Social Area

Question 1

What are the assumptions of the social area?

Answer 1

Human behaviour occurs in a social context even in the absence of others. It also assumes that thr environment and the people around us also influence our behaviour.

Question 2

Strengths of the social area

Answer 2

Real life Relevance - relevant to understanding real-life social issues.
Good Range of Research Methods - test cause and effect relationships and so are broadly experimental, so findings of controlled lab studies can be checked out in real-life settings.

Question 3

Weaknesses of the Social Area

Answer 3

Often Raises Ethical Issues
Social Determinism - our development and cognitive processes influence us though do not excuse us when we have bad behaviour

Question 4

How does Bocchiaro link to the social area?

Answer 4

It investigate if there were any personality differences
distinguishing those who were obedient, disobedient or prepared to be whistle-blowers, it challenges a purely social approach to explaining behaviour and does consider individual explanations.

Question 5

What were the conclusions in bocchiaros study?

Answer 5

• There was bi difference in personality between those who obeyed, disobeyed or blew the whistle / situational factors explain disobedience
• Estimation of one’s own behaviour and the behaviour of others are widely inaccurate to how people actually behave

Question 6

What are the findings to Bocchiaros study?

Answer 6

“What would you do”
3.6% =obey
64.5%=blow the whistle
31.9%=disobey

“what would the adverage student do?”
18.8%=obey
37.3%=blow the whistle
43.9%=disobey

study
76.5%=obey
9.4%=blow the whistle
14.1%=disobey

Question 7

Why were pilot studies carried out?

Answer 7

They were conducted to ensure the procedure was credible and
morally acceptable. These tests also served to standardise the experimenter-authority behaviour throughout the experiment.

Question 8

What was the sample to Bocchiados study?

Answer 8

Undergraduates from Vu University of Amsterdam, 149 (96W 53M) with a mean age of 20.8 years who volunteered through a flyer posted in the University cafeteria

Question 9

What was the procedure to Bocchiaros study?

Answer 9

First the 138 undergraduates were asked about the study. 8 piglet studies were carried out with 92 undergraduates which lasted 40 minutes. Participants had informed concent, signed a concent form and had right to withdraw. The experimenter was a Dutch man who was formally dressed with a stern demeanour and proceeded with a request for ppts to provide a few names of fellow students and presented a cover story about sensory deprivation. The experimenter left the room for three minutes to allow participants to reflect on the action-based decisions they were about to make, Participants were then moved to a second room where there was a computer for them to use to write their statement, a mailbox and the
Research Committee forms. Participants were told to be enthusiastic when writing their statements and had to use two adjectives among “exciting”, “incredible”, “great” and
“superb”. Negative effects of sensory deprivation were not to be mentioned. The experimenter told participants to begin and left the room for 7 minutes. If a participant believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation violated ethical norms he/she could anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox.

Question 10

Describe the method used in Bocchiaros study?

Answer 10

Laboratory Experiment though there was no IV. Conducted in a lab at Vu University and two rooms were specifically prepared and timings were standardised for every participant.DV was the participants obeying, disobeying and blowing the whistle.

Question 11

What is the HEXACO-PI-R personality inventory?

Answer 11

Was used to access 6 basic personality traits by rating their agreement to 60 statements
-honesty
-emotionality
-extraversion
-agreeableness
-conscientiousness
-openness to experience

Question 12

what is the aim to Bocchiaros study?

Answer 12

To investigate the rates of obedience and to find out what tube of people disobey or blow the whistle and if there were personal characteristics that differ them from those who obey

Question 13

What is the background to Bocchiaros study?

Answer 13

Mgrams research was very influential in the field of social psychology,Bocchiaro wanted to see how far people would obey disobey or whistle blow

Question 14

what are the decomposed game measure?

Answer 14

used to access how much importance a person places on the welfare of another person in relation to their own welfare.

Question 15

How does Milgram link to the Social Area?

Answer 15

the results show how pressure from another person could lead people to administer potentially fatal electric shocks to another individual and how they could be led to do this in spite of their evident discomfort. Milgram emphasised situational factors rather than dispositional.

Question 16

What is the background to Milgrams study?

Answer 16

He wanted to investigate whether the German race were evil and immoral due to their disposal factors, or if their behaviour during the holocaust could be explained by situational factors like the presence of a authority figure.

Question 17

What was the aim to Milgrams study?

Answer 17

To investigate the process of obedience by testing how far an individual will go in obeying an authority figure by administrating electric shocks to another person.

Question 18

What was the method to Milgrams study?

Answer 18

Was a controlled observation, is not an experiment as there was no manipulation of an IV. It took place in yale University so conditions could be controlled. Data was collected through observations both in and outside the room through a two way mirror in a different room. Is not possible to establish causality due to there being no IV so results of obedience may lack validity.

Question 19

What are the findings to Milgrams study?

Answer 19

• 40 ppts (100%) shocked up to 300v and were obedient, 65% of participants continued to 450v
• Many ppta show signs of extreme stress, sweating, trembling, nervous laughing and 3 ppts even had uncontrolled seizures
• Quantitative data provides insight to the ability to compare and analyse the data, objective and so is more likely to be valid
• Quanlitative data allows insight and reasoning to why ppts obeyed or not

Question 20

What was the Sample to Milgrams study?

Answer 20

• 40 males aged 20-50 from New Haven America of a wide range of jobs
• Recruited through volunteer sampling by a news paper asking for volunteers in a study on memory and leaning and would be payed $4.50 for showing up

Question 21

What is the procedure to Milgrams study?

Answer 21

All 40 participants were given role of teacher every time due to a fixed draw and the confederate was always the learner. The ppts were given a tria shock of 45v (shock machine had 30 switches ranging from 15-450v) and if the teacher turned to the experimenter for advice the experimenter responded with experimenter prods “please continue”“the experimenter requires that you carry on”

Question 22

what are the conclusions to Migrams study?

Answer 22

• Inhumane acts can be carried out by ordinary people as they will obey others they consider an authority figure
• The level of obedience was unexpected

Question 23

What are possible factors Milgram identified to be the cause of such extreme obedience levels?

Answer 23

• Was carried out in a prestigious environment
• Right to Withdraw and the expectation of compliance was not obvious
• Payment increases sense of obedience

Question 24

What were the conditions of Leveine’s study?

Answer 24

Dropped pen, hurt leg and helping a blind person across the street

Question 25

What were the 4 community variables that Levine explored?

Answer 25

-Population size,
-economic prosperity,
-pace of life
-cultural values

Question 26

Which was the most helpful and least city/country?

Answer 26

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Question 27

Which was the least helpful city/country?

Answer 27

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Question 28

What is the aim of Levine’s research?

Answer 28

-If helping behaviour within a city was stable across all the situations.
-If helping behaviour ranged across cultures.
-To identify characteristics of communities with more helping behaviours.

Question 29

What is helping behaviour?

Answer 29

Helping behaviour is the voluntary actions intended to help others and is a form of pro social behaviour.

Question 30

What is social exchange theory?

Answer 30

People help people because they want to gain from helping others, aiming to maximise the rewards and minimise costs.

Question 31

What what the theoretical explanations for community differences in helping behaviour?

Answer 31

-economic explanations
-cultural values
-cognitive explanations place of life.

Question 32

What was the research method of leveine’s study?

Answer 32

Cross cultural quasi experiment carried out in the field using an independent measures design.

Question 33

What was the sample of Leveine’s study?

Answer 33

23 large cities from around the world, they all had populations more than 230,000.
One student would go to each county and collect all the data on helping behaviour.
Children (younger than 17) and people who were physically disabled, very old or not capable of help were excluded.

Question 34

What were the helping situations?

Answer 34

Originally 5 helping behaviours, 2 did not work (asking for spare change and dropping letters).
Three helping behaviours:
1. dropping pen: confederates walked past a pedestrian passing in the opposite direction.
2. Hurt leg: walking with a heavy lim and wearing visible leg brace, confederates would drop a pile of magazines.
3. Helping a blind person across the street: confederates dressed in dark glasses and carrying a white cane. They would then stand by a traffic light and wait for help.

Question 35

What were the main findings from the research of Leveins’ study?

Answer 35

-No significance gender difference in helping behaviour.
-The most helpful city wad Rio de Janeior (Brazil), the least helpful country Kuala Lampur (Malaysia.
-The lower the economic growth (PPP) the more helpful behaviour shown.
-Simpatia countries were on average more helpful than non simpatia countries.
-Overall, a city’s helping rate was stable across all three measures.

Question 36

What were the main conclusions from this study of Leveine’s study?

Answer 36

-Helping behaviour ranges across cultures, there are large cross cultural rates of helping behaviour.
-Helping behaviour is inversely related to economic productivity.
-Countries with simpatia are on average more helpful.

Question 37

Evaluate the research methods used in Levine et al’s research.

Answer 37

It was a correlational study.
A problem with the correlational research in their attempt to identify the characteristic of those communities in which strangers are more or less likely to help means they could not establish cause and effect.
Observational data collected from the confederates.

Question 38

Evaluate the data collected in Levine et al’s research.

Answer 38

The data collected in the study was quantitative, As no qualitative data was collected the research could not understand the reasons for peoples actions.

Question 39

How does Piliavin’s study link to the social area?

Answer 39

Piliavin’s study links to the social area as findings can help us understand social issues. Piliavin found that help is more likely to be given to a victim not responsible for needing help and of the same race as the helper. Help is more likely to be given by a male. This suggests that findings can help understand social issues such as responses to people in need so that people in need are most likely to receive help if they need it.

Question 40

What was the aim of Piliavin’s study?

Answer 40

To find out why some people help, if different types of people help, the conditions that make helping more likely, why people turn a ‘blind eye’ in a real life visual emergency situation.

Question 41

What was the sample to Piliavins study?

Answer 41

approximately 4500 men and women who used the New York subway on weekdays between 11am-3pm. 45% were black 55% were white

Question 42

What was the background to Piliavin’s study?

Answer 42

Kitty Genovese was stabbed in 3 separate attacks whilst walking home from work, in total 38 people were aware of her attack and non of them came to help ever after she shouted “Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me!”, so kitty bled to death in a stairwell of her apartment.

Question 43

What is bystander apathy?

Answer 43

showing a lack of concern, interest or enthusiasm in helping others when they are a bystander to an event with the belief that there is no need to offer them assistance

Question 44

What was the method to Piliavin’s study?

Answer 44

Field experiment- NY subway journey which lasted 7 1/2 mins
-4 IVs were manipulated : type of victim(drunk or carrying a cane), race of victim, effect of model (after 70s or 150s, from critical or adjacent area, or no model),size of witness group which was naturally occurring
-6 DVs: frequency of help, speed of help, race of helper, sex of helper, movement out of critical area and verbal comments made

Question 45

What was the procedure to Piliavins study?

Answer 45

There were 4 teams of 4 researchers (2 female observers and 2 males – 1 acting as the model and 1 acting as the victim).

The victims (3 white, 1 black) were all male, General Studies students, aged 26-35 years, and dressed alike. They either smelled of liquor and carried a liquor bottle wrapped tightly in a brown bag or appeared sober and carried a black cane. In all aspects they acted identically in both conditions.

The models were all male, white and aged 24-29 years. There were 4 model conditions; critical area - early (70 seconds), critical area - late (150 seconds), adjacent area - early (70 seconds) and adjacent area – late (150 seconds).

The female observers recorded the DVs. One observer noted on each trial the race, sex and location of evert rider seated or standing in the critical area. She counted the total number of individuals who came to the victim’s assistant and their race, sex and location. The other observer noted down the race, sex and location of all persons in the adjacent area. She also recorded the latency of the first helper’s arrival after the victim had fallen on appropriate trials and the latency of the first helper’s arrival after the programmed model had arrived. Both observers recorded comments spontaneously made by nearby passengers and attempted to elicit comments from the rider sitting next to them. Note that both were sat in the adjacent area and so it may be that their view could have been obstructed when recording the behaviour of people in the critical carriage and therefore errors could have been made which could make the results about helping behaviour less valid.

The victim stood near the pole in the critical area and after about 70 seconds he staggered forward and collapsed. Until receiving help he remained supine sat upright) on the floor looking at the ceiling. If he didn’t receive help by the time the train stopped the model helped him to his feet. At the stop (after 7 ½ minutes) the team disembarked and waited separately until other passengers had left the station. They then changed platforms to repeat the process in the opposite direction.

Between 6-8 trials were run on a given day, all using the same ‘victim condition’. There were more cane trials than drunk trials which were distributed unevenly across black and white victims because Team 2 violated instructions by running the cane rather than drunk trials because the victim “didn’t like” playing the drunk! Subsequent student strikes prevented additional trials to correct this.

The standardised procedure with high controls and manipulation of the IVs, such as all drunk victims smell of alcohol and carry a brown paper bag, ensured that the procedure was replicable and the same for every participant and therefore results about helping behaviour are likely to be reliable. However as team 2 violated instructions by having more cane than drunk trials the procedure was not entirely the same for every participant and therefore results about helping behaviour are likely to be unreliable

Question 46

What were the findings to Piliavins study?

Answer 46

-The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time compared to the drunk victim 50% of the time
-and help was offered more quickly to the cane victim compared to the drunk victim
-The collection of quantitative data, such as the percentage of victims that were given spontaneous help, is easy to analyse and make comparisons between victim type and therefore more validly explain the features which affect helping behaviour
-There was a slight tendency for same race helping especially in the drunk condition and no diffusion of responsibility was found

Question 47

What were the conclusions of Piliavins study?

Answer 47

If an individual appears ill they are more likely to get help than a person who appears drunk. With mixed groups men are more likely to help a male victim than females. With mixed race groups people are more likely to help those of the same race particularly if they are drunk however subsequent spontaneous help was irrespective of victim type or race.