social approach

Question 1

assumptions of the social approach

Answer 1

• behaviour, cognitions and emotions can be influenced by other individuals
• behaviour, cognitions and emotions can be influenced by groups or social contexts

Question 2

aims of yama

Answer 2

• whether chimpanzees can understand the needs of conspecifics
• whether chimpanzees can respond to those needs with targeted helping.

Question 3

meaning of altruism

Answer 3

The willingness to do certain things/doing certain things for someone else (1 mark)
even if it disadvantages yourself/gain no benefit (1 mark)

Question 4

meaning empathy

Answer 4

The ability to understand the emotional state of someone else (1 mark)
by imagining what it would be like to be in that situation (1 mark)

Question 5

meaning of prosocial behaviour

Answer 5

any action or behaviour that has the intention of helping others

Question 6

IV of yama

Answer 6

was the ability of the chimpanzee to give targeted helping to another chimpanzee.

Question 7

two conditions in yama

Answer 7

• In the first, the potential helper chimpanzee was able to see the other’s tool- use situation,
• in the second they could not see.

Question 8

what was the experimental design of yama

Answer 8

The study used a repeated measures design, which means that all the chimpanzees took part in both conditions of the experiment.

Question 9

DV of yama

Answer 9

was the targeted helping behaviour.

• This was operationalised as the items offered by the participants to conspecifics (offer, no offer, offer of tool other than stick or straw)
• The item offered was either the correct tool (stick or straw, depending on situation) or an incorrect non-tool item (e.g. a belt).

Question 10

how was the DV measured in yama

Answer 10

video camera recording

Question 11

describe sample in yama

Answer 11

 5 chimpanzee participants who were socially housed within the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University took part in this study.
Each had previously been a part of a number of other perceptual and cognitive studies, including some investigating helping behaviour in a similar setting to the present study.
 Ai, Cleo, Pal, Ayumu and Pan.
 They were paired wit a kin: Ai (mother) and Ayumu (juvenile); Pan and Pal; Chloe (not tested in experimental condition) and Cleo

Question 12

what were the names of the pps in yama

Answer 12

Ai, Ayumu, Cleo, Pan, Pal

Question 13

what were the 7 objects in yama

Answer 13

stick, straw, hose, brush, rope, brush, belt

Question 14

describe the familiarisation phase in yama

Answer 14

8,
5-minute trials
each day
that allowed the chimps to explore the 7 items where they could examine and manipulate all the objects without the need to use them as tools or offer them to others.

Question 15

how many trials in yama

Answer 15

48 trials

Question 16

why was can see condition repeated

Answer 16

in order to confirm that any difference in object choice between the first two conditions was due to intentional, targeted helping and not an order effect.

Question 17

describe the procedure in yama

Answer 17

A chimpanzee had to select a tool that would help the other chimpanzee to solve a problem.
- One task required a stick and the other required a straw. Solving the task allowed the second chimpanzee in the pair to obtain a reward: a juice drink.
 Seven objects (straw, stick, hose, chain, rope, brush and belt) were placed in a booth occupied by a potential helper
 This could not be reached by the potential recipient but could be requested by the chimpanzee poking his or her arm through a hole to gesture.
 This allowed the experimenters to examine whether the potential helper chimpanzee was able to understand what the other needed.
 Before any trials started, the chimpanzees went through a familiarisation phase each day (8, 5-minute trials) that allowed the chimps to explore the 7 items where they could examine and manipulate all the objects without the need to use them as tools or offer them to others.
 When the experimental trials began, each chimpanzee experienced the conditions in the same order.
 Firstly they were placed in the ‘can see’ booth in which the panel between the two chimpanzees was transparent.
 Next they completed the task in the ‘cannot see’ booth, in which the panel was opaque.
 Finally the ‘can see’ condition was repeated in order to confirm that any difference in object choice between the first two conditions was due to intentional, targeted helping and not an order effect.
 Forty-eight trials were carried out in each condition; this consisted of a random order of 24 stick-use and 24 straw- use situations.
 Trials began when the tray of objects was presented. The trial ended when the recipient received
the object and succeeded in obtaining the juice reward or after five minutes had elapsed without an object being passed.
 ‘Offers’ were counted when the chimpanzee held out the object to the recipient, whether the recipient took the object or not.

Question 18

when was the trial ended in yama

Answer 18

The trial ended when the recipient received the object and succeeded in obtaining the juice reward or
after five minutes had elapsed without an object being passed.

Question 19

results in first can see condition in yama

Answer 19

• objects were offered 91%
• of these 90% of tools offered were due to the 2nd chimp requesting for helping
• pan was the only chimpanzee who first offered brush as a tool
• This bias suggests that the chimpanzees were able to discriminate between potential tools and non-tools.

Question 20

results in cannot see condition in yama

Answer 20

• objects were offered 96% of time
• of these 72% of tools offered were due to the 2nd chimp requesting for helping
• pan was the only chimpanzee who first offered brush as a tool
• ayumu was the only chimpanzee who peered thru the hole

Question 21

what was an important difference was observed between ‘can’ and ‘cannot see’ conditions in yama

Answer 21

can see:
significant difference in which tool was offered first, stick or straw, depending on the task requirement.
cannot see:
no significant difference in which tool was offered first, in all but one of the chimpanzees.
The one chimpanzee named Ayumu who did select the correct tool more often was able to stand and peer through a hole in the wall. He did so in order to view his partner chimpanzee (his mother) and observe the task that she was facing.

Question 22

which chimp in yama offered brush the most

Answer 22

pan

Question 23

which chimp in yama peered thru the hole in cannot see condition

Answer 23

ayumu

Question 24

results in second can see condition for yama

Answer 24

• objects were offered 98% of the time
• of these 80% were offered upon request for help from 2nd chimp
• only 3 chimps were included - Ai, Pal, Cleo

Question 25

which 3 chimps were used in the 3rd condition in yama

Answer 25

Cleo , Ai , Pal

Question 26

why were only 3 chimps were used in the 3rd condition in yama

Answer 26

they had previously shown a significant difference in tool selection in the ‘can see’ condition and a non-significant difference in the ‘cannot see’ condition.

Question 27

conclusions from yama

Answer 27

• They will offer help to conspecifics who require it in the majority of cases, but usually as a response to a direct request rather than as a spontaneous act.
• Chimpanzees rely on visual confirmation of conspecifics’ needs in order to offer targeted helping

Question 28

strengths of yama

Answer 28

 The method used in this study was a laboratory experiment. There were high levels of control in the
study and a standardised procedure. For example, the presentation of the objects on the tray was the same for each trial, and the chimpanzees sat at the same booths to undergo each trial.
- These measures increased the reliability of the study. Furthermore, the experiment used a repeated measures design. This design meant that the chimpanzees participated in both or all the conditions of the study; reducing any risk of individual differences and increasing validity.
 Despite having low ecological validity (lab exp), the chimpanzees had previously taken part in laboratory studies and were therefore familiar with the task and materials used in this research, they probably showed normal behaviour. In this way it could be argued that the study was valid.
 Targeted helping was observed using video recording and quantified in a standard way as no offer, offer of tool or offer of other item. Both the way in which the data was recorded and the type of data recorded provide an objective record of helping for each participant.
 Other qualitative data was gathered during the experiment such as the behaviour of one chimpanzee who looked over the opaque panel in the ‘cannot see’ condition. This data is important in helping us understand why the chimpanzee then showed an increase in correctly targeted helping

Question 29

weaknesses of yama

Answer 29

 The study had low ecological validity because it was conducted in an artificial environment. The chimpanzees were given tasks and tools that they would not normally use in their natural environment but ^..
 The participants in this study were five chimpanzees, and came from the same research institute. This means it was a very small sample that is arguably low in generalisability. It would be difficult to say this sample of captive chimpanzees is representative of wild chimpanzee populations, although there is nothing to suggest that any of the animals was unique or unusual.

Question 30

why is using repeated measures design a strength in yama

Answer 30

This design meant that the chimpanzees participated in both or all the conditions of the study; reducing any risk of individual differences and increasing validity.

Question 31

which study in social approach used repeated measure design

Answer 31

yama

Question 32

what are the studies in social approach

Answer 32

milgram
pilliavin
yamamoto

Question 33

what is a bystander?

Answer 33

a person who is present but not directly involved in a a situation

Question 34

what is bystander apathy or effect

Answer 34

refers to the actions of a bystander who doesnt help other in the event of an emergency

Question 35

diffusion of responsibility?

Answer 35

a person is less likely to take action in an emergency where there are others there also able to help.
in a large group, the perceived sense of individual responsibility towards those in need is ‘diffused’ or reduced to the extent that people feel little obligation to intervene. an explanation for the bystander effect.

Question 36

aim of pilliavin

Answer 36

the researchers aimed to study bystander behaviour in a natural setting.
also wanted to investigate the effect of four situational variables on helping behaviour or ‘Good Samaritanism’:
• the type of victim
• the race of the victim
• the behaviour of a ‘model’
• the size of the group of bystanders

Question 37

what were the IVs in pilliavin

Answer 37

There were four independent variables (IVs) which corresponded to the factors outlined in the aims of the study. They were operationalised as:
• the type of victim: the levels were ‘drunk’ or ‘ill’ victim
• the race of the victim: the levels were black or white victim
• the behaviour of a ‘model’: the levels were a model who was either close to or distant from the victim helped, either early or late in the event
• the size of the group of bystanders: this level was the naturally occurring number of passengers present in the subway carriage.

Question 38

DV of P

Answer 38

was the level of bystander helping.
 In quantitative terms, this was operationalised as the time taken for the first passenger to help, as well as the total number of passengers who helped.

Question 39

how was the DV in P operationalised

Answer 39

operationalised as the time taken for the first passenger to help, as well as the total number of passengers who helped

Question 40

describe sample in P

Answer 40

An estimated total of around 4450 people were unsolicited participants of this study with a racial mix of 55% white and 45% black.
There was a mean of 43 people in each car and 8.5 in the critical area.

Question 41

describe the victims in P

Answer 41

 The victim was played by different males during the study, but all were made to look similar.

• aged 26 to 35 years; three were white and one was black.
• They were dressed in identical, casual clothing (jacket, old trousers, no tie).
• On 38 out of 103 trials the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a brown bag.
• on the remaining 65 trials they appeared sober and carried a black cane. In all other ways they behaved identically.

Question 42

how many trials were there in P

Answer 42

103

Question 43

how many trials were drunk and ill in P

Answer 43

drunk - 38/103

ill - 65/103

Question 44

describe the model in P

Answer 44

The models

• all white males aged 24 to 29 years of age
• who were also dressed informally.
• When helping, the model raised the victim to the sitting position and stayed with him until the train reached the next stop.

Question 45

describe the model condition trials in P

Answer 45

Trials were split into the following conditions:
• Critical/early: model stood in critical area and waited 70 seconds to help victim
• Critical/late: model stood in critical area and waited 150 seconds to help victim
• Adjacent/early: model stood in adjacent area and waited 70 seconds to help victim
• Adjacent/late: model stood in adjacent area and waited 150 seconds to help victim
• No model condition: the model did not help the victim until after the trial was over and the train had reached the next stop.

Question 46

describe what the observers recorded in P

Answer 46

Observer One:
Race, sex, location of every rider seated or standing in the critical area. Total number of people in the carriage. Total number of people who came to assist the victim. Race, sex and location of every helper.
Observer Two:
Race, sex and location of every passenger in the adjacent area. Time when help was first offered. Both observers noted any comments made by nearby passengers and also tried to elicit comments from a passenger sitting next to them.

Question 47

in how many trials were the drunk and ill victim helped in P

Answer 47

ill- 62/65

drunk - 19/38

Question 48

what % were spontaneous acts of help in P
what % did more than one person help in P
% of passengers actually moved away from the critical area where the incident was taking place.

Answer 48

spont- 80%
more than 1- 60%
% moved - 20%

Question 49

conclusions from P

Answer 49

 This study found that in a natural setting, many people would offer spontaneous help to a stranger, even in a group situation.
 This study found no evidence of diffusion of responsibility, but did identify several factors which may determine decisions to help:
• the type of victim (someone using a cane will be helped more than a drunk person)
• the gender of the helper (men are more likely to help than women)
• people may be more likely to help members of their own race, especially if the victim is drunk
• the longer an emergency continues, the less likely it is that anyone will help, and the more likely it is they will find another way of coping with arousal.

Question 50

strengths of P

Answer 50

 The method used in this study was a field experiment which used independent measures. This meant that it had good ecological validity; the participants were ordinary train passengers who were unaware they were taking part in the experiment. They would have behaved naturally as they believed the emergency situation to be real.
 The main recorded measure of bystander helping was the number of helpers and how long they took to help- This quantitative measurement ensured an objective record, made more reliable by the presence of two observers.
 The observers also recorded qualitative data including the remarks and movements made by the passengers during each trial. This allowed the researchers to understand the thoughts and behaviours associated with helping in more depth.
 despite being from the same station- the design of the study meant that around 4500 individuals participated in the study, which included a mix of ethnicities and genders. This large sample therefore is likely to be quite representative and has greater validity.

Question 51

weaknesses in P

Answer 51

 there is less control over extraneous variables, such as the weather conditions or train delays, which could affect the participants’ behaviour and lower the validity and reliability of the study.
 There are other methodological issues with the study.
For example, the experimenters cannot be sure that participants only took part in the experiment once; as
they used the same route each time there is a chance participants may have been exposed to more than one condition of the experiment. Suspecting that the emergency was a set-up might have made the participants more or less likely to offer help, creating demand characteristics.
 The participants in this study were all subway passengers from New York City, which means that the sample is unrepresentative. It would not be possible to predict levels of bystander helping in other countries from this study; however there were 4500 participants.
 This study raised serious ethical issues.
- Firstly, participants did not give their consent to take part in the research,
- nor were they debriefed after the study had finished.
- Participants were deceived during the study, as they believed the victim had genuinely collapsed and needed help.
- They might have suffered psychological distress as a result of the study, guilt at not helping or concern about the well-being of the victim.

Question 52

what does obedience mean

Answer 52

when a person follows direct orders from a person or people in authority

Question 53

what does destructive obedience mean

Answer 53

obedience that has the potential to cause psychological or physical harm or injury to another

Question 54

what does a confederate mean

Answer 54

a person that plays a role in a piece of research that is instructed on how to behave by the researcher

Question 55

aim of milgram

Answer 55

investigate how obedient individuals would be to orders received from a person in authority

Specifically, Milgram wanted to know whether people would be obedient even when it would result in physical harm to another person.

Question 56

describe the research method in milgram

Answer 56

best described as a controlled observation.
in a laboratory setting where all the variables and measurements were controlled
In this particular study each participant underwent the same procedure and there was no control condition.
participants’ levels of obedience were measured through observation.
- This was operationalised as the maximum voltage given in response to the orders.
 Observers also noted the participants’ body language and any verbal comments or protests made throughout the procedure

Question 57

how was the level of obedience operationalised in milgram

Answer 57

participants’ levels of obedience were measured through observation.
- This was operationalised as the maximum voltage given in response to the orders.

Question 58

which study conducted a controlled observation

Answer 58

milgram

Question 59

describe the sample in milgram

Answer 59

 A newspaper advertisement was used
 40 men between the ages of 20 and 50 years old.
 a volunteer sample, composed of those who lived in the New Haven area of the United States.
 The men came from a range of different backgrounds and occupations, and represented unskilled workers, white collar workers as well as professionals

Question 60

how many members were there in milgram

Answer 60

40 men

Question 61

state how many pps were there in each study in the social approach

Answer 61

yama - 5 chimps
pilliavin - 4550
millgram - 40 men

Question 62

what is a volunteer sample

Answer 62

known as a self recruited sample
often recruited through advertisements
easy and quick recruitment tool
but may not attract representative sample

Question 63

which university lab was milgram conducted in

Answer 63

yale - the location was chosen in order to make the procedure seem legitimate

Question 64

how much was the pps paid to take part in milgram

Answer 64

4.50 dollars

Question 65

what was told to the pps about the shocks in milgram

Answer 65

The participant was told that although the shocks were painful, they were not dangerous.

Question 66

what was done to the pp to increase validity before the actual experiment began in milgram

Answer 66

They were also then given an example shock of 45 V as a demonstration.

Question 67

describe the experimenter in milgram

Answer 67

He introduced himself as jack williams, a 31-year-old bio teacher who wore a grey technician’s coat and had a stern manner throughout.

Question 68

what were the verbal prods the experimenter had to say to the pp in milgram when they did not know what to do when the learner went quiet or protested

Answer 68

 When participants protested at this, the experimenter continued to give them verbal prods in the sequence: Please go on / Please continue / The experiment requires that you continue / It is absolutely essential that you continue / You have no other choice, you must go on.
- These verbal prods or orders had a set wording, and were given in a standard order to any participants who protested at the task.

Question 69

As part of the interview in the end of the milgram exp, participants were asked to estimate how painful they thought the final 450 V shock was, on a scale of 0–14 (‘not at all painful’ to ‘extremely painful’). what was the score.

Answer 69

13.42

Question 70

procedure of milgram?

Answer 70

 each participant was promised $4.50 for taking part, simply for being willing to participate.
 Yale University, in a modern laboratory- the location was chosen in order to make the procedure seem legitimate
 they were then introduced to another man whom they believed to be another participant.
- This man was in fact a stooge or confederate; he was a likeable, middle-aged man who worked for Milgram and had been trained in the procedure which followed.
- Both men were told that they would be allocated the roles of ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’ in what was to be an experiment about the effects of punishment on learning.
- They drew pieces of paper from a hat to determine the roles, but it was fixed so that the real participant was always allocated the role of teacher.
 Next the participant was taken to another room, where the stooge was strapped to a chair and had electrodes attached to him by the experimenter.
 The participant was presented with the shock generator, which consisted of rows of switches labelled with voltage readings ranging from 15 V to 450 V.
- The shock voltage was also labelled in ascending order with words such as ‘moderate shock’, to ‘danger:‘severe shock’ and for the final two switches ‘XXX’
 The participant was told that although the shocks were painful, they were not dangerous.
 They were also then given an example shock of 45 V as a demonstration.
 After this, they were seated behind a wall so that they could hear but not see the stooge who was attached to the machine.
 the elaborate machine was set up to convince the participants that they were really able to injure the learner.
 The experimenter remained with the participant; the same experimenter was used in each trial.
- He was a 31-year-old teacher who wore a grey technician’s coat and had a stern manner throughout.
 The participants were instructed in the ‘memory’ task, which involved reading pairs of words aloud to the learner, and subsequently testing the learner on their recognition of the words.
 Whenever the learner made a mistake, the participants were told by the experimenter to give him a shock by pressing a switch on the generator.
 They were ordered to increase the level of shock each time by 15 V for each error the learner made.
 Until 300 V were reached, the learner had remained silent when receiving the punishment.
 However, once the punishment level had reached 300 V, the learner began to pound on the wall in protest to the participant.
- After this time, the learner made no further noises and stopped responding to the memory task altogether.
 If and when the participants asked the experimenter what they should do, the experimenter insisted that they continue with reading the words aloud and punish the learner, treating no response as an incorrect answer.
 When participants protested at this, the experimenter continued to give them verbal prods in the sequence: Please go on / Please continue / The experiment requires that you continue / It is absolutely essential that you continue / You have no other choice, you must go on.
- These verbal prods or orders had a set wording, and were given in a standard order to any participants who protested at the task.
 The procedure was considered to be complete when the participant refused to give any more shocks, or when they had given the maximum 450 V available.
 One-way mirrors were used to record the physical behaviours of the participants, and observers noted any comments that were made.
 After the procedure was complete, each participant was interviewed and had the deception explained to them fully.
 As part of the interview, participants were asked to estimate how painful they thought the final 450 V shock was, on a scale of 0–14 (‘not at all painful’ to ‘extremely painful’). They were given the chance to meet the learner again, in order to reassure them that they were not injured and to restore the participant’s well-being.

Question 71

what is the mean average shock administered to the learner by the pps in milgram

Answer 71

368V

Question 72

describe the learner in milgram

Answer 72

to Mr. Wallace and made to believe that he was another participant.
Mr. Wallace
was a confederate, a 47-year-old Irish-American
accountant.

The learner actually gave a predetermined set of
answers with about
three wrong answers for every right answer.

Question 73

describe how the electrodes were put on the learner in milgram

Answer 73

An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and
electrode paste was applied to “avoid blisters and
burns”.

Question 74

what were the pps labelled as depending on the max voltage they administered

Answer 74

A participant who stopped before reaching 450 volts
was classed as a “defiant participant” while those who
went up to 450 volts were classed as an “obedient
participant”.

Question 75

describe the results of milgram

Answer 75

65% (26/40) administered max volt - 450
35% (14/40) defiant pps
the qualitative data collected in this study revealed that participants showed signs of tension when undertaking the procedure.
- Observers reported signs of nervousness in participants, which increased as they gave more powerful electric shocks.
- they frequently observed to be sweating, shaking and groaning, with 14 out of the 40 men showing signs of nervous laughter or smiling.
- One participant could not complete the experiment because he went into a violent seizure, presumably as a result of the high level of stress he was experiencing

 Comments made by the participants who protested at the orders given included ‘I don’t think I can go on with this…I don’t think this is very humane’, and ‘I’m gonna chicken out…I can’t do that to a man, I’ll hurt his heart’.

Question 76

describe the qualitative data collected in milgram

Answer 76

Observers reported signs of nervousness in participants, which increased as they gave more powerful electric shocks.

• they frequently observed to be sweating, shaking and groaning, with 14 out of the 40 men showing signs of nervous laughter or smiling.
• One participant could not complete the experiment because he went into a violent seizure, presumably as a result of the high level of stress he was experiencing

Comments made by the participants who protested at the orders given included ‘I don’t think I can go on with this…I don’t think this is very humane’, and ‘I’m gonna chicken out…I can’t do that to a man, I’ll hurt his heart’.

Question 77

what were the comments made by the pps who protested in milgram

Answer 77

Comments made by the participants who protested at the orders given included ‘I don’t think I can go on with this…I don’t think this is very humane’, and ‘I’m gonna chicken out…I can’t do that to a man, I’ll hurt his heart’.

Question 78

2 main conclusions from milgram

Answer 78

two main conclusions from this study:
 Individuals are much more obedient to authority than we might reasonably expect. This seems to be true for the majority of people.
 Despite high levels of obedience, people find the experience of carrying out destructive acts under the orders of authority figures triggers feelings of stress.
This is due to a conflict between two important social phenomena: the need to obey those in authority and the need to avoid harming other people.

Question 79

what were the factors which contributed to the high level of obedience recorded in milgram

Answer 79

number of factors which contributed to the high level of obedience recorded in his study.
- the perceived legitimacy of the study; the professional academic environment of
the study
-use of uniform by the experimenter
- he feeling of financial obligation the participants had towards the experiment
-and their belief that both they and the learner had freely volunteered to participate.

Question 80

strengths of milgram

Answer 80

 was a controlled observation. This means that it was possible to control extraneous variables in the environment, such as the age and appearance of the actor playing the stooge.
- This meant that the level of shock administered by each participant was not based on whether the participant felt more or less sympathetic towards different stooges (e.g. they might have been less willing to deliver shocks to an older individual).
 the procedure was standardised throughout; the verbal prods used by the experimenter were the same each time. The level of control and standardisation of the procedure means the research was more reliable, because each participant went through exactly the same experience.
 The clever design of the electric shock generator and the example shock given to participants improved the validity
 The main measure of obedience was through the voltage of shocks delivered. This is a quantitative measurement, which offered an objective record of obedience for each participant. It made it easy to compare the results of the participants and draw conclusions about the overall amount of destructive obedience seen in this study
 Qualitative measures such as the notes of observers were used to capture the physical and verbal behaviour of those administering the shocks. Although this data is more subjective, it provided a richer understanding of the tension between wanting to obey orders and wanting to obey one’s own conscience. Furthermore, interviews with the participants after the procedure also helped explain some of the behaviour of the participants.
 Milgram carefully selected participants to ensure a range of ages and backgrounds. This means that the sample has greater validity. It showed that even those with professional backgrounds who are more likely to be in positions of power are susceptible to obeying the commands of an authority figure.

Question 81

weaknesses of milgram

Answer 81

 The participants in this study were all males, and came from the same local area. This could mean that the sample was low in generalisability; it would not be possible to predict what differences there might be in obedience levels between men and women.
 the study had major ethical issues. Although participants had consented to take part in the research, they did not give their informed consent as they were told the study was about memory and punishment. Participants were repeatedly deceived throughout the study, as well.
 participants were arguably denied their right to withdraw. Although they were told they could keep the payment for participation no matter when they left, many felt as though they had to keep going with the shocks out of obligation to the research and as a result of the verbal prods.
 Participants were not protected from psychological harm; many underwent visible and extreme distress, yet in only one trial was the procedure stopped. All participants were debriefed and told the true aim of the study, as well as being reassured that they had not done any real harm.
- However, there is the potential for lasting negative consequences to the participants, who may have felt deeply disturbed by their own behaviour.

Question 82

Explain one strength of using animals as participants in yamamoto

Answer 82

Can allow for greater controls to be used (compared to humans) so in this study
using the experimental booths/tool box choice/nature of task is something we
cannot perform on humans (2 marks);

Question 83

explain why milgram was a study from the social approach

Answer 83

The study was looking at how an individual affects people’s ability to be obedient (1 mark).
The experimenter would give prods to participants when
they refused to stop to try to keep them giving larger and larger shocks (1 mark).

Question 84

Describe the psychology that is being investigated in the study by Bandura et al. (aggression).

Answer 84

Social Learning theory was being investigated which centres around observing and imitating behaviours;
People pay attention to a role model;
They retain this information in their memory;
They must feel like they are capable of imitating the behaviour;
They must feel motivated to want to imitate the behaviour / feel will get
rewarded for imitation.

Question 85

Describe the ‘learning task’ used in the study by Milgram (obedience).

Answer 85

It was a paired-associate (learning) task;
The participant read out a series of word pairs (to the learner);
The participant then read out one word;
Along with four terms;
The learner then had to indicate which word had been originally paired/responded with the corresponding word;
This was done by him pressing one of four switches;

Question 86

Describe the ‘preliminary run’ that participants had to complete before the ‘regular run’ in milgram .

Answer 86

The participant/teacher was given 10 words to read (to the learner);
Three of these were neutral/ones the learner would get correct;
Seven of these were ‘incorrect’ answers;
So a voltage of 105v was administered;