Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A-level Psychology > 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

Aim of Milgram

A

• To investigate how obedient individuals would be to orders received from an authority figure even when it would result in physical harm to another person

• To see the level of electric shock that would be administered by a participant under the orders of a researcher

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

Milgram background

A

Wanted to know whether Germans were different from others and to understand whether the person’s individual characteristics or the conditions of their environment are more influential on levels of obedience.

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

How was the sample in Milgram collected?

A

Volunteer sampling - newspaper advertisement

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

Number, age, gender of the sample in Milgram

A

40 men, aged 20-50 yrs

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

Milgram method

A

Laboratory experiment (with interview and observation) / controlled observation

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

Where were the participants from? - Milgram

A

New Haven, USA

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

What occupations did the participants have? - Milgram

A

Range of backgrounds
- unskilled workers
- white collar workers
- professionals

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

Milgram design

A

No design - each ppt did the one condition of the study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgram variables

A

No variables

Sometimes said that:
IV = command to obey
DV = shock intensity level

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

What were the participants in Milgrams study told it was about?

A

Learning and memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How much were participants in Milgram’s study paid

A

$4 + $0.50 for travel

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

What were the experimenters participating as? - Milgram

A

Stooges/confederates

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

Who was the experimenter? - Milgram

A

31 yr HS biology teacher
Wore a grey lab coat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which experimenter acted as the ‘learner’ ? - Milgram

A

Mr Wallace
47 yr accountant trained for the role

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

Apparatus in Milgram’s study?

A
  • shock generator labelled from 0-450V (in 15V increments) + more info
  • electrodes attached to generator
  • chair which learner was strapped to
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Controls in Milgram

A

Procedure same for all participants
- same drawing of teacher/learner
- same use of equipment
- same word pairs and prods

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

How were levels of obedience measured? - Milgram

A

Through observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What else did observers take note of? - Milgram

A

Participant’s body language, verbal comments/protests made throughout the procedure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Type of data gathered in Milgram

A

Qualitative
- verbal comments, ppt’s becoming stressed, etc

Quantitative
- voltage ppt went to before refusing to continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

How many people withdrew first and at what voltage? - Milgram

A

5 people at 300V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

How many participants went to 450V? - Milgram

A

26 (65%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What physical observasions were made? - Milgram

A
  • sweating
  • trembling
  • stuttering
  • biting lips
  • digging finger nails into flesh
  • nervous laughter
  • seizures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

How many people had seizures - Milgram

A

3 (1 was severe)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What were the 2 surprising findings reported by Milgram?

A
  • sheer strength of obedience shown by participants
  • extraordinary tension generated by the procedures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

2 conclusions of Milgram’s study

A
  • German’s were not different (1960’s American’s obeyed an authority figure when instructed)
  • although most participants obeyed, they were not happy in doing so - signs of tension and stress indicated mental torture being experienced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Aim of piliavin

A

To study bystander behaviour in a natural setting and also to investigate the effect of four situational variables on helping behaviour or ‘good Samaritanism’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Piliavin Hypotheses

A
  1. An individual would be more inclined to help someone of his race than a person of another race.
  2. Regarding type of victim: help would be given more frequently and rapidly to the apparently ill victim.
  3. Whatever sympathy individuals may experience when they observe a drunk collapse, their inclination to help him will be reduced by the realisation that the victim may become disgusting, embarrassing and/or violent (cost-reward matrix)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Piliavin research method

A

field experiment
- Took place in realistic environment (NYC subway)
Considerable standardisation between trials and controls ensuring there were few differences between the conditions (e.g. the victim was always identically dressed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Piliavin design

A

independent groups design
- Trials repeated on different days and involved different participants in each condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Piliavin IV’s

A
  • Type of victim (drunk/ill victim)
    • Race of victim (black or white victim)
    • Behaviour of the ‘model’ (model close/distant from victim and early/late in the event)
    • Size of group of bystanders (naturally occurring number of passengers present in the subway carriage)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Piliavin Sampling Method

A

Opportunity sampling - participants not deliberately selected for participation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Piliavin sample

A
  • Participants travelling on the NYC subway service between Harlem and Bronx, weekdays between 11am and 3pm
  • Total estimated participants - 4450 people
  • Around 45% black and 55% white
  • Mean number of passengers per carriage was 43
  • Mean number of people in the critical area was 8.5
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Piliavin model description

A

4 white males aged 24-29 assumed the role of models in each team (all models wore informal clothing but not identically attired)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Model conditions in piliavin

A

• Critical area-early (stood in critical area and waited
• until the 4th stop before helping - approx. 70 sec after collapse)
• Critical area-late (stood in critical area and waited until passing the 6th stop before assisting the victim - approx. 150 sec after collapse)
• Adjacent area-early (stood in middle of car in area adjacent from critical area and waited until passing the 4th stop
• Adjacent area-late (model stood in adjacent area and waited until passing the 6th station)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What did the models do if no one provided assistance - piliavin?

A

They would raise the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Description of victims in piliavin

A
  • 4 victims were males aged 26-35
  • 3 were white, 1 was black
  • All identically dressed in Eisenhower jackets, old slacks and no tie
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How many drunk trials were there in piliavin?

A

38

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

How many cane trials were there in piliavin?

A

65

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Description of drunk victim

A

smelled of liquor and carrier a liquor bottle wrapped tightly in a brown bag

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Description of cane victim

A

appeared sober and carried a black cane

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What did the female observers record in piliavin?

A
  • race, sex and location of every passenger in the train carriage (seated or standing)
  • total number of passengers
  • total number who came to help the victim
  • race, sex and location of the passengers who came to help the victim
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Operationalisation (quantitative data) - piliavin

A

• Time taken for first passenger to help
• Total number of passengers who help
• Race, gender, location in the carriage of each helper
• Verbal remarks made by passengers during each incident

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What is used to describe the quantitative data in piliavin?

A

Objective data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Qualitative data collected in piliavin

A

Comments/remarks and movements made by passengers was recorded enabling greater understanding of thoughts and behaviours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Piliavin conclusion

A

• Many people would offer help to a stranger, even in a group situation
—> no evidence of diffusion of responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Generalisability weakness of piliavin

A

All victims and helpers were male - study was androcentric
- findings can’t be generalised to women

47
Q

How can generalisability be increased in piliavin?

A

by using males and females as the victims and helpers (better if equal number of each gender)

48
Q

Piliavin reliability strength

A

There were two observers for each trial making the results gathered more reliable than if than if there was only one observer - more data gathered and can compare results to see if they are the same

49
Q

Piliavin reliability weaknesses

A

• Due to methodological problems, more cane trials than drunk trials took place
• More white than black victims - only one black student in the university class
• Different number of male and female participants

50
Q

Why is it a weakness that there were more black than white victims? - piliavin

A

Results can’t be compared to each other (decreased reliability)

51
Q

Why is it a weakness that there were a different number of male and female participants - piliavin

A

Low generalisability and reliability because of lack of control of extraneous variables

52
Q

Piliavin validity weakness

A

Open setting - some participants may have seen the experiment more than once (e.g. if on the train again as many repeats were made and many people take the same train everyday)

53
Q

Piliavin validity strengths

A

• ecological validity - the participants were ordinary passengers who were unaware they were taking part in a study, and therefore would have behaved naturally
• Covert field experiment - no demand characteristics or social desirability bias - were unaware they were participating in the study so were acting naturally
• Collected both qualitative and quantitative data

54
Q

Piliavin ethics evaluation

A

Consent - participants did not give the researchers consent to take part in the study, were unaware they were participating in a study
Deception - participants were deceived because they were unaware that it was not a genuine emergency
Debrief - the participants were not debriefed. It would.of been almost impossible/very difficult due to the large sample size
Psychological harm - following the experiment, it is possible that participants had feelings of guilt, distress and anxiety
Right to withdraw - participants were not able to withdraw themselves and their data from the study as they were unaware that they were in it and that it was taking place

55
Q

Piliavin issues and debates - application to everyday life

A

• Useful - led to development of cost-reward matrix
• Educate others - always help, as the longer it takes, less likely people are to help and more people would suffer (if one person helps, others will come and help)
Suggests diffusion of responsibility is not typical bystander helping in natural environments

56
Q

Piliavin issues and debates - individual factors affecting behaviour

A

• Cost of helping
• Personality
• Gender
• Race

57
Q

Piliavin issues and debates - situational factors affecting behaviour

A

• Diffusion of responsibility
• Pluralistic ignorance
• Captive audience - couldn’t leave the train, could only move to the adjacent area so may have felt like they had to help

58
Q

Examples of individual participants in piliavin

A

• people who helped
• people who didn’t help
• people who moved away

59
Q

Aim of Yamamoto

A

To learn more about the helping behaviour in chimpanzees, specifically to find out whether chimpanzees:
• Have the ability and flexibility to understand the needs of conspecifics
• Can respond to those In need with targeted helping
• Can help conspecifics without being asked

60
Q

Theory of Mind in Yamamoto

A

The ability to attribute mental states to ourselves and others and understand that these can be different to our own

61
Q

Hypothesis of Yamamoto

A
62
Q

Research method - Yamamoto

A

Laboratory experiment

63
Q

Design - Yamamoto

A

Repeated measures design

64
Q

Independent variables of Yamamoto

A

The ability of the chimpanzee to give targeted helpline behaviour to another chimpanzee. Two conditions:
1. Potential ‘helper’ chimp able to see the other’s tool-use situation
2. Potential ‘helper’ chimp not able to see the other’s tool-use situation

65
Q

Dependent variables of Yamamoto

A
  • Targeted/instrumental helping behaviour
    • Operationalised through the items offered by the ‘helper’ chimpanzee to the recipient
66
Q

Sampling method - Yamamoto

A
67
Q

Sample/participants of Yamamoto

A

6 chimps involved - Chloe didn’t want to participate

68
Q

Objects in the tray - Yamamoto

A
  • Straw
    • Belt
    • Chain
    • Rope
    • Hose
    • Brush
    • Stick

Stick and straw used - other object are decoy

69
Q

Chloe results

A

Didn’t want to participate/wasn’t interested so was not forced to

70
Q

Cleo results

A

Can see 1 - 97.4% gave stick or straw
- Maybe die to prior amount of use with tools
Cant see - 88.9% gave stick or straw
Can see 2 - 95.7% gave stick or straw

71
Q

Ai results

A

Can see 1 - 1.5% gave wrong item, 87.5% offered stick or straw
Can not see - 54% gave wrong item - 89.4% gave stick or straw
Can see 2 - 81.3% gave stick or straw

Quite consistent

72
Q

Ayumu results

A

Can see 1 - 78% gave stick or straw
Can‘t see - 93% gave stick or straw - actively asses partners situation - peeking through the hole - require visual assessment of situation to help effectively
Can see 2 - didn’t participate

73
Q

Pan results

A

Can see - kept giving brush - 79.5% gave non tool - removed brush then 88.6% gave stick or straw
Can’t see - 55.3% gave brush

74
Q

Pal results

A

Can see 1 - 93.4 % passed either stick or straw
Can’t see - 100%
Can see - 100%

Has a theory of mind

75
Q

Evaluation of sample in Yamamoto

A

• Used in experiments before - not scared
• Used a minimum number of animals
• Not taken from wild environment

• Generalisability - small sample, not all monkeys are lab animals, same breed
• Low ecological validity - not all can use tools

76
Q

Operationalisation of Yamamoto

A
77
Q

Yamamoto procedure

A
78
Q

Yamamoto can see condition
- % of objects offered
- % of chimps requesting objects
- % of correct objects given

A
  • 90.8% object offered
  • 90% chimps requested objects - gestures
  • 100% correct object
79
Q

How many times would each mother and child give and receive objects (can see) - Yamamoto

A

48 times give, 48 times recieved

80
Q

Yamamoto can’t see condition
- % object offered
- % object requested
- % that gave stick/straw

A
  • 95.8% object offered
  • 71.1% object requested
  • 50 gave stick/straw
81
Q

How many times would each mother and child give and receive objects (can’t see) - Yamamoto

A

48 times give, 48 times recieved

82
Q

Which chimps participated in the second can see condition?

A

Cleo, Ai, Pal

83
Q

Yamamoto background

A
84
Q

Yamamoto conclusions

A

Chimps can understand the need of conspecifics in order to help them in successfully solving tasks

  • will offer help to con specific who require it (majority), usually as response to a direct request rather than a spontaneous act
  • chimps rely on visual confirmation of conspecifics’ needs in order to offer targeted help
85
Q

Yamamoto strengths

A

• Laboratory experiment
- controls
Standardisation
—> increased reliability

• repeated measures design
- less participant variables
—> increased validity

86
Q

Yamamoto weaknesses

A

• Low ecological validity
- artificial environment (however familiar with environment due to previous studies)

• small sample
- 5 chimps
- same research institute
—> Low generalisability - dont represent wild chimps

87
Q

Set up of the booths

A
88
Q

Issues and debates

A
89
Q

How many teams used to collect data in PIliavin

A

4 teams

90
Q

Total number of trials in Piliavin

A

103

91
Q

People in each team (+gender) - Piliavin

A

4 Columbia General Studies students
2male, 2 female

92
Q

Where did female confederates sit? - PIliavin

A

Adjacent area

93
Q

How did the female confederates act when they were recording data? - PIliavin

A

As unobtrusively as possible

94
Q

What did the male confederates consist of? - PIliavin

A

Victim and model

95
Q

Where did the victim stand - PIliavin

A

The pole in the centre of the critical area

96
Q

What did the model do throughout the trial - PIliavin

A

Remained standing

97
Q

Time gap between the 2 stations - PIliavin

A

7.5 mins

98
Q

Critical area - early - PIliavin

A
  • stood in critical area
  • waited ~ 70 secs to help victim
99
Q

Critical area - late - PIliavin

A
  • stood in critical area
  • waited ~ 150 seconds to help victim
100
Q

Adjacent - early - PIliavin

A
  • stood in adjacent area
  • waited ~ 70 secs to help victim
101
Q

Adjacent - late - PIliavin

A
  • stood in adjacent area
  • waited ~ 150 seconds to help victim
102
Q

No model condition: - PIliavin

A

Model didn’t help victim until trial was over and train reached next stop

103
Q

% of victims that received spontaneous help - PIliavin

A

Nearly 80%

104
Q

% of cases where there was more than one helper - PIliavin

A

Around 60%

105
Q

Help more likely given to which victim
- Number of times they received help - PIliavin

A

Cane victim
62/65 received help

106
Q

Number of times drunk victims received help - PIliavin

A

19/38 trials

107
Q

Spontaneous helping occured earlier in which condition - PIliavin

A

Cane

108
Q

Which condition did not collect any data - PIliavin

A

Model trials for black cane victim

109
Q

% of help received for white victim trials (cane and drunk) - PIliavin

A

Cane - 100%
Drunk - 77%

110
Q

% of help received for black victim trials (cane and drunk) - PIliavin

A

Cane - no data
Drunk - 67%

111
Q

In drunk condition, which race found to receive less help overall - PIliavin

A

Black

112
Q

Minor evidence of same-race help in which condition - PIliavin

A

Drunk

113
Q

Why was the effect of modelling difficult to analyse
What did they find - PIliavin

A

Most helping that occured was spontaneous

Early model intervention at 70 secs was slightly more likely to result in helping behaviour than waiting until 150 seconds had passed

A-level Psychology (7 decks)

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