social area Flashcards
background to Milgram’s study
following WW2 historians suggested that the Germans must have had some form of basic defect that allowed them to blindly obey their authority figures and commit such atrocities
aim to Milgram’s study
to investigate the process of obedience by testing how far ordinary Americans would go in obeying an authority figure
2 controls in Milgram’s study
-all participants received 45V trial shock
-same 4 prods said by experimenter
-Mr Wallace bangs on wall same amount of times at 300V
sample and location in Milgram’s study
40 male participants from New Haven age 20-50
took place at Yale University
sampling method in Milgram’s study
self selecting- posters put up
procedure in Milgram’s study
1) participant greeted by experimenter in grey lab coat and confederate Mr Wallace
2) Mr Wallace = learner
3) Mr Wallace strapped into chair with electrodes
4) participant receives trial shock (45v)
5) word pair task
6) if Mr Wallace gets one wrong then the participant shocks him, going up by 15v each time
7) at 300v he bangs on the wall
8) 315-450v he is silent
9) participants were watched through a one way mirror
quantitative findings of Milgram’s study
-65% went to 450v
-none left before 300v
-14 participants showed nervous laughter
-3 participants had ‘full blown uncontrollable seizures’
qualitative findings of Milgram’s study
-sweating, trembling, stuttering, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh
- ‘well it’s not fair to shock the guy’
conclusions of Milgram’s study
-situation caused emotional strain and tension on participants
-produced strong tendencies to obey
what were the 4 prods in Milgram’s study
‘please continue’
‘the experiment requires that you continue’
‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
strengths of Milgram’s study
-self selecting, volunteers dedicated
-deception broken so no demand characteristics shown
-lots of controls
-no researcher bias
weaknesses of Milgram’s study
-no protection from harm
-only done with men so not representative of whole population
-small sample
-only American’s
-low ecological validity
-no students
background to Piliavin’s study
Kitty Genovese - 38 respectable law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stab a woman in 3 separate attacks and did nothing. Kitty was screaming ‘Please help me!’
what were the 4 aims to Piliavin’s study
-would an ill person get more help than a drunk person?
-would people help others of the same race before helping a different race?
-if a model person helps the victim would it encourage others to also help?
-would the number of bystanders who saw the victim influence how much help was given?
what is bystander apathy
where people fail to act and help someone in need when others are present
what is diffusion of responsibility
where there is a victim and lots of bystanders each individual takes less responsibility so no one helps (they all think someone else will help) individuals perceive the responsibility of being shared amongst everyone
what is altruism
unselfish concern for other people - doing things simply out of a desire to help, not because you feel obligated to
what type of experiment was Piliavin
field experiment
what were the independent variables in Piliavin
victim conditions: drunk, ill, white, black
model conditions: early (70 seconds), late (150 seconds), intervened from critical area or adjacent area
what were the dependent variables in Piliavin
-race, sex and location of every passenger in critical area and adjacent area
-total number of people in carriage
-total number of people who aided victim
-race, sex and location of every helper
-latency of first helpers response
-make notes on elicit comments
sample and location in Piliavin’s study
-4450 participants over 3 months
-8th Avenue subway express train in New York
-55% were white, 45% black
what was the sampling method used in Piliavin’s study
opportunity
procedure in Piliavin’s study
1) 11am-3pm during same two stops on train with a 7.5 min duration
2) 70 seconds into journey one of the students would collapse in critical area
3) participants reactions were observed covertly by two observers
4) on some trials victim would appear ‘ill’ (holding a walking cane) and others would appear ‘drunk’ (smelling of alcohol and holding a bottle). the race of the victim would vary. in some groups a model would help the victim. the number of passengers on the train would vary.
quantitative findings of Piliavin’s study
-participants helped 62/65 ill trials compared to 19/38 drunk trials
-ill victim median 5 seconds
-drunk victim 109 second delay
-90% of first helpers were males
qualitative findings of Piliavin’s study
- ‘its for men to help him’
- ‘i wish i could help - im not strong enough’
conclusion to Piliavin’s study
-state of victim affects amount of help given
-males more likely to help than females
-no diffusion of responsibility
strengths of Piliavin’s study
-large sample size
-high ecological validity-> field experiment
-confidentiality kept
weaknesses of Piliavin’s study
-debriefing not kept
-difficult to control extraneous variables
-low reliability-> field experiments not easily replicable
background to Bocchiaro et al’s study
we have little understanding about the nature of disobedience to unjust authority, and there has been little research into the psychosocial dynamics involved in reporting wrongdoing to higher authorities (whistle blowing)
aim to Bocchiaro’s study
they wanted to create a situation that confronted participants with the choice of obeying, disobeying, or blowing the whistle against an authority who was encouraging immoral behaviours
sample and location in Bocchiaro’s study
-VU university in Amsterdam
-149 undergraduate students (96 females and 53 males)
-mean age 20.8 years
-they got 7 euros or course credit
sampling method in Bocchiaro’s study
self selecting, they recruited participants by flyers posted in the campus cafeteria
procedure in Bocchiaro’s study
1) each participant was greeted by a formally dressed male experimenter with a stern demeanour.
2) he explained a study on sensory deprivation he wanted to replicate and got the participants to give him the names of a few fellow students
3) participants told they needed to write a statement convincing the students to take part in the study, and that it was currently being considered for ethical approval by the University
4) participants left alone in room for 7 minutes to type statement on computer and with forms from the Ethics Committee that they could fill out if they felt the study violated basic ethical standards
results from Bocchiaro’s study
main group:
obedient - 76.5%
disobedient - 14.1%
whistle-blower- 9.4%
comparison group:
obedient- 3.6%
disobedient- 31.9%
whistle-blower- 64.5%
background in Levine et al’s study
most studies only investigate the difference in population size and the tendency to help strangers, which declines as the size of the city increases
aims of Levine’s study
-to see if helping strangers varies between cultures
-to see if helping strangers is a characteristic of a culture that is stable across different helping situations
-to investigate characteristics of communities that might be related to helping of strangers
sample and location of Levine’s study
-23 different countries
-data collected during summer months between 1992-1997
procedure of Levine’s study
1) one local individual collected all data - male, college age, dressed casually
2) experimenters would do the following: -drop a pen
-drop a pile of magazines whilst walking with a heavy limp and leg brace
-act like a blind person needing help to cross the road
3) scenarios not done in front of children, or old/disabled people
findings of Levine’s study
-considerable variation was found between cultures in helping behaviour: Rio de Janeiro helped 93% of the time, in contrast to Kuala Lumpur at 40%
-a city’s helping rate was relatively stable across the three measures of helping behaviour
-significant relationship between helping behaviour and purchasing power
