately start having feelings. -Wolf Kahn

How does the color orange make you feel? Orange can be a very strong and energetic color. Like yellow and red, it can be very attention-grabbing which is perhaps why it is often used in advertising. People often describe orange as bright, happy, and uplifting. In some cases, however, it can seem too bright and overwhelming.

Much like purple, orange tends to be a controversial color. People tend to either love it or hate it.

The Color Psychology of Orange

• Orange is a combination of yellow and red and is considered an energetic color.
• Orange calls to mind feelings of excitement, enthusiasm, and warmth.
• Orange is often used to draw attention, such as in traffic signs and advertising.
• Orange is energetic, which is perhaps why many sports teams use orange in their uniforms, mascots, and branding.
• Orange is also the color of bright sunsets and fruits such as oranges and tangerines, so the many people might associate the color with the beauty of a setting sun or the refreshing taste of citrus.
• Orange is also linked to Autumn and the color of dying leaves and pumpkins.
• The color is also heavily linked to Halloween in the United States, so it can sometimes have a dark or even cartoonish association.

Pink
How does the color pink make you feel? Many people immediately associate the color with all things feminine and girly. It might also bring to mind romance and holidays such as Valentine's Day. Some shades of pale pink are described as relaxing, while very bright, vibrant shades can be stimulating or even aggravating.

The Color Psychology of Pink

• Pink is essentially a light red and is usually associated with love and romance.
• Pink is thought to have a calming effect. One shade known as "drunk-tank pink" is sometimes used in prisons to calm inmates. Sports teams sometimes paint the opposing teams locker room pink to keep the players passive and less energetic.
• While pink's calming effect has been demonstrated, researchers of color psychology have found that this effect only occurs during the initial exposure to the color. When used in prisons, inmates often become even more agitated once they become accustomed to the color.
• Pink is often described as a feminine color, perhaps largely due to associations people form during early childhood. 'Girls toys' are usually pink and purple, while 'boys toys' are often red, yellow, green, or blue.
• Since the color is so strongly associated with femininity, people sometimes associate the color with qualities that are often thought of as feminine, such as softness, kindness, nurturing, and compassion.

(articles from http://psychology.about.com/)

(Part 2/2)​

 

[brewster]

Excellent thread! Thanks for compiling it.

 

[Supa]

Body Language Basics​

Not sure if it really fits to Psychology, but for me Body Language belongs to this topic. Knowing the basics of how the person you are talking to really thinks about you, or why he/she behaves in a specific way, can help to understand people better.

Let's start with the eyes.

looking right (generally) creating, fabricating, guessing, lying, storytelling
looking left (generally) recalling, remembering, retrieving 'facts'
looking right and up visual imagining, fabrication, lying
looking right sideways imagining sounds
looking right and down accessing feelings
looking left and up recalling images truthfulness
looking left sideways recalling or remembering sounds
looking left down self-talking, rationalizing
direct eye contact (when speaking) honesty - or faked honesty
direct eye contact (when listening) attentiveness, interest, attraction
widening eyes interest, appeal, invitation
rubbing eye or eyes disbelief, upset, or tiredness
eye shrug frustration
pupils dilated (enlarged) attraction, desire
blinking frequently excitement, pressure
eyebrow raising (eyebrow 'flash') greeting, recognition, acknowledgement
winking friendly acknowledgement, complicity (e.g., sharing a secret or joke)

The mouth.

pasted smile faked smile
tight-lipped smile secrecy or withheld feelings
twisted smile mixed feelings or sarcasm
dropped-jaw smile faked smile
smile - head tilted, looking up playfulness, teasing, coy
bottom lip jutting out upset
laughter relaxation
forced laughter nervousness, cooperation
biting lip tension
teeth grinding tension, suppression
chewing gum tension, suppression
smoking self-comforting
thumb-sucking self-comforting
chewing pen or pencil self-comforting
pursing lips thoughtfulness, or upset
tongue poke disapproval, rejection
hand clamped over mouth suppression, holding back, shock
nail biting frustration, suppression

The head.

head nodding agreement
slow head nodding attentive listening
fast head nodding hurry up, impatience
head held up neutrality, alertness
head held high superiority, fearlessness, arrogance
head tilted to one side non-threatening, submissive, thoughtfulness
head forward, upright interest, positive reaction
head tilted downward criticism, admonishment
head down (in response to a speaker or proposition) negative, disinterested
head down (while performing an activity) defeat, tiredness
chin up pride, defiance, confidence
active listening attention, interest, attraction

The arms.

crossed arms (folded arms) defensiveness, reluctance
crossed arms with clenched fists hostile defensiveness
gripping own upper arms insecurity
one arm across body clasping other arm by side (female) nervousness
arms held behind body with hands clasped confidence, authority
handbag held in front of body (female) nervousness
holding papers across chest (mainly male) nervousness
adjusting cuff, watchstrap, tie, etc., using an arm across the body nervousness
arms/hands covering genital region (male) nervousness
holding a drink in front of body with both hands nervousness
seated, holding drink on one side with hand from other side nervousness
touching or scratching shoulder using arm across body nervousness

The hands.

palm(s) up or open submissive, truthful, honesty, appealing
palm(s) up, fingers pointing up defensive, instruction to stop
palm(s) down authority, strength, dominance
palm up and moving up and down as if weighing striving for or seeking an answer
hand(s) on heart (left side of chest) seeking to be believed
finger pointing (at a person) aggression, threat, emphasis
finger point and wink acknowledgement or confirmation
finger pointing (in the air) emphasis
finger wagging (side to side) warning, refusal
finger wagging (up and down) admonishment, emphasis
hand chop emphasis - especially the last word on a matter
clenched fist(s) resistance, aggression, determination
finger tips and thumbs touching each other on opposite hands ('steepling') thoughtfulness, looking for or explaining connections or engagement
steepled fingers pointing forward thoughtfulness and barrier
palms down moving up and down, fingers spread seeking or asking for calm, loss of control of a group or situation
cracking knuckles comforting habit, attention-seeking
interwoven clenched fingers frustration, negativity, anxiousness
thumb(s) clenched inside fist(s) self-comforting, frustration, insecurity
hand held horizontally and rocked from side to side undecided, in the balance
rubbing hands together anticipation, relish
hand(s) clamped over mouth suppression, shock
scratching nose, while speaking lying or exaggeration
pinching or rubbing nose, while listening thoughtfulness, suppressing comment
picking nose day-dreaming, inattentive, socially disconnected, stress
pinching bridge of nose negative evaluation
hands clamped on ears rejection of or resistance to something
ear tugging indecision, self-comforting
hands clasping head calamity
hand stroking chin thoughtfulness
hand supporting chin or side of face evaluation, tiredness or boredom
chin resting on thumb, index finger pointing up against face evaluation
neck scratching doubt, disbelief
hand clasping wrist frustration
running hands through hair flirting, or vexation, exasperation
hand(s) on hip(s) confidence, readiness, availability
hands in pockets disinterest, boredom
removing spectacles alerting wish to speak

The feet.

leg direction, sitting - general interest, attentiveness (according to direction)
uncrossed legs, sitting - general openness
parallel legs together, sitting (mainly female) properness
crossed legs, sitting - general caution, disinterest
crossing legs, sitting - specific change interest or disinterest in direction of upper crossed knee
open legs, sitting (mainly male) arrogance, combative, sexual posturing
ankle lock, sitting defensiveness
splayed legs, standing aggression, ready for action
standing 'at attention' respectful
legs intertwined, sitting (female) insecurity or sexual posing
legs crossed, standing (scissor stance) insecurity or submission or engagement
knee buckle, standing under pressure
feet or foot direction or pointing foot direction indicates direction of interest
foot forward, standing directed towards dominant group member
shoe-play (female) relaxation, flirting, sexual

Personal Space.

1. Close intimate 0-15cm/0-6in lovers, and physical touching relationships
2. Intimate 15-45cm/6-18in physical touching relationships
3. Personal 45-120cm/18in-4ft family and close friends
4. Social-consultative 1.2-3.6m/4-12ft non-touch interaction, social, business
5. Public 3.6m+/12ft+ no interaction, ignoring

(from here, check for full article and more detailed explanations.)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.