Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology alevel > social approach > Flashcards

social approach Flashcards

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

Milgram - background

Legitimate authority figures

A

=> someone we obey because we have been socialised to and we know there’ll be consequences if we don’t

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

Milgram - background

Agency theory

A

=> We shift between two states and bhv differently in different contexts
AUTONOMOUS state => act independently with free will
AGENTIC state => enter a state of obedience where we believe the authority figure will take responsibility

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

Milgram - background

“germans are different hypothesis”

A
  • nazi germany could be explaind by the idea that germans are more obedient than other cultures

Milgram wanted to test this hypothesis

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

Milgram aim

A
  • investigate what level of obedience would be shown when told to administer electric shocks to another person by an authority figure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

milgram - sample

A

40 males
20 - 50 years old
new haven area (USA)

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

Milgram - sampling method

A

volunteer

paid $4.50

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgram - research method

A

controlled observation
no clear IV or DV
in a controlled lab at Yale Uni

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgram - procedure in a nutshell

A
  • ‘assigned’ roles of teacher or learner (ppt always got teacher)
  • ppts see Mr Wallace strapped into shock generator and ppts given 45v shock
  • spelling test, if Mr W got it wrong ppts shocked him
  • 15 V increments
  • Jack williams gave standardised prods
  • end when 450V given or refused
  • Debreif
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgram - findings

A

100% gave up to 300V shock (labeled very dangerous)
65% OBEYED & shocked up to 450V
- ppts showed nervousness and tension
- sweated, trembled

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

Milgram - conclusions

A
  • no such thing as an obedient type of person
  • everyone enters agentic state and obeys
  • germans are NOT different
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Milgram - explanations for obedience

A
  1. Prestigious Yale Uni - important place

2. Jack Williams dressed in white lab coat and was stern - seemed like a legitimate authority figure.

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

Bocchiaro - background

what is a whistleblower

A

someone who reports unethical bhv to a higher authority figure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bocchiaro - background

what did Bocc believe there was little understanding of in M’s study

A
  1. nature of dis/obedience and whistleblowing to unjust authority
  2. individual chara’s of those who disobey
  3. responses to authority in men and women
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bocchiaro - aim

A

=> investigate rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing when request was ethically wrong

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

Bocchiaro - research method

A

lab / scenario study
8 pilot tests used to make cover story credible
=> lab at VU Uni in Amsterdam

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Bocchiaro - sample

A

149 undergrad students
96 women, 53 men
gained course credit or €7

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

Bocchiaro - procedure in a nutshell

A
  • greeted by stern dutch experimenter (formally dressed)
  • asked ppts to recommend 3 friends to take part in extremely harmful study into sensory deprivation
  • given 3 mins alone to decide to dis/obey/WB
  • 7 mins to do what decided
  • given 2 personality tests => HEXACO & SVO
  • debriefed & sign consent form
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bocchiaro - comparison group

A
  • asked a dif group of students what they would do and what they think other students would do
19
Q

Bocchiaro - Findings (quant)

A

76% obeyed
14% disobeyed
9% wb
comparison group =>most believed they would whistle blow and others would disobey but not wb

20
Q

Bocchiaro - finding (qual)

A
  • no significant differences found in terms of gender and background affecting response
  • those who W blew tended to have faith
21
Q

Bocchiaro - conclusions

A
  1. people tend to obey authority figures, even when authority is unjust
  2. people bhv differently to how they believe they will
22
Q

Piliavin - background

bystander effect

A
  • a phenomenon where the presence of other people can reduce the chances that people will help someone in need
23
Q

Piliavin - background

2 concepts of bystander effect

A

Pluralistic ignorance => people in a group mislead each other unintentionally in emergency situ

Diffusion of responsibility => people are less likely to help when others are present as respon. seen as a shared

24
Q

Piliavin - background

inspiring event

A

Kitty Genovese
=> brutally murdered in NY
=> many neighbours saw and heard but did nothing due to the bystander effect

25
Q

Piliavin - background

prev. research

A

Latane and darley
=> smoke filled room
=> ppts demonstrated diffusion of responsibility

26
Q

Piliavin - aim

A

investigate how the nature of a situation would affect the helping bhv of those present .

27
Q

Piliavin - research method

A

Field exp

NY subway

28
Q

Piliavin - IV’s and DV’s

A

IV’s => type of victim, race, effect of model, size of witnessing group

DV’s => frequency of help, speed of help, race of helper, sex of helper, verbal comments

29
Q

Piliavin - sample

A

4,500 men and women
used NY subway on weekdays between 11-15:00
55% white

30
Q

Piliavin - procedure in a nutshell

A
  • standardised bhv of confederates
  • groups of 4: 2 female observers, male model, male victim
  • victim would fall on the floor until someone helped
  • if no help, model would intervene
31
Q

Piliavin - findings

A
  • helping rate for ill victim was 100%, drunk victim 81%
  • more same race help
  • more males helped
    many females said it wasn’t their job to help
32
Q

Piliavin - conclusions

A
  1. when escape not possible diff of responsibility is less likely
  2. someone who appears drunk less likely to receive help as it’s seen as self-induced in social context
33
Q

Levine - background

theory of helping bhv

A
  • individuals living in urban areas less likely to help than ppl from rural areas
  • tendency to help strangers decreases as pop increases
34
Q

Levine - background

previous research

A

Steblay

- found support for the idea : decline in helping rate beginning at pop of 300,000.

35
Q

Levine - background

different cultures

A

Collectivists => attend to needs of the group they belong to (selfless)

Individualist => focus on own needs (selfish)

Simpatia => value friendliness, family values and helping others (hispanic culture)

36
Q

Levine - aim

A

investigate helping bhv in wide range of cultures in large cities

  1. is helping bhv consistent in a culture regardless of situ
  2. if helping bhv is different across cultures
  3. difference based on community variables
37
Q

Levine - sample

A

23 large cities

incl. Kuala Lumpar, Rio de Janero, New York

38
Q

Levine - research method

A

cross-cultural Quasi experiment
IV - naturally occurring (cities)
DV - helping rate

39
Q

Levine - procedure in a nutshell

Dropped pen

A
  • standardised 3 helping situ’s, only approached bystander if they were on their own
  • Dropped pen => as walked past drop pen and kept walking. if called out or gave pen back; classed as helping
40
Q

Levine - procedure in a nutshell

hurt leg

A
  • Hurt leg => wore leg brace, carrying pile of magazines. drop pile and try to pick up. help if physically or offered to pick up magazines.
41
Q

Levine - procedure in a nutshell

blind man

A
  • Blind man => cane and sunglasses, walk to edge of road as lights turned green for cars and look like they were going to walk into the road.

helping bhv if the bystander put hand out to stop the confederate or verbally told them to stop.

42
Q

Levine - results

A
  1. sig cross-cultural difference in helping bhv => Rio the most helpful ( 93%) & Kuala Lumpar least helpful (40%)
  2. helping bhv was consistent across scenarios, but NY: less people helped blind person
  3. type of culture had sig impact on helping bhv => simpatia cultures most helpful and individualist least.
    => - correlation between wealth and helping rate (wealth>, help
43
Q

Levine - conclusion

A

=> wealthier the culture the less helpful: suggests individualist cultures taught to think about themselves

=>collectivist & simpatia cultures more likely to help others

Psychology alevel (7 decks)

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