Social 8 Marks Flashcards
Explain one similarity vs difference between study by YAMOMOTO vs PILLAVIAN
- Both included observations of helping/altruistic behaviour; Y investigated non-human helping behaviour and Pillavian human helping behaviour
- Yamamoto was structured observation + observed 1st object offering only 1st object analyses + counted once helper chimp put arm through hole w object
- Pillavan structured obser in naturalistic setting -opertaionalised by looking at sex/race of helper and frequency of helping + time taken to help
- difference between Y + P is setting
- Y was lab exp w high levels of control = chimps placed in 136x142 =cm experimental booths adjacent to eachother
- setting resembled nothing of a wild chimp habitat
- P was field exp + occured on NY subway = train travelled from 11am to 3pm from Harlem to the Bronx
- thsi was natural + mundane setting for ppt
Explain how 1 result from study by Pillavan supports individual vs situational explanation of helping behavior
Individual
- 90% of all helpers male = male ppts more likely to help victim than female ppt
- shows that individual differences like gender can influence how likely an individual is to help a victim
- a female victim ppt felt less similar to assist a victim of an opposite gender or less competent to help
Situational
- Ill victimd were helped by ppt 95% w 5 second median of helping time
- drunk vitims only helped 50% w 109s median of helping time
- ill victims helped more frequently + rapidly than drunk victims (large difference)
- situational factors like safety of situation (safer to help I’ll victim than drunk victim) influenced helping behaviour as help was given more rapidly
- cost reward matrix explain difference sin behaviour due to situational factors
Explain wheter each guideline was broken in Pillavian
- debriefing
- deception
- confidentiality
- protection
Debriefing = involves informing ppt that exit occuring, about aim and ensuring they are restored to original psychological state —> not done in Pillavian as stooges left carriage after emergency/impossible to do as so many ppt so ppt could be distressed aft collapse + perceived as real
Deception= ppt deceived as they were unware they were ppt in exp + stooge were actors —> info abt exp witheld which breaks ethical guidlines
Confidentiality = not broken as names + personal info abt ppt not recorded/published so personal info kept confidential
Protection=broken as ppt suffered psychological distress as they were unware collapse/alarming situation was fake
Explain one similarity between MIlGRAM AND PILLIVIAN/ANY OTHER STUDY
- Both use a stooge = in M there were 2 stooges, 1 was Mr Wallace, 41 yr old man + likable and he was “learner” in experiment —> ppt would shock the learner upon incorrect response on word pairing task
- other stooge in M was 31 yr old man who acted as experimenter + stern/grey lab coat
- In P stooges were victims who collapsed, model helpers + observers
- victims would either be black or white or ill or drunk
- model either help after 70s or 150s aft model fell + stood in critical area/adjacent area
- observer made notes + elicited the passengers for comments
Explain one difference between MILGRAM and PILLAVIAN/ONE core study
- research method
- In M, was controlled observation in lab setting + study conducted at Yale uni in 2 rooms
- 1st room = learner attached to electrodes + being “shocked”
-2nd= ppt pressing buttons on generator whilst e perimeter watched + gave prods - there was one way mirror where observers can note down unusual behavior/measure duration of shocks
-In P, research method was field + conducted on NY subway (old cart-13 seats) traveling from Harlem to Bronx during April to June from 11am to 3pm
