social area

Question 1

background to Milgram’s study

Answer 1

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

Question 2

aim to Milgram’s study

Answer 2

to investigate the process of obedience by testing how far ordinary Americans would go in obeying an authority figure

Question 3

2 controls in Milgram’s study

Answer 3

-all participants received 45V trial shock
-same 4 prods said by experimenter
-Mr Wallace bangs on wall same amount of times at 300V

Question 4

sample and location in Milgram’s study

Answer 4

40 male participants from New Haven age 20-50

took place at Yale University

Question 5

sampling method in Milgram’s study

Answer 5

self selecting- posters put up

Question 6

procedure in Milgram’s study

Answer 6

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

Question 7

quantitative findings of Milgram’s study

Answer 7

-65% went to 450v
-none left before 300v
-14 participants showed nervous laughter
-3 participants had ‘full blown uncontrollable seizures’

Question 8

qualitative findings of Milgram’s study

Answer 8

-sweating, trembling, stuttering, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh
- ‘well it’s not fair to shock the guy’

Question 9

conclusions of Milgram’s study

Answer 9

-situation caused emotional strain and tension on participants
-produced strong tendencies to obey

Question 10

what were the 4 prods in Milgram’s study

Answer 10

‘please continue’
‘the experiment requires that you continue’
‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
‘you have no other choice, you must go on’

Question 11

strengths of Milgram’s study

Answer 11

-self selecting, volunteers dedicated
-deception broken so no demand characteristics shown
-lots of controls
-no researcher bias

Question 12

weaknesses of Milgram’s study

Answer 12

-no protection from harm
-only done with men so not representative of whole population
-small sample
-only American’s
-low ecological validity
-no students

Question 13

background to Piliavin’s study

Answer 13

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!’

Question 14

what were the 4 aims to Piliavin’s study

Answer 14

-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?

Question 15

what is bystander apathy

Answer 15

where people fail to act and help someone in need when others are present

Question 16

what is diffusion of responsibility

Answer 16

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

Question 17

what is altruism

Answer 17

unselfish concern for other people - doing things simply out of a desire to help, not because you feel obligated to

Question 18

what type of experiment was Piliavin

Answer 18

field experiment

Question 19

what were the independent variables in Piliavin

Answer 19

victim conditions: drunk, ill, white, black
model conditions: early (70 seconds), late (150 seconds), intervened from critical area or adjacent area

Question 20

what were the dependent variables in Piliavin

Answer 20

-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

Question 21

sample and location in Piliavin’s study

Answer 21

-4450 participants over 3 months
-8th Avenue subway express train in New York
-55% were white, 45% black

Question 22

what was the sampling method used in Piliavin’s study

Answer 22

opportunity

Question 23

procedure in Piliavin’s study

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

quantitative findings of Piliavin’s study

Answer 24

-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

Question 25

qualitative findings of Piliavin’s study

Answer 25

• ‘its for men to help him’
• ‘i wish i could help - im not strong enough’

Question 26

conclusion to Piliavin’s study

Answer 26

-state of victim affects amount of help given
-males more likely to help than females
-no diffusion of responsibility

Question 27

strengths of Piliavin’s study

Answer 27

-large sample size
-high ecological validity-> field experiment
-confidentiality kept

Question 28

weaknesses of Piliavin’s study

Answer 28

-debriefing not kept
-difficult to control extraneous variables
-low reliability-> field experiments not easily replicable

Question 29

background to Bocchiaro et al’s study

Answer 29

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)

Question 30

aim to Bocchiaro’s study

Answer 30

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

Question 31

sample and location in Bocchiaro’s study

Answer 31

-VU university in Amsterdam
-149 undergraduate students (96 females and 53 males)
-mean age 20.8 years
-they got 7 euros or course credit

Question 32

sampling method in Bocchiaro’s study

Answer 32

self selecting, they recruited participants by flyers posted in the campus cafeteria