Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Yr 2 Psychology A level OCR: Studies > Social area > Flashcards

Social area Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What are the two studies in the social area

A

Piliavin (1969)

Levine et al (2001)

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

What is the Key theme of the two studies in the social area

A

Responses to people in need

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

What is the key theme in the Piliavin study

A

Helping behaviour

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

What is the arousal cost-benefit model

A

We are more likely to carry out an action that gives us the most benefits and the least costs

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

What is:
Bystander apathy
Bystander intervention

A

Bystander apathy = When someone witnesses an event where someone requires help but they choose not to help them

Bystander intervention = When someone witnesses an event where someone requires help and they choose to help them

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

What is pluralistic ignorance

A

We are less likely to interpret a situation as dangerous (and therefore requiring help) if others are present and ignoring the problem -Latane and Darely

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

What is diffusion of responsibility

A

The greater number of people there are in a situation, the fewer people will help -Latane and Darely

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

What were the aims of the Piliavin study

A
  • To carry out a field study instead of a laboratory study into bystanders behaviour
  • To investigate whether helping behaviour can be explained by the arousal cost-benefit model
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What type of experiment was the Piliavin study:
Lab / Field
Participant / non participant observation
Qualitative / Quantitative
Ordinal / Nominal
Repeated / Independent / Matched pairs

A

Lab / Field —> Field experiment
Participant / non participant observation –> Participant
Qualitative / Quantitative —> Quantitative
Ordinal / Nominal —> Nominal
Repeated / Independent / Matched pairs –> Independent

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

What was the independent variable in the Piliavin study

A
  • The condition of the victim: Drunk or Ill

- The race of the victim: Black or White

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

What was the Dependent variable in the Piliavin study

A
  • How many people helped and speed they helped
  • Race and gender of helpers
  • If anyone moved out of the critical area
  • Comments made by passengers during the incident
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What controls were made in the Piliavin study

A
  • Models behaviour was timed (70 vs. 150 seconds)
  • Same journey, so no stopping at stations
  • Victims all wore identical clothing in a bomber jacket
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the sample in the Piliavin study

A

Approximately: 4450 participants (train passengers)
Mean number of people in a carriage = 43
Racial mix = 55% white and 45% black

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

What sampling method was used in the Piliavin study

A

Opportunity sampling

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

What was the target population in the Piliavin study

A

Everyone / New York

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Briefly describe the procedure for Piliavin’s study

A
  • On a subway train in New York
  • Non-stop ride for 7.5 minutes
  • April-June 1968 11am-3pm
  • The team entered the train through different doors and the ‘victim’ ‘collapsed’ after 70 seconds
  • The 2 observers (both female) would stand in the adjacent area and record the help that people offered
  • The model would step-in (male) if nobody else did
  • The model would step-in early or late (or often not at all)

(the teams were supposed to alternate the victim between drunk and ill but the victim did not like performing the ‘drunk’ condition, so the ill condition was carried out more often)

  1. Critical area early (70 seconds)
  2. Critical area late (150 seconds
  3. Adjacent area early (70 seconds)
  4. Adjacent area late (150 seconds)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What were the findings in the Piliavin study for the condition of the victim

A
  • Ill received 62 out of 65 helps (95%)
  • Drunk received 19 out of 38 helps (50%)
  • Median time taken to help ill victim = 5 seconds
  • Median time taken to help drunk victim = 109 seconds
  • More comments made about drunk victim then the ill victim
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What were the findings in the Piliavin study for the race of the victim

A

Race didn’t have an effect…except in drunk condition with black victim

19
Q

What were the findings in the Piliavin study for the gender of the victim

A
  • 90% of helpers were men
  • Many women made comments about their size or physical strength as a reason for moving away - They suggested it was a man’s job
20
Q

What were the findings from the Piliavin study about the critical area

A

=34 People in all left the area on 21 of the 103 trials

  • More likely when drunk victim
  • More likely when black victim
  • More likely when model stepped in late (150 seconds)
21
Q

What were the conclusions from the Piliavin study

A
  • An ill victim is more likely to get help than a drunk victim
  • Men are more likely than women to help a male victim
  • There was some tendency for same race helping
  • No relationship between number of people and speed of helping
  • The longer the emergency intervention: -The more discussion among passengers. -The more likely people were to leave the critical area
22
Q

What is altruism

A

Altruism = ‘Selfless good deed’ = acts of helping when you expect no reward for yourself

23
Q

What did Levine wonder about the costs and benefits model

A

Levine wondered whether people from all cultures would weight the costs and benefits in the same way.

24
Q

What is the key theme in the Levine study

A

Cross-Cultural altruism/ helping behaviour

25
Q

What is simpatia

A

Simpatia = A value in Spanish/ Latin cultures meaning agreement and harmony in relationships, family and community

26
Q

What is:
Collectivism
Individualism

A

Collectivism = Where the well-being and success of the group is valued over that of the individual

Individualism = The opposite! (individual success is given higher priority than the achievements of the group/society)

27
Q

What is psychological/cognitive overload

A

Psychological/cognitive overload = When an individual receives too much information all at once, so cannot process it all effectively. The information-processing abilities of the individual

28
Q

What were the aims of the Levine study

A
  • To find out if the amount of help given to strangers varies across cultures
  • To identify the characteristics of cultures that are more (and less) helpful
  • To see if helping (within each culture) is consistent across different (non-emergency) situations. i.e. if people will help a blind person to cross a road, will they also help a passer-by who has dropped a pen?
29
Q 
What was the Levine study:
Lab / Field
Qualitative / Quantitative
Primary / Secondary
Nominal / Interval/Ratio / Ordinal
(Not finished)
A

Lab / Field —> Field
Qualitative / Quantitative —> Quantitative data
Primary / Secondary —> Primary but secondary statistics
Nominal / Interval/Ratio / Ordinal —>Interval/Ratio
(not finished)

30
Q

Internal Validity - Piliavin

A

-Due to it being a field experiment there were a lot of extraneous variables on the subway carriages like if the victim was not seen by participants.

31
Q

External Validity - Piliavin

A
  • Can be applied to the wider population of New York but because they only tested people on the same New York subway the only population that was tested was the New York population.
  • However, this is a realistic situation that could happen in real life (Field experiment), someone could fall over on the subway.
32
Q

Internal Reliability - Piliavin

A

-Standardised procedures although not everything can be controlled due to the experiment being a field experiment (-Models behaviour was timed (70 vs. 150 seconds), Same journey, so no stopping at stations, Victims all wore identical clothing in a bomber jacket)

33
Q

External Reliability - Piliavin

A

-Standardised procedures would allow someone else to replicate the study, however, not everything would be exactly the same like participants etc.

34
Q

How does Piliavin relate to the debates

A 
Situational = Depended on the situation whether people helped or not, drunk or ill
Free-will = It was the choice of the participants whether they helped or not
Reductionism = Only looked at people that take the subway in New York City
35
Q

What was the IV in the Levine study

A

The victim = Blind crossing the road
=Dropped pen
=Injured leg, dropped magazines

36
Q

What was the DV in the Levine study

A

Helping rate (overall helping index for each culture)

37
Q

What was the sample in the Levine study

A

23 countries

38
Q

Briefly describe the dropped pen procedure for the Levine study

A

-Dropped pen = In full view of participant, the experimenter dropped a pen and continued walking, scored on if they had given pen back or told experimenter they had dropped the pen

39
Q

Briefly describe the Hurt leg procedure for the Levine study

A

-Hurt leg = Dropped and unsuccessfully attempted to pick up magazines, participants were scored if they offered to help or approaching without offering

40
Q

Briefly describe the Blind person procedure for the Levine study

A

-Blind person = Stepped up to corner when light was green and waited until someone offered to help. scored on telling experimenter light was green

41
Q

Name 2 main results from the Levine study

A

Rio De Janerio = Most helpful city (93% helping index)

New York = Among the least helpful (45% helping index )

42
Q

What conclusions were made form the Levine study

A
  • The helping of strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place
  • There are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates
  • Helping was higher in countries with simpatia
43
Q

Rest of Levine

A

Validity, Reliability, ethics, debates

Yr 2 Psychology A level OCR: Studies (5 decks)

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