core studies- social

Question 1

what is the background in Milgram?

Answer 1

Obedience is a form of social influence, a person commanded by legitimate authority usually obeys. Germanic hypothesis on how obedience overrides ethics and morals. Pilot study as he wanted to test this in Germany.
autonomous state — people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.
agentic state — people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.

Question 2

what is the aim of milgram?

Answer 2

To investigate the process of obedience by testing how far individuals will go in obeying an authority figure.

Question 3

sample of Milgram?

Answer 3

40 male participants 20-50 years old with wide range of occupations. Target population was nazi soldiers.
Self-selecting through newspaper advertising and direct mail advertising memory study.

Question 4

research methods of Milgram?

Answer 4

Controlled observation through one way mirror at Yale university, paid $4.50.

Question 5

measures in Milgram?

Answer 5

Electric shock generator
Self-report (body language)

Question 6

prior procedure of milgram?

Answer 6

14 yale seniors predicted what they thought would happen estimates ranged from 1%-3% would obey

Question 7

procedure of milgram?

Answer 7

They were sat in front of an electric shock generator in an adjacent room from the confederate where they did a paired word task on the learner and had to shock him for every wrong answer. the learner had pre-determined responses via tape recording and after 300 volts he pounded on the wall and made no further replies. If the participants turned to the experimenter for advice, they replied with standardized prods such as ‘you must go on’. The participants were then debriefed.

Question 8

controls in the procedure of milgram?

Answer 8

ppts always had role of teacher, they saw confederate be shocked to show genuineness.
experimenter gave standardized prods

Question 9

findings of milgram?

Answer 9

100% continued to 300 volts.
65% continued to 450 volts.
Many showed signs of stress while giving shocks (sweating, laughing nervously, trembling) some even had seizures.
ppts showed signs of relief once study was over.
obedience could be due to it taking place in yale which is a prestigious university, the participants were told the shocks weren’t harmful or that they had never been in that situation before

Question 10

conclusions of milgram?

Answer 10

People will obey others that they consider a legitimate authority figure even if what they are asked to do goes against their morals
Certain situational features (such as the white coat of the experimenter) can lead them to suspend their sense of autonomy and become an agent of an authority figure.

Question 11

background of bocchiaro?

Answer 11

Disobedience is a precondition for social progress Going beyond Milgram’s original study for obedience, by giving participants the opportunity to blow the whistle as well as disobey, and to also focus on Situational factors unlike Milgram.

Question 12

aim of bocchiaro?

Answer 12

1) How people deal with an unethical and unjust request
2) How people think they’ll behave compared to how they actually behave.
3) If they disobey, do they have a different personality.

Question 13

sample of bocchiaro?

Answer 13

149 undergraduates from the VU university in Amsterdam
Self-selected through flyers poster around the campus of VU university. Paid €7 or got course credit.

Question 14

research methods in bocchiaro?

Answer 14

controlled observation
scenario study

Question 15

measures of bocchiaro?

Answer 15

Reaction to request – aim 1.
Wrote letter or not (obedience) – aim 2.
If they posted a form to challenge the research – aim 2.
Personality tests (HEXACO & SO) – aim 3.

Question 16

prior procedure of bocchiaro?

Answer 16

Prior- 8 pilot tests on 92 undergrads to check procedure was believable, acceptable, and standardised.
138ppts predicted how they would behave after being asked ‘what would you do?’ ‘What would the average university student do?’

Question 17

main procedure of bocchiaro?

Answer 17

Male experimenter asked ppts to say names of fellow students to take part in a study then presents cover story of sensory deprivation study and how they want to carry it out again, explaining how people in the study become distresses showing how its ethically wrong.

Question 18

what was in the 1st room in bocchiaro?

Answer 18

ppts told to write a statement to convince the students who names they have just given to take part in a sensory deprivation study, experimenter left for 3 mins.

Question 19

what was in the 2nd room in bocchiaro?

Answer 19

had computers for ppts to write the statements and they were told to use nice words/adjectives and not to mention the negative effects of the sensory deprivation study (e.g., the hallucinations that happened in the study before etc.) experimenter left again.

Question 20

how did participants whistleblow in bocchiaro?

Answer 20

If ppts thought, it was wrong they could put a form in the mailbox and challenge the request (Whistle blow)

Question 21

how was personality assessed in bocchiaro?

Answer 21

7 mins after experimenter returned to get them to take personality test. Personality test used were the HEXACO-PI-R test and the decomposed games test assessing social value orientation.

Question 22

findings in bocchiaro?

Answer 22

76.5% obeyed (114)
9.4% whistle blew (14)

3.6% of participants indicated they would obey but most believed they would be disobedient or whistle blow. They predicted 18.8% of university students would obey

No differences in equality differences regarding faith, whistleblowers had more unwavering belief in owns beliefs and morals
No differences personality tests

Question 23

conclusions in bocchiaro?

Answer 23

People obey authority figures even when unjust authority figures or when given unjust orders.
Situational explanation of behaviour offers better explanation for disobedience.

Question 24

background to pilliavin?

Answer 24

Kitty Genovese was brutally stabbed to death by a man in middle of night.People heard her screams and looked out of their blinds however no one came to help.
Darley and Latane they did 3 experiments:
and found if you observe someone being good, you’re more likely to be involved, however with others present there is a diffusion of responsibility.
Cost benefit analysis- when individual compares the benefits of helping/intervening or not.

Question 25

what does diffusion of responsibility mean?

Answer 25

person is less likely to help as they don’t take responsibility when others are present.

Question 26

what is alturistic behavioru?

Answer 26

doing something without expectation of reward for yourself (selflessness)

Question 27

aims of pilliavin
(5)

Answer 27

1.test bystander behaviour in real-life setting
2. effect of the type of victim on helping behaviour
3. effect of race of victim on helping behaviour
4. effect of modelling on behaviour
5. effect of group size on helping behaviour

Question 28

sample of pilliavin?

Answer 28

Opportunity sample- they were just on the train at the time.
About 4,450 travelers.
45% Black, 55% white.
Average- 43 people in carriage

Question 29

research methods in pilliavin?

Answer 29

Field experiment done on a new York subway train.
Secondary technique- observations
Independent measures
Snapshot study

Question 30

IV’s of pilliavin?
(4)

Answer 30

1. Type of victim- drunk or cane
2. Race of victim- black or white
3. Effect of the model
4. Size of the witnessing group

Question 31

DV’s of pilliavin?
(7)

Answer 31

1. Number of people who helped.
2. Time took to help.
3. Race of helper
4. Sex of helper
5. Location of helpers
6. Movement out of the critical area
7. Any verbal comments made by bystanders.

Question 32

how was the carriage and researchers organised in pilliavin?

Answer 32

The groups consisted of 2 males and 2 females. The four victims were male, three white and one black. The model was also always male, and the 2 males were in the critical area near a pole in the centre. The 2 females observed in the adjacent area. Male victims and models dressed casually but not identically to fit in.

Question 33

controls in pilliavin?

Answer 33

Trials took pace on A and D carriages between 59th and 125th street which was approx. a 7.5 min journey.

Question 34

what was done to increase the validity in pilliavin?

Answer 34

The teams were rotated to different platforms to reduce demand characteristics and the researchers boarded using different doors.

Question 35

what were the 4 different helping conditions in pilliavin?

Answer 35

critical area early/ late
adjacetn area early/late

Question 36

procedure of pilliavin?

Answer 36

1. Critical area – early. The model stood in the critical area and waited until 70 secs after collapse then helped the victim.
2. Critical area – late. The model stood in the critical area and waited until a150 secs after collapse before helping the victim.
3. Adjacent area – early. The model stood a little further way, adjacent to the critical area and waited until after 70 secs and then helped the victim.
4. Adjacent area – late. The model stood in the adjacent area and waited until after 150 secs before helping.

Question 37

type of victim findings of pilliavin?

Answer 37

Cane- helped 95% of the time.
Drunk- helped 50% of the time.
Help was offered quickly when it was the cane victim.

Question 38

race findings of pilliavin?

Answer 38

Black victim received less help less quickly than white victim, especially in drunk condition.
Same race effect- where whites where more likely to help whites than blacks in drunk condition.

Question 39

modelling findings of pilliavin?

Answer 39

Model intervening early had more effect than late (however only a small amount of data was collected on this as most people helped the victim before model could step in

Question 40

group size findings of pilliavin?

Answer 40

The more passengers in the critical area led to help being more likely being given.

Question 41

gender findings in pilliavin?

Answer 41

Spontaneous comments were more common in the drunk condition. With most comments being made my women and within 70 secs such as ‘it’s for men to help him’
90% of first helpers were male.

Question 42

conclusions of pilliavin?

Answer 42

Arousal cost reward model- When we see someone in distress, we become physiologically aroused. The greater the arousal in emergencies, the more likely it is that a bystander will help since they wish to reduce it. cost–reward stage involves evaluating the consequences of helping or not helping. Whether one helps or not depends on the outcome of weighing up both the costs and rewards of helping.
no diffusion of responsibiltiy

Question 43

background of levine?

Answer 43

System Overload Theory: People in urban areas are less helpful than in rural because they experience greater sensory overload, sounds lights etc, this means an individual isolates their attention to things that matter to them.
Reciprocal Altruism Theory: We help someone because we believe it may be reciprocated later for ourselves in the future.

Question 44

aim of Levine?

Answer 44

To investigate helping behaviours in a range of cultures, in large cities around the world in relation to four community variables:
1. Population Size
2. Economic Well being
3. Cultural Values (individualistic/Collectivist/Sympatia)
4. Walking Speed (pace of life)
if helping strangers varies cross culturally

Question 45

research methods of levine?

Answer 45

Quasi Experiment with Independent measures design

Question 46

sample of levine?

Answer 46

23 large cities including:
Rio de Janerio (Brazil)
Calcutta (India)
Madrid (Spain)
Shanghai (China)

Question 47

IV’s of levine?

Answer 47

IV 1 – Dropping a Pen
IV 2 – Hurt Leg
IV 3 – Blind Person

Question 48

DV of levine?

Answer 48

DV was helping rates across 23 large cities with 3 measures of behaviour (IV) correlated with the 4 community variables.

Question 49

procedure for IV 1 of sperry?

Answer 49

experimenter walked a standardised pace of 15 paces per 10 seconds and walked towards a lone person passing in the opposite direction.
When 10 ft from the person the experimenter dropped a pen behind them and continued walking.
it was scored as a ‘helped’ behaviour if the individual called back to the experimenter or they returned the pen back to the experimenter.

Question 50

procedure of IV2 of levine?

Answer 50

experimenter walking with a heavy limp wearing a large visible leg brace dropped a pile of magazines and struggled to pick them up. Helping behaviour was if an individual helped pick up the magazines.

Question 51

procedure of IV3 of levine?

Answer 51

experimenter dressed in dark glasses and had a white cane came to a crossing at the corner of a street. They waited till the lights turned green and held out their cane to cross and waited for help to cross.
Trial stopped after 60 secs if no one came to help or the lights turned red, the experimenter walked away from the crossing and moment was terminated.
helping behaviour- If participant informed the experimenter that the lights were green.

Question 52

results of Levine?

Answer 52

-consistency between measures of helping.
-All positive correlations not significant but it is relatively stable across conditions.
-If you live in a city where people are likely to help a blind person, you are also likely to get help if you drop your pen and with a hurt leg
-No gender differences.

Question 53

what are results relating to sympatia and sensory overload?

Answer 53

-Higher levels of helping behaviours in countries that have a culture of sympatia: Brazil, Costa Rica as These countries encourage a culture of being nice.
-People in urban areas are less helpful than in rural because they experience greater sensory overload.

Question 54

conclusions of levine?

Answer 54

Helping of strangers is a cross cultural characteristic of a place.
cultural variations in helping rates.
Helping across cultures is inversely related to a country’s economic productivity.
Countries with a tradition of sympatia are on average more helpful.
Values of collectivist and individualistic cultures is unrelated to helping