Overview of Social Psychology

This article offers a primer on social psychology, or the study of an individual's behavior within a group context. Classic social psychological studies are described, including Stanley Milgram's experiment on obedience, Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Bystander Effect, along with social implications and the integration of relevant literature. Furthermore, cognitive dissonance is addressed, which is a social psychological concept that helps reconcile the disconnection between incongruent ideals. In conclusion, the conceptualization of deviant behavior is examined through a social psychological or maladaptive group lens.

Keywords Bystander Effect; Cognitive Dissonance; Diffusion of Responsibility; Milgram's Obedience Experiment; Self-Justification; Stanford Prison Experiment

Overview of Social Psychology

Overview

Psychology, or the study of human behavior, is an amply sized, expansive field that encompasses several distinct factions, each of which offers its own unique brand of specialization (Gibson, 1994). For example, psychology students who aspire to secure a position as a helping professional by acquiring therapeutic dexterity might study counseling psychology, clinical psychology, or school psychology (Fuller, 2008; Maddux, 2008; Hart, 2007). Additional branches of psychology include cognitive psychology, which emphasizes mental processes such as language acquisition and memory recollection, and forensic psychology, or the specialization of criminal justice matters such as antisocial behavior and crisis intervention (Johnson, 2002; Lightbown, 2008; Packer, 2008). Developmental psychology focuses on the normative milestones that humans attain throughout each stage of their life, ranging from mother-infant levels of attachment, the functions of play in childhood, moral development, love, retirement, as well as matters that emerge during the transitions between each life stage—infant to child, child to adolescent, adolescent to adult, adult to elderly ("The Developmental Perspective," 1984).

Amid the many diverse psychological classifications lies social psychology, or the study of people within the context of the various groups they inhabit (Berkowitz & Devine, 1997; Riecken, 1960; Trope, 2004). According to Allport (as cited in Thoits, 1995), "social psychologists attempt to understand how the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others influences the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals." In other words, social psychology extrapolates beyond that of the individual, in and of himself, and examines how he integrates into various situations. Under what circumstances does he comply with authority, and under what instances does he refute such authoritative domination? Why does he feel at ease while intermingling with his friendship group, but stiffens around his family members? These scenarios pique the intrigue of social psychologists, who seek to unearth interactional dynamics that are elicited within each person, along with the variance that often exists between a person's social self versus his private self. Additional topics of interest among social psychologists include group processes, conformity, aggression, and the indoctrination of attitudes, and perceptions (Gibb, 1984; Bond, 2005; Deffenbacher, 2008; Eagly, 1992; Baron, Markman & Bollinger, 2006).

Further Insights

Classic Studies

There is a broad spectrum of "classic" social psychological studies that have greatly contributed to the field, and the following three will be highlighted in this section: Stanley Milgram's experiment on obedience, Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Bystander Effect, which was initiated by Darley and Latané.

Stanley Milgram's Experiment on Obedience

The inception of Stanley Milgram's study, titled "Behavioral Study of Obedience," was shrouded in the legacy of the Nazi Holocaust, and sought to unveil information surrounding the darker side of human behavior. The widespread annihilation that was orchestrated by Hitler reflects a resounding level of evil that is eternally etched into the collective consciousness of humanity. In the early 1960s, Milgram was moved by the course of events that had transpired several decades earlier, although his incredulity stemmed less around Hitler's autocratic dictatorship and instead focused on the blind compliance that was executed by his military regime. Certainly, Milgram surmised, the collective inhabitants from any given region, in this case the Germans cannot be cumulatively dissolute. Rather, he postulated that enveloping acts of evil in such circumstances must be derived from some sort of adverse group dynamic. Such a group process was what Milgram set forth to study, or more specifically, how the ostensibly "moral" layperson would respond to an authority figure that demanded submission from a situation that clearly overstepped the bounds of integrity.

The Milgram experiment was devised under a false guise; there were fictitious actors assuming various roles within the context of a man-made scenario to glean psychological insight toward obedience and authority. More specifically, Milgram posted a newspaper advertisement, which erroneously petitioned volunteers to participate in a study that alleged to examine memory and learning. Each of the forty volunteers arrived individually to a laboratory alongside another man who was impersonating as an additional volunteer; in reality, this second "volunteer" was a part of the study. The two men were greeted by a "researcher," who was an additional prop that facilitated implementation of the study's false pretense. The researcher explained that the two volunteers would embark upon an experiment that examined how the role of punishment affected the learning process. Further, the researcher explained that he had written on two slips of paper the words teacher and learner, which the two volunteers would indiscriminately draw upon to ascertain their assigned roles. The truth of the matter was that both slips of paper read teacher, in order for the actual volunteer to secure this position.

From that point, the researcher relayed the instructions. He wired the "learner" to an electronic contraption and asked that the "teacher" read a series of words, of which the learner was required to memorize. Upon responding inaccurately, the teacher was instructed to impart a mild electric shock; with each additional blunder, the shock voltages steadily increased. They proceeded with the study, despite the learner's wary disclosure of a mild heart condition. As the study progressed, the learner's accumulation of wrong answers elicited shocks that magnified in intensity. As the shocks became unbearably painful, the learner incessantly bemoaned that his agony was insufferable and begged that they discontinue the study. Upon demanding such reprieve, the researcher prompted the teacher to persist with the study by providing him with one of four prods (Miller, Collins, & Brief, 1995, p. 3):

• Prod 1-Please continue, or please go on.

• Prod 2-The experiment requires that you go on.

• Prod 3-It is absolutely essential that you continue.

• Prod 4-You have no other choice, you must go on.

To Milgram's surprise, 65 percent of the teachers endured the course of the experiment in its entirety, most of whom appeared conflicted between their internal principles and their desire to comply with authority, although their blind adherence to authority was the ultimate victor. Nevertheless, the internal struggle with which participants contended is highlighted through the following illustration:

I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within twenty minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: 'Oh god, let's stop it.' And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end. (Milgram, as cited in Miller, Collins, & Brief, 1995, p. 4)

The implications of the Milgram experiment are considerable, and at the offset of this pivotal study, social psychologists scrutinized the compelling sway that those in positions of power (e.g., police officials, military personnel, workplace supervisors) may demand, solely by virtue of their roles, which may be exacerbated by extraneous factors such as personality traits, and environmental considerations [Hodson, Roscigno & Lopez, 2006; Liqun & Bu, 2000; O'Hara, Doyle & Branswell, 1998]).

Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

Another landmark social psychology experiment, which also consequently tapped into authority-oriented issues, originated as a means to investigate the effects of imprisonment. Philip Zimbardo was the lead researcher who initiated the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971, which was designed as a two-week investigation and utilized twenty-four college students to serve as the primary participants. These students were administered psychological and physical screens to ensure that only those deemed "hardy" would participate, and then they were randomly assigned the role of either "prisoner" or "guard." The study began with a mock arrest in which the prisoners were apprehended, handcuffed, and hauled off to their simulated jail cells, where they received standard prison garb furnished with an imprinted prison identification number; this moniker became their new form of identity that replaced their actual names. At the same time, prison guards were equipped with customary guard uniforms accompanied by accouterments such as shaded sunglasses, which served to curtail eye contact, and batons. At this point, Zimbardo set forth on his expedition to clarify the following questions: what is the nature of hierarchical role differentials between people? What happens when morally upright individuals are placed in devastating conditions; do they rise to the occasion by drawing upon their strengths and positively influencing each other, or do they sink to the depths of disparity? ("Think You're Above," 2007).

The events that occurred throughout the course of the Stanford Prison Experiment were exceptionally demoralizing, and fully surpassed the expectations that even Zimbardo, himself, had initially anticipated. Each prison guard instantly assumed the identity of a brash, authoritative despot whose sole function was to ensure that the prisoners did not deviate from the prescribed set of rules that the guards had previously drafted; even imperceptible infractions were met with the harshest of consequences. The prisoners, in turn, also internalized their roles by initially rallying together to stage a group retaliation, but when their efforts were overthrown they eventually succumbed to the oppressed realm of coercion and victimization. As of late, Zimbardo has retrospectively reflected upon the course of events that took place during the Stanford Prison Experiment, and drew striking comparisons to the melee that occurred in the prisons of Abu Ghraib. In particular, he said:

The reason that I was shocked but not surprised by the images and stories of prisoner abuse in the Abu Ghraib "little shop of horrors" was that, three decades earlier, I had witnessed eerily similar scenes as they unfolded in a project that I directed: naked, shackled prisoners with bags over their heads, guards stepping on prisoners' backs as they did push-ups, guards sexually humiliating prisoners, and prisoners suffering from extreme stress. Some images from my experiment are practically interchangeable with those from Iraq. ("Think You're Above," 2007, p. 68)

Even Zimbardo found himself acquiescing to the role of "prison superintendent," a surprising occurrence given that it was he who conceptualized the project and would subsequently interpret the findings, which would seem to function as an automatic barrier that would enable an appropriate level of objective distance. Inevitably, the Stanford Prison experiment was terminated after only six days of operation, due to the escalating levels of forceful domination on behalf of the guards, and the nonstop subjugation and tyranny that was imposed onto the prisoners. Although Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment has endured criticism surrounding its unethical parameters and impartment of undue psychological damage onto participants, many pertinent questions have arisen that examine the nature of human behavior (Taylor, 2007). For example, Heng implies that the mere presence of power creates inherent levels of discrepancy, control, and even abuse; hence the power of the situation overrules the power of the actual person (2008). This is frequently demonstrated through documented cases of exploitation that have been reported at agencies that cater to the needs of vulnerable populations, such as long-term facilities designated for learning-disabled patients, and geriatric institutions (Vida, Monks & Des Rosiers, 2002).

The Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect is a social psychology concept that was formulated to elucidate a catastrophic situation that befell a New York City resident by the name of Kitty Genovese. In 1964, Genovese was accosted within the confines of her apartment complex, and stabbed multiple times throughout the course of a half an hour before finally dying. The most astounding aspect of this case was that while she was at the mercy of her predator, thirty-eight of her neighbors were simultaneously peering out their windows to capture a glimpse of the immense brutality, none of whom intervened by coming to her aid or calling the police. Although the media painted this incident as an appalling demonstration of cold-hearted indifference, two social psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latané, thought otherwise. They commenced an experiment to simulate the feigned act of a person undergoing distress, and varied the amount of spectators privy to the misfortune.

Interestingly, the results of Darley and Latané's study concluded that the more persons that serve to witness calamitous events greatly reduces the likelihood that they will involve themselves in resolving the crisis, due in part to a concept called diffusion of responsibility (Guerin, 2003; Jones & Foshay, 1984; Maltsberger, 1995). For example, a college professor named Dr. Smith meets with Jennifer, a college student who is struggling with her coursework and seeks assistance on the class's core concepts. In the process of helping Jennifer, Dr. Smith suddenly clutches his chest and gasps for air, indicating that he is in the throes of a heart attack. Panicked, Jennifer rushes into the hallway and alerts passersby that there is an emergency, while simultaneously fumbling in her coat pocket to retrieve a cell phone so that she can alert the paramedics. In an alternate scenario, Dr. Smith is conducting an afternoon class, Introduction to Social Psychology, with 100 students in attendance. A similar series of events takes place, in that Dr. Smith falls ill to congestive heart failure. However, as he lies on the ground besieged with overwhelming levels of anguish, his students remain motionless, perhaps silently turning from side to side to catch a glimpse of their equally bewildered classmates.

The second scenario does not reflect a group of morally corrupt, apathetic students in opposition to Jennifer's conscientious internal workings. In contrast with what appears to be a natural expectation, that more people who bear witness to perilous situations will increase the amount of helping hands who can ultimately remedy the situation. The premise behind diffusion of responsibility asserts quite the contrary. Diffusion of responsibility suggests that the more people readily available to disentangle a problematic situation, the more likely those people will defer to each other; such vacillation results in the task remaining unsolved. So, in the scenario that described Dr. Smith flailing in pain before his classroom, the diffusion of responsibility theorem vindicates his students' hesitancy to offer their assistance. This principle has been corroborated across a variety of situations, including the general public's stronger willingness to help someone stranded on the side of an isolated road, as opposed to a road that is heavily populated, and an increased likelihood that people will endow a munificent donation to charity when approached by solicitors individually, as opposed to in a group (Ahmed, 1979; Wiesenthal, Austrom, & Silverman, 1983). Likewise, upon sending emails that requested help and/or information, Barron and Yechiam found that emails that were addressed to a lone recipient were more likely to respond over those addressed to a large group, and that such responses were lengthier and more informative (2002).

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a common concept within the field of social psychology, which was developed in the 1930s by Leon Festinger, and refers to the state of flux people experience when presented with conflicting ideals, and their attempt to annul corresponding feelings of discontentment (Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007; Matz & Wood, 2005; Stone & Cooper, 2001; Van Overwalle & Jordens, 2002; Crossen, 2006). For example, Andrew was raised in a family that shunned recreational alcohol consumption, deeming it immoral and irresponsible. During his formative years, Andrew incorporates this anti-alcohol philosophy into his own code of ethics, and as such abstains from indulging in all forms of mind-altering substances. However, upon entering college and basking in the realm of unadulterated freedom and social endeavors, he finds himself periodically drinking at parties and other gala events. Andrew is now at the crossroads of cognitive dissonance, or the state of incongruity, in that he has misgivings toward libation, yet he finds himself falling prey to its seductive appeal. He has two options to reduce the disconcerting feelings of dissonance, in that he can change his behavior (i.e., refrain from drinking), or he can change his cognitions, by engaging in the following self-dialogue: "Well, I suppose I was too harsh. Drinking isn't that bad anyway. Maybe my family was too rigid."

Clark, McCann, and Rowe conducted a study that examined the intersection between tobacco usage and cognitive dissonance among nursing students (2004). They found that despite knowing the medical ramifications of tobacco, the nursing students who smoked cigarettes minimized the hazardous physiological risks that tobacco can impart. When those students did relay health-related information on smoking, their data was vague, and as health professionals, they were less invested in the endorsement of smoking cessation. According to Shermer, President Bush's inability to face certain facts surrounding the Iraq war is based on a derivative of cognitive dissonance, termed self-justification, which involves a relentless amount of rationalization to sanction what would otherwise be deemed a regretful decision (2007). By overlooking the massive bloodshed and acute financial costs of the war, and instead making statements such as "I'm not going to allow the sacrifice of 2,527 troops who have died in Iraq to be in vain by pulling out before the job is done," Bush is clearly justifying his initial decision to invade Iraq, thus lessening any feelings of guilt, consternation, or cognitive dissonance that may occupy his line of thinking (President Bush, as cited in Shermer, 2007, p. 38).

Conclusion

In many ways, social psychology reveals the sinister nature behind human motivations. This article has demonstrated that violent tendencies can be evoked through adherence to authority (i.e., Milgram), callousness and brute force may be activated through power differentials (i.e., Zimbardo's study), and that the outward appearance of disregard that large groups of people display in the midst of disaster (i.e., the bystander effect) is common. Furthermore, in mitigating levels of cognitive dissonance, people can either adjust their preexisting behavior or attitudes to congruently maintain peace of mind, or perhaps alleviate any troubling remnants of guilt or accountability.

Media reports that recount the details of criminal activity often summarize criminals as hardened, unscrupulous crooks who are ruthlessly malicious. For example, in what was termed the "crime of the century," or the Charles Manson murders, it is hard not to garner the same conclusion when you see Manson's followers (e.g., Leslie Van Houton) skipping lightheartedly through the courtroom in the aftermath of her vicious killing spree (Standiford, 2001). However, several decades later, as she genuinely pours her heart out in regret and redemption over the sadistic deeds, which she claimed were executed under the manipulation of Manson himself, it is hard not to contemplate the radical boundaries that brainwashing techniques or operating under the guise of "group think" might have engendered. In other words, it is difficult to discern between a sociopath, and a sociopathic context that provokes vile behavior. To quote the poet Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "the line between good and evil is in the center of every human heart" (cited in Think you're above, 2007, p. 68). Perhaps the reason why people gravitate toward salacious media reports that sensationalize acts of deviance, then, is not to foster an us versus them polarization, but to tap into the destructive potential of humankind, which can be partially facilitated through adverse group situations.

The study of social psychology in the twenty-first century will be greatly impacted and guided by the impacts of COVID-19. Preliminary studies in the early 2020s found that the pandemic potentially increased cyberbullying and racial discrimination, among other interesting findings. These changes in human behavior can be better explained using social psychology and may help individuals to adapt their behavior in future crises (Meier et al., 2021).

Terms & Concepts

Bystander Effect: A concept that was formulated to elucidate the murder of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered before thirty-eight neighbors, none of whom called the police or offered assistance.

Cognitive Dissonance: The state of flux people experience when presented with conflicting ideals.

Diffusion of Responsibility: The more persons that serve to witness calamitous events greatly reduces the likelihood that they will involve themselves in resolving the crisis.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment: Studied how the layperson responds to authority figures that demand amoral requests.

Self-Justification: Excessive rationalization surrounding what would otherwise be deemed a regretful decision.

Stanford Prison Experiment: Originated as a means to investigate the effects of imprisonment, but quickly spiraled out of control.

Bibliography

Ahmed, S. M. S. (1979). Helping behavior as predicted by diffusion of responsibility, exchange theory, and traditional sex norm. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 153-154. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5389428&site=ehost-live

Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Bollinger, M. (2006). Exporting social psychology: Effects of attractiveness on perceptions of entrepreneurs, their ideas for new products, and their financial success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 467-492. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20042844&site=ehost-live

Barron, G. & Yechiam, E. (2002). Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of responsibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 507-521. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7837496&site=ehost-live

Berkowitz, L. & Devine, P. G. (1997). In search of basic principles in social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 355-359. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7394644&site=ehost-live

Blass, T. (2009). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.

Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205056464

Bower, B. (2004). To err is human. Science News, 166, 106-108. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14162177&site=ehost-live

Chekroun, P. & Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 853-867. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11830337&site=ehost-live

Clark, E., McCann, T. V., Rowe, K., & Lazenbatt, A. (2004). Cognitive dissonance and undergraduate nursing students' knowledge of, and attitudes about, smoking. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46, 586-594. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13154086&site=ehost-live

Crossen, C. (2006, December 4). 'Cognitive dissonance' became a milestone in 1950s psychology. Wall Street Journal-Eastern Edition, 248. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116519790025639638

Deffenbacher, J. L. (2008). Anger, aggression, and risky behavior on the road: A preliminary study of urban and rural differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00294.x

Eagly, A. H. (1992). Uneven progress: Social psychology and the study of attitudes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 693-710. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9301130458&site=ehost-live

Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18(11), 978–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02012.x

Elms, A. C. (1995). Obedience in retrospect. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21-31. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9605103501&site=ehost-live

Fischer, P., & Greitemeyer, T. (2013). The positive bystander effect: Passive bystanders increase helping in situations with high expected negative consequences for the helper. Journal Of Social Psychology, 153, 1–5. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83562579

Fuller, C. (2008). Person-centered counseling psychology: An introduction. Therapy Today, 19, 46-47. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32086229&site=ehost-live

Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 843-853. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=7456815&site=ehost-live

Gibb, C. (1984). The influence of Cattell in social psychology and group dynamics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19(2/3), 193-206. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6371891&site=ehost-live

Gibson, E. J. (1994). Has psychology a future? Psychological Science, 5, 69-76. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8560958&site=ehost-live

Gold, K. (2007). The devil inside us all. Times Higher Education Supplement, 1793, 16-17. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25358510&site=ehost-live

Guerin, B. (2003). Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Diffusion of responsibility effects with competition. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 313-329. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10278475&site=ehost-live

Haney, C. & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy. American Psychologist, 53(7), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.7.709

Hart, S. N. (2007). The handbook of international school psychology. School Psychology International, 28(5), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034307085656

Heng, S. (2008). Power itself causes abuse. Community Care, 1713, 10-10. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31700590&site=ehost-live

Herrera, C. D. (2001). Ethics, deception, and 'those Milgram experiments.' Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18 , 245-256. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6672982&site=ehost-live

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power. Work & Occupations, 33(4), 382–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406292885

Hoefnagels, C. & Zwikker, M. (2001). They bystander dilemma and child abuse: Extending the Latane and Darley model to domestic violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(6), 1158–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02668.x

Hudson, J. M. & Bruckman, A. S. (2004). The bystander effect: A lens for understanding patterns of participation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 165-195. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12847162&site=ehost-live

Johnson, M. L. (2002). Vantage theory meets cognitive psychology: a synthesis with frame theory. Language Sciences, 24(5/6), 639-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(01)00008-0

Jones, L. M. & Foshay, N. M. (1984). Diffusion of responsibility in a nonemergency situation: Response to a greeting from a stranger. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 155-159. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5392502&site=ehost-live

Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguists and cognitive psychology. Language Teaching Research, 12, 313-316. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8SB4JB7

Liqun, C. & Bu, H. (2000). Determinants of citizen complaints against police abuse of power. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(3), 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(00)00036-2

Lutsky, N. (1995). When is "obedience" obedience? Conceptual and historical commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 55-65. Retrieved August 17, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9605103505&site=ehost-live

Maddux, J. E. (2008, July). Positive psychology and the illness ideology: Toward a positive clinical psychology. Applied Psychology: An international review, 57, 54-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00354.x

Maltsberger, J. T. (1995). Diffusion of responsibility in the care of a difficult patient. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 25, 415-422.

Mason, D. & Allen, B. P. (1976). The bystander effect as a function of ambiguity and emergency character. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 145-146. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5393790&site=ehost-live

Matz, D. C. & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 88, 22-37. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15719047&site=ehost-live

Meier, B. P., Cook, C. L., & Faasse, K. (2021). Social psychology and COVID-19: What the field can tell us about behavior in a pandemic. The Journal of social psychology, 161(4), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1935830

Miller, A. G. (1995). Constructions of obedience experiments: A focus upon domains of relevance. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 33-53. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9605103503&site=ehost-live

Miller, A. G., Collins, B. E. & Brief, D. E. (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 1-19. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9605103498&site=ehost-live

O'Hara, J., Doyle, S. D., & Branswell, B. (1998). Abuse of power. Macleans, 111, 16-20. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=819916&site=ehost-live

Packer, I. K. (2008). Specialized practice in forensic psychology: Opportunities and obstacles. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 39(2), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.245

Pi-Yueh, C., & Ping-Kun, H. (2012). Cognitive dissonance theory and the certification examination: the role of responsibility. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40, 1103–1111. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78363086

Riecken, H. W. (1960). Social psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 11, 479-510. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11267452&site=ehost-live

Rodgers, D. M. (2013). Insects, instincts and boundary work in early social psychology. History Of The Human Sciences, 26, 68–89. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85487833

Shermer, M. (2007). Bush's mistake and Kennedy's error. Scientific American, 296, 38-38. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24655265&site=ehost-live

Standiford, F. (2001). The long prison journey of Leslie Van Houten. Library Journal, 126, 89-89. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4691640&site=ehost-live

Stone, J. & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1446

Taylor, P. S. (2007). People not welcome. Maclean's, 120, 61-61. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25083374&site=ehost-live

The development perspective. (1984). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19(2/3), 268-268. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6371935&site=ehost-live

Think you're above doing evil? Think again. (2007). Discover, 28, 68-69. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24413957&site=ehost-live

Thoits, P. A. (1995). Social psychology: The interplay between sociology and psychology. Social Forces, 73, 1231-1244. Retrieved August 17 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9508060140&site=ehost-live

Trope, Y. (2004). Theory in social psychology: Seeing the forest and the trees. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 193-200. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13439264&site=ehost-live

Van Overwalle, F. & Jordens, K. (2002). An adaptive connectionist model for cognitive dissonance. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 6, 204-231. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6860580&site=ehost-live

Vida, S., Monks, R. C., & Des Rosiers, P. (2002). Prevalence and correlates of elder abuse and neglect in a geriatric psychiatry service. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47, 459-469. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6854005&site=ehost-live

Wiesenthal, D. L., Austrom, D., & Silverman, I. (1983). Diffusion of responsibility in charitable donations. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 4, 17-27. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7299549&site=ehost-live

Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 47-53. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21118521&site=ehost-live

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment: a lesson in the power of situation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, 6-7. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25307670&site=ehost-live

Zimbardo, P. G. (2013). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Suggested Reading

Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30, 652–668. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83589917

Harmon-Jones, E. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. American Psychological Association.

Milgram, S. (2019). Obedience to Authority: An experimental view. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Voisin, D., & Fointiat, V. (2013). Reduction in cognitive dissonance according to normative standards in the induced compliance paradigm. Social Psychology (18649335), 44, 191–195. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88215319

Willer, D. (2022). Building experiments: Testing social theory. Stanford Social Sciences.