Core studies Flashcards
Milgram
Background?
Milgram wondered if German obedience in WWII was dispositional therefore wanted to pilot a procedure to assess obedience
Milgram
Aim?
To investigate the process of obedience and the power of authority
Milgram
Sample?
40 New Haven men
20-50yrs old
Milgram
Sampling method?
Self selected
Recruited from an advert asking for volunteers in a newspaper
Milgram
Experimental design?
Independent measures
Milgram
Research Method?
Controlled Observation
Milgram
Materials/Apparatus?
Shock generator
Milgram
What were the participants rewarded with for participating?
Paid $4.50
Milgram
Where did the study take place?
Yale University
Milgram
Quantitive Results?
100% of participants reached 300v
65% reach 450v
Milgram
Qualitative Results?
Participants observed sweat, tremble, bite their lips and dig their nails into their skin
One participant started hysterically laughing and had to be stopped
Participants said after the laughter didn’t mean they enjoyed shocking the victim
Milgram
Conclusions?
Social settings strongly influence obedient behaviour
Bocchiaro
Background?
Milgram’s study of obedience to an authority figure.
Bocchiaro wondered what would happen if people are offered the option to take personal action against unjust authority such as disobey
Bocchiaro
Aim?
To investigate how people deal with unethical requests and see the difference between how people think they will behave compared to how they actually behave
Bocchiaro
Sample?
149 dutch uni students
96f 53m
Bocchiaro
Sampling method?
Self selecting
Recruited by flyers in campus cafe
What were participants rewarded with?
Paid 7 euros or given course credit
Bocchiaro
Experimental design?
Independent measures
Bocchiaro
Research Method?
Controlled observation
in a laboratory!
Bocchiaro
Materials/Apparatus?
An ethics form
Bocchiaro
Where did the study take place?
A lab in VU university
Bocchiaro
Quantitive Results?
76.5% obey
14.1% Disobey
9.4% whistleblow
Bocchiaro
Qualitative Results?
People obeyed due to external forces and entered agents state so did not see themselves responsible for their behaviour.
Those that felt responsible disobeyed
Bocchiaro
Conclusions?
People tend to obey authority figures even if the authority is unjust
What we say often differs from what we do
Piliavin
Aim?
To investigate the effects of four types of victims (IV’s) on helping behaviour in a real life setting
Piliavin
Background?
Bystanders in an emergency situation often do not offer help.
Latane and Darley had participants overhear an epileptic seizure showing a diffusion of responsibility as the numbers of bystanders increased they were less likely to help.
Piliavin tested this in a real life setting
Piliavin
Sample?
4,45O Passengers travelling on the New York subway on 15th April- 26th June in 1998
60% were men
Piliavin
Sampling method?
Opportunity sampling
Piliavin
Experimental design?
Independent measures
Piliavin
Research Method?
Field experiment
Piliavin
Materials/Apparatus?
black cane or liquor bottle
Piliavin
Where did the study take place?
Harlem Bronx New York Subway
Piliavin
Quantitive Results?
90% of first helpers were men
Piliavin
Qualitative Results?
A person using a cane is more likely to receive help than someone who is seen drunk
The black victim received help less quickly than the white victim
Helping was greater in 7 person groups rather than 3 person groups
Piliavin
Conclusions?
No diffusion of responsibility found
Action will depend on whether the rewards of helping are greater than the costs of not helping
Levine
Aim?
To investigate cultural differences in helping
Levine
Background?
Studies in several countries (USA & Saudi Arabia) found urban areas tend to be less helpful than rural areas.
Levine
Sample?
Largest city in 23 countries including:
Brazil, Costa Rica & Malaysia
Levine
Sampling method?
Opportunity sampling
Levine
Experimental design?
Independent measures
Levine
IV?
- Dropped Pen
- Hurt leg
- Help blind person
Levine
DV?
- called or gave pen back
- if offered to help or started to help
- If they at least told them the light was green
Levine
Research Method?
Quasi experiment
Levine
Quantitive Results?
Most helpful-
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 93%
San Jose (Costa Rica) 91%
Least helpful-
Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) 40%
New York (USA) 45%
Levine
Qualitative Results?
No relationship between population size and helping behaviour
Levine
Conclusions?
Simpatia (family tradition) countries more helpful than non simpatico countries
Loftus & Palmer
Aim?
To investigate how leading questions influence witness memories of a car crash accident.
Loftus & Palmer
Background?
Daniels (1972) showed that memory for a drawing was influenced by the verbal labels given afterwards
Loftus & Palmer
Sample?
EXP 1 - 45 Washington Uni students
EXP 2 - 150 Washington Uni students
Loftus & Palmer
Sampling method?
Opportunity sampling
Loftus & Palmer
Experimental design?
Independent measures
Loftus & Palmer
IV?
The verb
Loftus & Palmer
DV?
EXP 1 - Estimate of speed
EXP 2 - Whether participants said they saw broken glass
Loftus & Palmer
Research Method?
Lab experiment
Loftus & Palmer
Materials/Apparatus?
EXP 1 -
EXP 2 -
Loftus & Palmer
EXP 1 Results?
The verb labels brought about a change in speed estimate
Smashed - 40.8
Collided - 39.3
Bumped - 38.1
Hit - 34.0
Contacted - 31.8
Loftus & Palmer
EXP 2 Results?
Smashed was seen as faster than hit
Smashed- YES - 16
NO - 34
Hit - YES - 7
NO - 43
Control (not asked about speed)
YES - 6
NO - 44
Loftus & Palmer
Conclusions?
Verbal labels cause a shift in the actual memory of the accident in the direction of the label
Grant et al
Background?
Grant et al
Aim?
Grant et al
Sample?
Grant et al
Sampling method?
Grant et al
Experimental design?
Grant et al
Research Method?
Grant et al
Materials/Apparatus?
Grant et al
Where did the study take place?
Grant et al
Quantitive Results?
Grant et al
Qualitative Results?
Grant et al
Conclusions?
Moray
Aim?
Moray
Background?
Moray
Sample?
Moray
Sampling method?
Moray
Experimental design?
Moray
Research Method?
Moray
Materials/Apparatus?
Moray
Where did the study take place?
Moray
Quantitive Results?
Moray
Qualitative Results?
Moray
Conclusions?
Simons & Chabris
Aim?
Simons & Chabris
Background?
Simons & Chabris
Sample?
Simons & Chabris
Sampling method?
Simons & Chabris
Experimental design?
Simons & Chabris
Research Method?
Simons & Chabris
Materials/Apparatus?
Simons & Chabris
Where did the study take place?
Simons & Chabris
Quantitive Results?
