Social Area Flashcards
What are the assumptions of the Social Area?
All human behaviour occurs in a social context even in the absence of others and behaviour is influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others. Our relationships with other people and the environment influence our behaviour and thought processes. The Social Area suggests a situational explanation for behaviour.
What are the key themes within the Social Area and name the 2 studies within each theme.
- Responses to People in Authority → Classic study: Milgram, Contemporary study: Bocchiaro
- Responses to People in Need → Classic study: Piliavin, Contemporary study: Levine
How are Milgram and Bocchiaro similar in their Research Methods?
Both used laboratory studies, as both were carried out in University Laboratories (Milgram’s study was carried out in a Laboratory at Yale University, whilst Bocchiaro’s study was carried out in a Laboratory at VU University). As both studies were conducted under controlled conditions, they could eliminate extraneous variables. On the other hand, it also means that both studies lack ecological validity – therefore, we cannot generalise the findings to real life.
How are Milgram and Bocchiaro similar in their Ethics?
Both studies raise ethical issues as they both used deception. Participants in Milgram’s study were told that the study was investigating effect of punishment on learning, and Bocchiaro’s participants were deceived by being told that the research was concerned with sensory deprivation. Therefore, both studies are unethical. However, deceiving the participants may have made the results more valid because they wouldn’t have been effected by demand characteristics.
How are Milgram and Bocchiaro similar in their Practical Applications?
Both studies have practical applications and are therefore useful as they enable us to predict and understand how and why people obey orders that may lead to harm and suffering in others. Milgram’s results can be used to understand why people will cause direct harm to others if they are instructed to do so by an authority figure, and Bocchiaro’s results can explain the low rates of whistle blowing. We can use the results to reduce blind obedience, ensuring that people do not commit immoral acts in the future due to corrupt authority.
How are Milgram and Bocchiaro different in their Data Collected?
Milgram collected both qualitative and quantitative data, whereas Bocchiaro only collected quantitative data. Milgram recorded qualitative data as descriptions of observations of behaviour and comments that the participants made, as well as quantitative data as the number of participants who shocked to each level. Bocchiaro collected only quantitative data, by recording the number of people who obeyed by writing the letter, the number of people who disobeyed by not writing the letter, and the number of people who decided to whistleblow by filling in the form to say that they oppose the study into sensory deprivation.
How are Milgram and Bocchiaro different in their Sample?
Milgram used an all-male sample, whereas, Bocchiaro et al used a sample of males and females. Milgram’s sample consisted of 40 males from the New Haven area, whereas Bocchiaro used 96 women and 53 men from a university in Amsterdam. Therefore, Milgram’s results can not be generalised to women as the results are androcentric, whereas Bocchiaro studied both men and women and his results therefore have more population validity.
To what extent does the contemporary study change our understanding of the key theme of responses to authority?
Bocchiaro demonstrated that people in everyday situations are very likely to be obedient to who they perceive to be an authority figure, as 76.5% obeyed by writing the letter. This finding supports previous research by Milgram, who also concluded that people are obedient to authority figures, as 65% obeyed by shocking up to 450v. Therefore, the contemporary research reinforces the findings from previous research and there has been no major change in our understanding of responses to authority.
How does Responses to People in Authority link to Individual Diversity?
This area of research has led to an understanding of terrible historical events such as the Holocaust, explaining how individuals may be led to behave in ways they would never predict they would. Bocchiaro found similar results, finding that people are largely unlikely to blow the whistle in the event of immoral actions from authority figures and are mot likely to obey.
How does Responses to People in Authority link to Social Diversity?
Both pieces of research highlight the need for society to question authority as obedience in both studies was found to be high. Both studies may lack social diversity and therefore are limited in their ability to explain how different groups in society may behave, as Milgram only studied men and Bocchiaro only studied students.
How does Responses to People in Authority link to Cultural Diversity?
Bocchiaro furthered Milgram’s ethnocentric research and showed that obedience is high cross culturally (showing that it is not just high in USA, but also in The Netherlands). Bocchiaro also highlighted the importance of considering individual explanations alongside situational ones. The contemporary study also showed that obedience has remained high over time, suggesting that people are inherently obedient.
How are Piliavin and Levine similar in their Research Methods?
Both studies were observational and took place in the field. Piliavin carried out their research on the New York subway, which is a natural environment for the participants, and Levine carried out their research on busy public streets in cities in 23 countries, which is also a natural environment for the participants. Therefore, both studies will have high ecological validity as participants are likely to behave similarly to how they would in real life scenarios involving helping people in need.
How are Piliavin and Levine similar in their Ethics?
Both studies raise ethical issues as there was no informed consent gained from the participants. In Piliavin’s study, the participants were not aware that the drunk and cane victims were actually confederates and that the emergency situation was not real. Similarly, in Levine’s study, the participants were not aware that it was confederates instead of ordinary passersby who dropped the pen, dropped the magazines with a hurt leg, or pretended to be blind and attempted to cross the road. They were not aware that the non-emergency situations were not real.
How are Piliavin and Levine similar in their Practical Applications?
Both studies have practical applications and are therefore useful as they enable us to predict and understand how and why people are likely or unlikely to help people in need. Piliavin’s results can help us to understand how people in the USA will react to emergency situations, and Levine’s results helps us to understand how people in 23 different countries react to non-emergency situations. Therefore, the results of both studies could be used to encourage more helping behaviour in certain cultures.
How are Piliavin and Levine different in their Data Collected?
Piliavin collected both qualitative and quantitative data, whereas Levine only collected quantitative data. Piliavin recorded qualitative data as comments that the participants made, as well as quantitative data as the number of participants who helped each victim and the time it took for the help to occur. Levine collected only quantitative data, by recording the number of people who helped the confederate by picking up the pen, picking up the magazines, or helping them across the road.
How are Piliavin and Levine different in their Sample?
Piliavin used a sample of 4450 people who were on the New York subway, whereas Levine used people from 23 different countries. Therefore, Piliavin’s study has culture bias as all of the participants were from New York City. In contrast to this, Levine’s study has high population validity as people from a range of cultures participated in the study, meaning results about cross-cultural helping behaviour can be generalised to the whole population.
To what extent does the contemporary study change our understanding of the key theme of responses to people in need?
The contemporary study (Levine) helps us to furthermore understand how people respond to those in need as it investigated helping behaviour cross-culturally, in 23 different countries rather than in one country, like in Piliavin’s study, which took place in New York City. Levine’s study found that New York was the 2nd least helpful city out of the 23 cities that were studied. This shows that the results about helping behaviour in Piliavin’s study are not representative of the levels of helping behaviour in other countries as other countries are much more helpful than USA.
How does Responses to People in need link to Individual Diversity?
This area has found that individuals responses to people in need vary and factors such as the judgement of the person in need’s situation and cultural factors have an effect on helping behaviour.
How does Responses to People in need link to Social Diversity?
Piliavin found that individuals use a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to help those in need, which includes perceptions and stereotypes of those in need . Therefore, to improve helping behaviour, we can break down stereotypes. Levine’s study found that females were just as likely to help as males which contrasted Piliavin’s research, which showed that first helpers were predominantly males.
How does Responses to People in need link to Cultural Diversity?
Levine carried out research cross-culturally, suggesting helping behaviour and altruism are affected by many factors with simpatia cultures being more likely to help. This furthers the research by Piliavin et al as it shows that cultural values and practices can be embedded to improve helping behaviour
What is the background of Milgram?
Milgram deduced that genocide such as the Holocaust could only be carried out on a massive scale because large numbers of people obey. For many people, obedience is such an ingrained behavioural tendency that it will override social ethics, empathy and personal moral values. When given extreme commands by legitimate authority figures, people will adopt an agentic state in which they will blindly follow orders as they do not see themselves as responsible for their actions, instead viewing themselves as . The adoption of the agentic state can explain horrific acts committed due to obedience, like the Holocaust.
What is the aim of Milgram?
The aim of this study was to investigate obedience by testing how far an individual will go in obeying an authority figure, even when the command goes against the person’s personal moral beliefs.
