Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology A level > C2: Social Psychology > Flashcards

C2: Social Psychology Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Milgram: aim

A

To investigate whether participants would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Milgram: method

A

Controlled observation, believed to be an experiment by Milgram

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Milgram: sampling technique

A

self-selected or volunteer sampling with participants being obtained through newspapers asked for volunteers to take part in a study of memory and learning at Yale University

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Milgram: participants

A

40 males aged 20-50 drawn from the New Haven area of Connecticut USA with a range of occupations and backgrounds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Milgram: rewards

A

$4.00 for taking part regardless of what happened after they arrived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Milgram: materials

A
  • Electric shock generator with a row of 30 switches from 15-450 volts in 15 increments
  • Electric chair with restraining straps
  • Predetermined list of word pairs, with right/wrong answers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgram: procedure

A
  • 3 roles (experimenter, learner, teacher)
  • All participants were introduced to the learner as as another participant
  • Teacher then took the learner into the adjacent room, strapping into the chair.
  • Electrode paste was applied to the learner’s wrists fo prevent blisters and burns from electric shocks.
  • Real shock to teacher of 45 volts
  • Learner asked to learn pairs , the participant would give him one of the words in pairs along with four others
  • Answers communicated by pressing for switches
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgram: who was the experimenter played by?

A

31 year old biology teacher. He wore a grey technician coat and appeared stern and emotionless throughout the experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgram: who was the victim played by?

A

47 year old accountant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Milgram: prods given

A

1) Please continue/ Please go on
2) The experiment requires that you continue
3) It is absolutely essential that you continue
4) You have no choice, you must go on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Milgram: how are participants classed?

A

Obedient or disobedient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Milgram: quantitative results

A
  • 100% of participants shocked up to 300 volts
  • 65% of participants were obedient and gave shocks up to 450 volts
  • 35% of participants were disobedient and stopped sometime between 300 and 450 volts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Milgram: qualitative results

A
  • Many participants showed signs of extreme nervousness
  • Participants sweat, stuttered, bit their lips, dig fingernails into their skin
  • Nervous fits of laughter
  • Seizures observed by 3 participants
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Milgram: conclusions

A

Milgram was therefore arguing that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation a person is in. He believed that we often make dispositional attributions about behaviour, which are incorrect. That is, we often believe a person has behaved the way they do because of their personality when in fact the situation which shaped their behaviour. Germans are not different

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Milgram: reasons for obedience

A
  • Locality of the study
  • Believed learner had given voluntary consent
  • Felt under obligation to continue as a result of reward money
  • Participant had been assured shocks were painful but not dangerous
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Bocchiaro: aim

A

To investigate the rates of obedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where no physical violence was involved by where it was quite clear the instructions were ethically wron

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bocchiaro: additional aims

A

1) To investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates of obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing in this situation
2) To investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bocchiaro: method

A

Controlled observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Bocchiaro: participants

A

149 undergraduate students, 96 females an 53 males from the VU University of Amsterdam

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bocchiaro: how were they recruited?

A

Via flyers placed around the cafeteria

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bocchiaro: rewards

A

All participants were either paid 7 euros or given a credit for taking part in the study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bocchiaro: pilot studies participants

A

92 participants took part in the pilot studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Bocchiaro: how many participants were removed from the original study and why?

A

11 because of their suspiciousness about the nature of his study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Bocchiaro: pilot studies

A

8 pilot studies were conducted before the main study was carried out. Pilot tests are small scale preliminary tests carried out to assess the suitability and identify any issues that might need to be resolved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Bocchiaro: ethics

A
  • Informed of potential benefits/risks of taking part
  • Right to withdraw without penalty
  • Confidentiality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Bocchiaro: procedure

A
  • Participants greeted in the lab by a male Duty experimenter who was dressed formally and has a stern demeanour
  • Asked to provide a few names of other students
    Presented with the cover story
  • Mailbox and Research Committee forms found in the second room
  • After 7 minute interval, experimenter returned and invited participants back to the first room
  • Given two personality inventories, probed for suspicion and debriefed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Bocchiaro: how were the participants classed?

A

Obedient, disobedient or whistle blowers (open or anonymous)

28
Q

Bocchiaro: what measured the six major dimensions or personality?

A

60 item HEXACO-PI-R

29
Q

Bocchiaro: what were the six dimensions of personality in the HEXACO-PI-R?

A
  • Honesty-humility
  • Emotionality
  • Extraversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Conscientiousness
  • Openness to experience
30
Q

Bocchiaro: what is SVO?

A

This means Social Value Orientation inventory which is used to measure relatively stable preferences for particular patterns of outcomes for oneself and others by using a nine item measure

31
Q

Bocchiaro: what did SVO test class people as?

A

Prosocial, individualistic, competitive

32
Q

Bocchiaro: what were the scores students predicted when asked ‘what would you do?’

A
  1. 6% indicated they would obey
  2. 9% indicated they would be classed as disobedient
  3. 5% believed that they would be classed as whistle blowers
33
Q

Bocchiaro: what were the scores students predicted when asked ‘ what would the average student at your university do?’

A
  1. 8% said the average student would be obedient
  2. 9% said the average student would be disobedient
  3. 3% said the average student would be a whistle blower
34
Q

Bocchiaro: what percentage of participants were classed as obedient?

A

76.5%

35
Q

Bocchiaro: what percentage of participants were classed as disobedient?

A

14%

36
Q

Bocchiaro: what percentage of participants were classed as whistle blowers?

A

9.4%

37
Q

Bocchiaro: what percentage of whistleblowers had or hadn’t wrote a message?

A

6% said they had written a message (anonymous whistle blower)
3.4% had refused to write the message (open whistle blower)

38
Q

Piliavin: aim

A

To investigate the effect of the following variables on helping behaviour:

  • Type of victim
  • Race of the victim
  • Group size
  • Modelling
39
Q

Piliavin: participants

A

4,450 men and women who travelled on the 8th Avenue IND in New York City between 59th and 125th street weekdays between the hours of 11:00am and 3:00pm during the period from 15th April-26th June which travelled through Harlem to the Bronx

40
Q

Piliavin: racial make up difference of participants

A

45% black, 55% white

41
Q

Piliavin: mean number of people per car and in the critical area

A

43, 8.5

42
Q

Piliavin: method

A

Field experiment

43
Q

Piliavin: dependant variables

A
  • Time taken to help the drunk/ill victim
  • The total number of passengers that helped each victim
  • The gender, race and location (critical/adjacent) of every helper
  • Spontaneous comments made by passengers
  • Gender, race and location of every passenger in the critical area
  • Movement of any passengers out of the critical area
44
Q

Piliavin: hypothesis

A
  • The ill and cane victim would receive significantly more help than the drunk victim
  • A bystander will be more likely to help a victim of their own race
  • Seeing another person (model) help would lead to more helping behaviour from the bystanders than when a model did not step in to help
45
Q

Piliavin: procedure

A
  • 4 Columbia General Studies students, females observed and recorded data whilst the male played the role or the model and the victim
  • As the train past the first station, the victim staggered forward and collapsed remaining still looking at the ceiling until help is received.
  • Around 9-8 trials were run per day
  • 38 trials with drunk victim, 65 with ill
46
Q

Piliavin: spontaneous help received on the trials for the cane victims

A

62/65 trials (95%)

47
Q

Piliavin: spontaneous help received on the trials for the drunk victims

A

19/38 trials (50%)

48
Q

Piliavin: median time taken to help the cane victim

A

5 seconds

49
Q

Piliavin: median time taken to help the drunk victim

A

109 seconds

50
Q

Piliavin: percentage of first helpers being male

A

90%

51
Q

Piliavin: qualitative results

A

More comments from passengers were obtained in the drunk condition than in the ill condition. Similarly, most of the comments were made on the trials where no help was given within the first 70 seconds. Many women made comments such as ‘its for men to help’ or ‘you feel so bad when you don’t know what to do’

52
Q

Piliavin: conclusions

A
  • Drunk is helped less often because the perceived cost is greater, helping a drunk is likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm
  • Woman help less often than men because the cost to them in terms of effort and danger is greater and, since it may not be seen as a women’s role to offer assistance, the cost of helping is less
53
Q

Levine: aim

A

To examine the tendency of people in the largest city of each of the 23 countries to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation. Specifically to investigate:

  • if helping behaviour is universal or
  • if helping of strangers changes between cultures
  • whether particular characteristics of a community are associated with the tendency to help strangers
54
Q

Levine: participants

A

23 different countries chosen from widest sampling of regions, 1,198 participants took part in the study selected by the second one to cross a certain line on a pavement

55
Q

Levine: method

A

Quasi experiment as it was carried out in the participants natural environment

56
Q

Levine: independent variables

A

City the study was carried out in, helping measure

57
Q

Levine: dependent variables

A

Rate of helping for each country

58
Q

Levine: other variables used for analysis

A
  • Population size
  • Economic prosperity
  • Cultural values
  • Walking speed
59
Q

Levine: dropped pen condition

A
  • Walking at a carefully practices, moderate pace the experimenters walked towards a solitary pedestrian passing int he opposite direction
  • When 10-15 feet away from the participant, reached into their pocket and accidentally dropped their pen behind them
60
Q

Levine: hurt leg condition

A
  • Walking with a heavy limp and wearing a clearly visible leg brace the experimenter would accidentally drop a magazine and then, unsuccessfully reach down to get it
  • Done 20 feet of passing participants
61
Q

Levine: helping a blind person

A
  • Experimenters dressed in dark glasses and carrying white canes pretended to be a blind person needing to cross the street
  • Step up to the corner just before the light turned green, hold out their cane and wait until someone offered help
  • Trials were terminated after 60 seconds or when the light turned red and the experimenter would walk away from the corner
62
Q

Levine: controls

A
  • All experimenters were college age, dressed neatly and casually and all male
  • All received detailed instruction sheets and on-site field training for their acting roles, participant selection and scoring
63
Q

Levine: correlational results

A

Cities that are more helpful tended to have lower economic prosperity
There was no relationship between population size or collectivism and helping

64
Q

Levine: percentage of helpfulness in simpatia and non simpatia countries

A 
Simpatia = 82.87%
Non-simpatia = 65.87%
65
Q

Levine: top 5 most helpful cities

A

1) Rio de Janeiro
2) Costa Rica
3) Malawi
4) India
5) Austria

66
Q

Levine: 5 least helpful cities

A

1) Malaysia
2) United States
3) Netherlands
4) Bulgaria
5) Taiwan

67
Q

Levine: conclusions

A

Helping behaviour in a non emergency situation is not universal as it varies between cities. The only characteristics of cities measured in this study that correlates with helping is economic prosperity, poorer cities tend to have higher rates of helping but helping was not related to city size or pace

Psychology A level (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions