The idea of the Gestalt “closure” principle and its connection to stereotypes reminded me of the reading we did about Small scale societies. Evolutionarily, people look to those that were physically strong and serious to become the face of a leader. The example of the Warren Harding Error emphasizes how easily people try fitting others into a narrative in their head. Through physical appearance paved the way for his nomination and election of POTUS. This is a dangerous way of thinking because people who do not have the criteria to fill certain positions are the ones holding them because of the evolutionary idea people have as leaders. The implicit bias that people hold about what a leader ‘should’ look like is what prevents leadership positions from becoming diverse.

I learned a lot about the Stanford Prison experiment in my LDST 102 class and how an experiment like that could never occur again. The experiment created long-term detrimental affects to those that participated in it because of the humiliation they caused to the volunteers in front of parents, neighbors, and to each other. Human beings have a natural instinct of survival, which I believe was very prominent in this experiment. Those that were randomized into the group of guards adapted to the dominant and aggressive traits. Those that were randomized into the prisoner group felt vulnerable and actually felt like prisoners. This experiment, although lasting less than half of what it was originally planned for, shows how easy human instincts arise in situations where they feel vulnerable. It also shows how quickly people are to adapt to certain situations and become a leader or follower for their cohort.

During the beginning of the Mystery and Meaning reading, I was thinking about how people always say how important it is to make a good first impression. The first part of this article proved why that is actually so important. People take the first information that is given about you to make other assumptions about you that will round out who you are and help them to better understand you, though those assumptions might actually be very incorrect. This makes sense to me because we do not like to have unanswered questions lingering in our minds, but it is also really annoying because the first impression you make on somebody might not be representative of who you are as a person. Maybe you are having a bad day and are in a really bad mood when you meet someone for the first time and they hold onto this image of you that is not accurate because it is based on that one experience. I was reminded about a scene in The Office in which Dwight is talking about Pam and says that the first time they met he did not like her and ever since then she’s been lovely and easy to work with, but he still hates her regardless. I wonder to what extent that could actually be true for someone. After that section of the reading, I am wondering how long that first impression actually lasts/if you can ever get rid of it completely.

Also throughout the Mystery and Meaning reading, I was thinking about what it means for female leaders. It was talking a lot about how if we do not have the full story on someone or something we fill in some of that information based on what we have seen in the past. But, in the past, we have had very few females leaders so it would probably be harder to just fill in some of this missing information. I was thinking about implicit leadership theories and the prototype matching hypothesis, which both have historically negative impacts on female leaders because women do not match what most people are used to seeing in the past and thus make it more difficult for them to hold leadership positions.

Every time I read about the Stanford Prison Experiment I find it to be really scary. It illustrates that you can never truly know how you will act in any given situation that you have not encountered before. It is always easiest to think that you will always do the right thing, but that is by no means ever guaranteed. Though you might have a strong moral compass, you can still be pushed to extremes that cause you to act in a manner outside of those morals. It’s scary to think that, despite how well you think you know yourself, you cannot even truly predict your own behavior.

From the Goethals/Allison reading, I found the idea of the primacy effect and the implications of human brains to “fill in blanks” on individual’s character to be interesting.  The idea of the primacy effect reflects an individual’s tendency to create a positive or negative opinion toward another person given the qualities that are experienced during one’s first impression.  Essentially, individuals tend to judge other’s character based on first impressions.  This is what lead to the Warren Harding Error noted by Gladwell; individuals falsely associated Harding as a good president based on his good looks (and the good qualities associated with them) when in reality he was a terrible president.  It makes me curious about the quality of first impressions and worried for the lasting effects one’s impression may have toward others.

I also found it interesting that when exposed to a set of characteristics, humans try to complete the pattern by filling in assumptions of others’ character.  People’s perceptions of others are often not accurate, and when perceptions are not holistic, individuals make assumptions to make it whole.  I was reminded of this idea during my reading of the Stanford Prison Experiment.  Even though the prisoner and guard roles were simulated and the whole prison was an experiment, each participant made assumptions of the other participants to create a whole perspective of the individual defined by their role.  The participants saw the other participants around them as their assigned roles, making the experience more realistic.  It just shows the power and influence that can be manifested within the human mind from a simulated situation, let alone the implications it has for real society.

Automatic Meaning Making…..yikes

In George R. Goethals and Scott T. Allison’s work,“Mystery and Meaning: Ambiguity and the Perception of Leaders, Heroes and Villains ” addressed many striking and interesting examples from history. Certain examples from the Automatic Meaning Making section of their piece displayed how extremely vulnerable the human mind is and how identities and perceptions are manipulated and altered based on their experiences, beliefs, and their state of mind. Goethals and Allison shared two stories from history that caught my eye. One example from the US Civil War where a desk clerk saw and mistreated a “ very ordinary-looking Union officer and a young boy” and then shifted her behavior when she learned they were actually “U.S. Grant & son, Galena, Illinois.”, a Union hero. Not only did the bystander’s behavior change, but their perception of the two was also altered based on their schema of an American Hero. Need +given information coming together to make a “automatic reinterpretation”… I don’t like it. The ability that one’s appearance has in controlling others’ perception indicates huge implications of the importance of impressions for Political Leaders. I do not like how once appearance has so much weight over how the average American views a potential leader. Ew. This also makes me, someone who tends to be optimistic about the average human’s intentions, upset about how the desk clerk would mistreat some rando due to perceived unimportance. BAD.

This connects me to earlier in the semester when we discussed how “lizard brain” and other innate feelings and urges to survive to drive a lot of human behavior, even when we are not the slightest bit aware of it. Humans’ memory and understanding of the world around them is their brain, constantly puzzle piecing together what they literally see with past experience and learned assumptions. This is helpful in the face of danger like someone running at you with an angry face, weapon in hand… however, when it translates to the modern world where technology, advertising, and media run the show, it is very concerning how there are literal humans who specialize in manipulating how a public figure is perceived… the truth is unknown and people are like mindless puppets. This was made clear in the case of Warren Harding mentioned in the Goethals and Allison reading in how the danger of the financial panic, an epidemic, and hysterical phenomena like the “red-scare” in combination with a poor leaders convincing “physique, bronzed complexion, sonorous voice, and smooth motions” made voters view him “kind, intelligent, honest”.  This screams danger to me. Especially with a pandemic, ensured financial crises and our xenophobic world…. urg.

The role that schema and perception play in manipulating the average human’s emotions and perception of all things in everyday life clearly played a LARGE and threatening role in the chaos that was the Stanford Prison Experiment. This simple set up displayed the vulnerable nature of the human mind in ways beyond professor Zimbardo’s or any psychologist’s wildest dreams…  I believe the horrific and traumatizing experience of the volunteer college students began when they unexpectedly were humiliated and made to look like a criminal in front of their families and neighbors: setting up their mentality to anticipate unexpected dehumanization going into the experiment. There have been stories that have come out insisting that some of the guards were further (and unofficially ) instructed to carry out more violent or aggressive acts towards the prisoners which definitely would have contaminated the results and amplified the experiment’s intensity. Regardless… the random volunteers who were dressed and treated like prisoners FELT like prisoners… same with the guards. This strongly reflects the findings in George R. Goethals and Scott T. Allison’s work, “Mystery and Meaning: Ambiguity and the Perception of Leaders, Heroes and Villains ”. My question is… how do we prevent these schemas and implicit biases and learned understanding of the world from “driving the bus”… in other words…

what can we as honest and good intentioned individuals do to assure we do not fall victim to these mind games?

I really enjoyed learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment. I had heard the title of the experiment thrown around in various classes or in speaker events but had never read much into it until now. I think this simulation is fascinating because the different scenarios provided a lot of insight as to how humans react to authority and participate in ‘groupthink’ decision making. One example of this I found to be very interesting was in the parents and friends visiting day. On the website, it described how one parent complained to the Superintendent how she had never seen her son so distraught. The Superintendent responded, “What’s the matter with your boy? Doesn’t he sleep well?” The mother responded saying that her son was a leader and tough, and of course, he could handle these conditions. I think the combination of the roles of pride and subjection to authority is fascinating here, as this mother would rather see her son continually struggle mentally and physically than stand up to the Superintendant and admit that these conditions were having a negative effect on her son.

I think this study asks society some really interesting questions about our perceptions of prison life and if we believe they are just. I think people get frustrated with the morality of this study since the inmates had not committed a crime. I think a question we have to ask ourselves is where do we draw the line? From my past experiences and research, I have seen that prison life can have two drastically different experiences on people. I worked with ex-convicts in a halfway house in Puerto Rico who had been released early for good behavior, and when I talked with them, they seemed genuinely motivated to create a better life outside of crime and wanted to move into the United States to support their families. However, I have also seen the latter. In my AP Language and Composition class in high school, we did a unit on the mass incarceration within the U.S. and time and time again, I saw how regardless of how motivated people are in their time in prison, once they get out, our society barricades them from so many opportunities that these felons revert back to their old ways so they can financially support themselves. I think reading about studies such as these start a conversation as to how we should crime and punishment.

In my Leadership 102 class, that was the first time I was introduced to this experiment and even after reviewing it again in the reading, it still baffled me. It is alarming that this experiment revealed human’s hidden capability to act sadistically or submissively if social conditions change and are permitted; this is what happens when one is given power, and how easily humans succumb to the evil side of their psyche. I guess that is the dark side of human nature and if you don’t understand it than you’re vulnerable to it. But I’m not gonna lie it was interesting to see how easily the human psyche given repetitive abuse is conditioned to receive it and accept it. It really spoke volumes of the relationship between the abuser and the abused.

The planned two-week study simulation ended only after 6 days…so imagine what would’ve happened if they hadn’t canceled the experiment. Also, It wasn’t specifically mentioned, but the ‘John Wayne’ guard portrayal seems to show how the attitude and behavior of one dominant person can affect or even guide the behavior of others, prisoners. This just goes to show how much humans in general tend to be followers rather than leaders.

All I have to say after these readings are wow.

For Mystery & Meaning, I was consumed by all of the interesting theories, effects and explanations of how people understand the world around them. I remember Bezio saying in one of our previous classes that humans have a need for finding, and in some cases, creating patterns and now it makes more sense. As I read this, I began to make of ton of connections to the way our world functions today. For example, the power of a title changing how you’re perceived/treated by others, employers enacting the primacy effect in an interview after already having read a resume, and the rumor of UR not being open this Fall out of fear. The section that stood out to me the most was “The Need for Closure”. I have always been the type of person that needs to finish something once it has started. For example, I cannot, cannot stop writing an essay once I start it. I have always been this way in most aspects of my life, so reading about the Zeigarnik effect was eerie because it offered an explanation of what unfinished tasks feel like to me. Another section that caught my attention discussed how negative feelings/associations tend to be stronger than positive ones. I have a phobia of Ferris wheels (don’t laugh) and I could never really explain why. It’s not the height aspect, because I enjoy riding roller coasters. After reading about how phobias involve “any potential negative experience under uncertainty”, I realized that it’s because Ferris wheels are free-hanging and don’t have seatbelts. All of the item’s weight is suspended by one point attached to a rotating wheel. Now I finally have an explanation for my avoidance of Ferris wheels. 🙂

On another note, I cannot believe I have never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment before! Although overall it was a completely astounding experiment in various ways, I was most shocked when the research psychologist himself began to firmly view this as his reality (after rumors of a mass escape). The fact that the main person who is supposed to remain grounded and “above” the experiment became such an active participant in his own way speaks to the power of the situation. I began talking with my mom about the experiment (she had never heard of it before either) and after listening for a few minutes she said, “Well, it makes sense. Do you remember what happened every year we did the haunted house?” At the end of October our church youth group would put on a haunted house that we worked on for months in advance. It was our largest fundraiser of the year and people from all over the city would come to walk-through. Everyone in the parish participated in some way and would contain mad scientists, clowns, dolls, zombies, traditional Hollywood Figures, and local urban legend characters (i.e. la llorona). My mom drew attention to how everyone was rocky in their parts at first, but with the right environment (darkness, strobe lights, sounds, fog, etc.), we would quickly become our character. By the third night, the experience became training and we would have to have constant check-ins with each other to make sure we were okay. The screams we made were so realistic that peers and visitors believed it. Each of us began to laugh more like the clown’s, make creepy face’s like the doll’s and say certain phrases the jump scarers would say. It wasn’t a fully immersive environment (24/7), but spending 6 hours every night acting in this role took haunting to an entirely different level.

I found it interesting that the Stanford Prison Experiment took place in 1971, which was 17 years after William Golding’s Lord of the Flies was published. In some ways, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a real-life test of the theories about human behavior that Golding expressed in Lord of the Flies. There are some key differences. For example, the boys chose leaders among themselves, whereas the Stanford Prison Experiment assigned prisoners and guards. The boys also were given no structure, but the Stanford Prison Experiment had some structure to it.

But even in their differences, Lord of the Flies and the Stanford Prison Experiment both showed the willingness of people to be cruel to each other, when given power. The progression of the guards and the boys with power in Lord of the Flies was similar, as initially they were uncomfortable with oppressing others, but quickly became accustomed to it once they realized no one would stop them.

We discussed the Stanford Prison Experiment in my 102 class in depth, but reading about it a second time still unsettles me. It reminds me that you never truly know what a person is capable of, especially if you know them just on a surface level. Similar to the Milgram experiment, where an alarming number of people shocked the unseen “subject” with a seriously harmful or even deadly amount of volts, an innocent looking stranger on the street could be wiling to do things you don’t want to think about. Of course, the Milgram experiment was looking at obedience to authority instead of simulating a prison environment, but the results of both experiments didn’t exactly put faith in humanity. The SPE is maybe a little more unsettling, because the “victims” were real humans who faced real abuse, not just a voice behind a wall. I don’t think it was ethical to run this experiment, because the subjects were clearly scarred for life, and even the head researcher admitted that he got lost in his role and probably wouldn’t have snapped out of it for a while if a third party hadn’t pointed out how cruel the experiment was becoming.

I think the Goethals and Allison article was fascinating. I found that it further expanded on the evolutionary preferences for leaders in an LSS that we read about, especially when it comes to political leaders like Kennedy and Reagan. It was also a little alarming, because it reminded me that people make a crazy amount of assumptions about you as a person based on first impressions and rumors that they’re content to never follow up on. How you perceive yourself vs how other perceive you could be completely different and you might never know about it.

The reading on mystery was extremely interesting. Perception of mystery shows how easily humans can be manipulated in a way. In fiction, mystery can be perceived as evil or hopeful, and the author will clue hints that affect perception. In real life scenarios, I think that it can be a mix of both perceptions. Thinking of our current situation, there is a lot of fear in the unknowns: will me or my family get sick, when will things return to normal, etc. However, I think there is also some hope, like seeing random acts of kindness or thinking of how great school will be once we return. It reminds me of the glass half empty or glass half full analogy. I was a bit confused about Gesalt psychology in general, but I understood the “closure” principle because it’s something I see a lot. It can explain why bending the data to fit the claim is a prominent issue in statistics.

This reading highlighted how we are often irrational when we choose a leadership. The idea of a prototypical leader and the primary effect are not indications that people are drawn toward the best leaders, but rather the superficially attractive one. The lack of effect that situation has to perceivers stuck out to me. In my 102 class, we learned about how different situations called for different leaders, but this reading suggests that we jump to conclusions about a leader despite the situation. Consciously, we know that jumping to conclusions is bad. However, we can trick ourselves into thinking that we are not filling in the blanks with bias and end up at the same slanted conclusion. The four cues perceivers use contribute to this conclusion jumping greatly, and they are quite shallow. I have studied in the past the dangers and lures of charisma, as well as how intrinsically it is relied upon in the American political system. While the logical side of me knows how harmful the tools we use to resolve mystery, I also wonder how hard it is to change these things. Being aware is the first step, but they are so widespread and relied upon, I do not know what it would take.

I had heard of the Stanford Prison experiment before, but never read the details. It was shocking how quickly simulated guards and prisoners alike fell into the real character. It was pretty disturbing to read and unimaginable to think of the long-term abuse that true prisoners have to endure. I have studied the effect of prisons on people in past classes and it is never less shocking to learn about. I think that the general public is not aware of the mystery that surrounds prisons. They are, constitutionally, supposed to be “not unusually cruel” punishment in regard to the crime that was committed, and in so so many cases this is not true.