Social Area Flashcards
What are some strengths of social area
- helps improve understanding of human behaviour particularly extent to which it’s affected by other people
- useful by having practical applications in range of settings
- bring psychology to wider audiences as it seeks to explain real world events
- high ecological validity as it makes use of field experiments
What are some weaknesses of the social area
- May not be true for all the time as social situations change over time
- not true for all places as social situations change culture to culture
- socially sensitive nature of research so can be hard to stay in guidelines
- boundaries between social and cognitive blurred due to social cognition
What year was milgrams study
1963
Sample of milgram
40 males
Aged 20 - 50
From New Haven and surrounding area
How was milgram sample obtained
Newspaper advertisement and direct mailing, offering $4.50 for participation in memory and learning study
Told money was theirs for turning up to lab and keep no matter what happened after they arrived
Where was milgrams study conducted
Yale University
What was procedure of experiment milgram
- experimenter told leaner and participant purpose of study was to find out effect of punishment on learning
- participant and victim drew out hat, determined who was teacher or leaner, draw rigged participant always teacher
- taken to adjacent rooms, leaner strapped to ‘electric chair’ electrode connected to learner wrist
- experimenter declared shocks painful but no permanent damage
- word pair task, learner had to indicate correct word by pressing button
- before beginning task, teacher given sample shock of 45 volts
- teacher instructed to administer shock each wrong answer given, told to move up one level higher on shock generator each time
- when 300v shock administered leaner kicked wall
- after that not answers given to word pair task
- teacher told to wait 5-10 secs before treating no response as wrong
- 315V leaner kick wall again
- after 315V no response no wall kick
What were the responses of experimenter to participants who indicated unwillingness to go on im milgram study
Please continue Experiment require you carry on Absolutely essential that you continue You have no other choice, you must go on If asked if leaner get damage, experimenter said shocks painful but no permanent damage
What was the point of sample shock in milgram study
To convince participant that generator was authentic
What was the dependent measures of milgram stjdy
Anyone who broke off at any point prior to administering 13th shock deemed defiant
What happened after milgrams study o
Interview, and recoiliation arranged between participant and victim to reduce any tensions and to ensure participant leaves in state of well being
What were the predicted results of milgrams
14 Yale uni psychology students predicted a mean of 1.2% would go to end of study when presented with the detailed description of study
What were milgram actual results
All participants went up to 300V
26 obeyed until 450V max
Signs of stress such as sweat, stutter, nervous smiling
3 experienced uncontrollable seizures
Some comments were “this isn’t right”, “I don’t think this is very humane”
What are milgrams conclusions
To the situation he created
This is situation that produces extremely strong tendencies to obey
Situation generates extraordinary tension and emotional strain
What did the experimenter wear
Grey Lab coat
Remained stern throughout
What were some of the suggestions by milgram to explain th eobedience
Yale university-has unimpeachable reputation so trust it
Participant believed victim volunteered also
Being paid strengthened obligation to help experimenter
Participants had been reassured shocks not harmful
What were the suggestions that explained tension experienced by participants
Participant put in position to respond to competing demands when neither could both be met
Demands of victim and experimenter very different
Experiment gave little time for reflection
Participant experienced conflict between not to harm others and tendency to obey legitimate authorities
What did the shock generator look like
30 switches set in horizontal line
Ranged from 15V to 450
Verbal designations such as slight shock, very strong shock, danger:severe shock
Last two switches labelled with XXX
Discuss ethics of milgram
Participants consented however it wasn’t informed consent
Deceived on true purpose of study
Could withdraw shown by those who did, however experimenter words discouraged it
Confidentiality upheld except for in original research where it stated “46 year old encyclopaedia salesman”
Were harmed -3 had seizures
Participants were debriefed and year later given questionnaire 85% said glad took part
Discuss milgrams validity
Face validity-high as appears to measure what he wants to however explanation of obedience too simplistic as behaviour make reflect empathy and moral courage
Ecological-low as not everyday occurrence to be instructed to administer shocks, however similar to nazi as explicits instructions and causing har to innocents
Discuss reliability of milgram
Procedure highly replicable as standardised procedure
Way results recorded (noting the highest switch pressed before refusing to carry on)means anyone would get same results
Large enough sample for consistent results without being unmanageable and expensive
What milgram study ethnocentric
Only carried out in one country so cannot assume levels of a Edwin Edwards seen among Americans would reflect obedience of other cultures
Further replications in subsequent years and found similarly high levels of obedience in most countries eg Italy, therefore milgrams findings not true to America alone
Why does milgram relate to individual situational
- Descriptions of participants showed they were uncomfortable with what they were doing however 65% still prepared to go up to max shows power of situation
- 35% refused to carry on proves personalities can be even greater influence on behaviour than situational pressures
Why does milgram relate to freewill determinism debate
65% went up to 450 can be seen as behaviour determined by situation
35% walked away seen as exercising their freewill and choosing how to act
Is milgrams study useful
Yes-people in positions of authority can expect that people subordinate to them to be obedient eg army
May be used and abused by people who want power
Why does milgram link to social area
Reveals extent to which people’s behaviour can be influenced by other people around them
Why does milgram relate to key theme of response to people in authority
Tells us that obedience to those in authority even when they ask us to harm someone is more common than we would like to believe
What was Bocchiaros procedure
- Participants informed they could withdraw at any time and given consent form and told they’d be kept confidential
- Dutch male experimenter greeted each participant and asked participants to provide names of fellow students and given cover story
- after 7 mins experimenter returned and I tend particpant to follow into first room
- participants completed two personality inventories (HEXACO and SVO)
- participants probed for suspiciousness about nature of study
- after participants given full debrief who’d been trained to use simple language, care was taken to make sure they didn’t feel uncomfortable about their performance and how they’d been deceived, told not to discuss with friends or family, given email address to complain to or ask further questions
What did participants in bocchiaros study do
Had to write a letter indicating to the named friends convincing them to take part a sensory deprivation study, told to include the words incredible, great, superb and not to mention the negative effects,
They could choose to whistleblow also
What was the sample of bocchiiaros study
149 undergrads from VU university Amsterdam, 96 women, 53 men, mean age of 20.8 originally sample of 160 but 11 removed due to suspicions
What were researchers interested in bocchiaro
Difference in personal characteristics that differentiate those who whistle blow from those who obey
What was HEXACO-PI-R
Measures 6 dimensions of personality
- honesty/humility
- emotionality
- extroversion
- agreeableness
- conscientiousness
- openness
What’s the SVO
Nine item decomposed games measure
Based on choices, participants classified as pro ortientstion or individualistic orientation or competitive orientation
What were the predicted results of bocchiaro
138 students asked to imagine being in the research and asked what would you do
when asked what would you do, predicted 3.6 obedient, 31.9 disobedient and 64.5 whistle blower
What were the actual results of bocchiaro
Obedient 76.5%
Disobedient 14.1%
Whistle blower 9.4%
Where there any differences between personality and whistleblowers
No significant differences in personality traits except whistle blowers have more faith
What were conclusions of bocchiaro study
Behaving in moral manner is challenging for people even when this reaction appears to observers as the simplest path to follow
Discuss the ethics of bocchiaros
Consent sought twice, however not informed
Confidentiality upheld
Experienced high level of deception
Discuss validity of bocchiaro
Ecological- scenario was created to be as real life as possible
Concurrent-milgram, both showed high levels of obedience
Discuss reliability of bocchiaro
Yes-standardised and replicable procedure
Large sample said to show a consistent trend
Is bocchiaro enthoncentric
Netherlands
Suggests milgrams results on Americans doesn’t just apply to Americans
Does bocchiaro link to the individual situational debate
Link to situational-3.6% predicted they’d be obedient whereas 76.5% were obedient, suggests situation had strong effect
Individual-as not every one was affected by situation demonstrated by the 23.5% who were disobedient or whistle blowers, this suggests there are individual factors that enable some people to resist power of the situation
Does bocchiaro link to freewill determinism
Many were obedient, the situation had a determining influence on behaviour of participants
23.5 not obedient can be shown as freewill as they controlled their own behaviour
Why does bocchiaro link to social area
It’s confirming the influence of other people on our behaviour
Can also be linked to individual differences as bocchiaro openly interested in finding differences between individuals who obey and those who don’t (particular personality traits)
Why does bocchiaro link to responses to people in authority
People are as obedient now as they were in 1960s and people in Netherlands are as obedient as USA and people are more likely to be obedient than they think they are
How is bocchiaro similar to milgram
Recruited through self selection Received payment Took part individually Laboratory on uni campus High level of deception
How is bocchiaro different to milgram
- Milgram all male, bocchiaro had females
- Milgram didn’t know person being hurt, bocchiaro they were friends
- Bocchiaro participants given tools to disobey experimenter
What was piliavins aim
Investigate the impact on helping behaviour of a number of different variables:
Type of victim: drunk or ill
Race of victim: black or white
Someone setting example of help: modelling behaviour
Number of witnesses: relationship between levels of helping and no of people witnessing emergency
Where did piliavins study take place
New York independent subway trains, between 59th and 125th street, 11am till 3pm
What was procedure of piliavins
- 70s into journey the victim (stood next to pole in centre of critical area) collapsed
- remained lying until got help
How many trials did piliavin do
103 trials
More ill trails than drunk (65:38
What did the victim wear in piliavin
Male, wore Eisenhower jackets, old trousers but no tie
Drunk:smelled of liquor and carried liquor bottle
ill:appeared sober and had black cane
What were the model conditions in piliavins
Model always white aged 24 to 29, wore informal clothes
Critical early -model stood in critical area assisted 70s after collapse
Critical late - model stood in critical assisted after 150s after collapse
Adjacent early -model stood in adjacent helped after 70s
Adjacent late - stood in adjacent helped after 150s
What did the model in piliavins do
Provided assistance to victim by sitting them up and staying with them for remainder of journey
What was the job of observers in piliavin
Observer 1- noted race, sex, location of pass fee in critical, number who helped victims nd total number in carriage
Observer 2- noted race sex location of every passenger in adjacent, recorded latency (length of time) took for first helper to arrive
How many participants in piliavins
4450 men and women
Mean number in each carriage 43
45% black, 55% white
What were findings from piliavins
Type-cane received most spontaneous help 62/65, latency mean 5 seconds, drunk received spontaneous help 19/38, latency mean of 109 seconds
Race-black and white cane victims proportion of helpers of each race was 55-45, with drunk own race helped him
Effect of model- not much need for model, when intervened coming from adjacent or critical had no affect, but helping early did
Number of witnesses- victim helped faster when 7 or more in critical area
What was some qualitative data gathered in piliavins
Drunk condition had more comments
Many women said “I wish I could help but I’m not strong enough”, “it’s for men to help him”
What were the conclusions drawn from piliavins
- individuals whose ill more likely to receive help than drunk
- men more likely to help than women
- tendency for same race helping, especially if victim drunk
- help comes quickest and in greatest numbers when more witnesses present (no diffusion of responsibility)
- longer emergency continues the less impact a model has on helping behaviour
What is the cost reward analysis of responses in emergency situation
Costs of helping: effort, embarrassment, possible physical harm
Rewards of helping: praise from victim, self and others
Costs of not helping: self blame and received censure from others
Rewards of not helping: continuation of other activities
What research method did piliavin use
Field experiment as had independent and dependent variables, controls and carried out in real life setting
Snapshot study, as didn’t go back to same participants over time, as its snapshot can’t be sure you’d get same behaviour if study was done now
Was piliavin ethical
Participants deceived by the faking of an illness or drunk
Passengers did not consent
Passengers could withdraw by physically leaving critical area of carriage as a whole or emotionally by providing reason to not intervene
Protection, those that didn’t help may experience reduced sense of self worth
Confidentiality as did not name any passengers
Discuss validity of piliavin
- controlled extraneous variables, due to the confined setting of a train eg times they did trails and the train line
- ecological validity fairly true to life not uncommon situation, however the nature of the collapse very dramatic and being drunk at 11 in morning is questionable
Discuss reliability of piliavin
Large sample and standardised and replicable procedure
38 drunk trials may not be sufficient to show consistent effects
Didn’t get consistent results from the model conditions as spontaneous help was so large
Is piliavin ethnocentric
Carried out in one city, however New York is heterogeneous city and 45% were black so findings not from one ethnic group
However they all lived in same culture
Why does lilivanin,ink to freewill / determinism
Study suggest that in situation in which someone collapses because of illness it is highly likely people go to their aide, but cause 50% of drunk got help suggests that people have control over their behaviour
Why does piliavin link to reductionism / holism
Holistic as takes into account a range of different factors (physiological and cognitive) rather than just explaining behaviour as result of one factor alone
Reductionist as it misses out other reasons why people may help such as kindness and desire to help another person simply as they need it
Why does piliavin link to psychology as science
Inductive research as the theory piliavin developed about how people behave when witnessing emergency was developed from data they had collected and was an attempt to explain what they’d seen
Why does piliavin fall in social area
Investigating impact of other people on our hebauour and whether likelihood of someone helping out in an emergency situation is increased or decreased by known presence of other witnesses
Why does piliavin link key theme of responses to people in need
Study suggest that likelihood of being helped in emergency does not have to be reduced by there being many witnesses present, although may be affected by bystanders being able to see how other witnesses are behaving
What are the aim of Levines study
- see if tendency of people within city to offer non emergency help to strangers was stable across different situation in which people needed help
- see if helping strangers varies across cultures
- identify characteristics of those communities in which strangers are more or less likely to be helped
Where and when was the research for Levine done
In cities which had populations of more than 230,000
Administered in 2 or 3 locations in city centre districts, on clear days in summer months between 1992 and 1997
What were the 3 helping conditions used by confederates to gather data in Levine
Dropped pen-confederate walked towards solitary pedestrian passing in opposite direction, reach into pocket and pull hand out accidentally dropping pen in full view or pedestrian
Hurt leg-walk with heavy limp wearing leg brace, drop and unsuccessfully pick up magazines 20 feet away from pedestrian
Blind person-confederate dark glasses and white canes, located city intersections, just before like goes green step up to corner hold out cane and wait till help offered
How many trials were carried out for each condition in levines and what was considered as helping behaviour
Pen- 214 men, 210 women approached, recorded as helped if shouted out he dropped pen or picked up pen and gave it back
Leg- 252 men, 240 women approached, recorded as helped if offered to help or began helping without saying
Blind- 281 trials, recorded as helped if they informed confederate light was green
What sample was targeted during levines study
Individuals chosen, children younger than 17 and those who would not be capable of helping eg old or carrying packages were not targeted
Participants chosen randomly by approaching second particpant to cross ore determined line
What was a control in levines study
Confederates-trained and practised so all did it the same pace and way
What were the three top helping countries
Rio de Janeiro : 93.33%
SAN Jose, Costa Rica : 91.33
Lilongwe, Malawi : 86
Who were the three least helpful cities in levines study
Singapore : 48%
New York : 44.67%
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia : 40.33%
What did Levine conclude from the study
overall levels of helping behaviour across cultures are inversely related to countries economic productivity, and countries with cultural tradition of simpatico are on average more helpful than countries with no such tradition
What research method did Levine use
Correlation, as overall percentage of people helped in each city was treated as co variable against four other co variables (population size, purchasing power, collectivist/individualists city host country is, walking speed in city)
Discuss ethics of Levine
People did not consent to take part Deceived by genuineness of persons need Could not withdraw data No mention of debrief Did keep confidentiality and restrictions placed on those to be used
Discuss validity of Levine
High ecological-scenarios entirely plausible, field, confederates trainee by Fresno Friendship centre for blind
Low internal validity-members of public seen the repeats and got suspicious and so behaviour changed
Discuss reliability of Levine
Procedures highly standardised as “experimenters received both detailed instruction sheet and onsite field training”
Measured behaviour in three ways, show consistency
Large number of trials
Is Levine study ethnocentric
Cross cultural study, but imbalance of continents represented no data collected from Arabic countries
World cities which had wide range of cultures within them
Why does Levine link to individual situational
Levels of helping behaviour vary in different cities, Levine suggest culture is one aspect of the situation that can influence the chances of people engaging in helping behaviour
Helping levels highest with blind, something in this situation makes people more likely to help
Is levines study scientific
Replicable as did many repeats in many cities
Can easily go to Rio de Janerio and prove it’s false
Objective as clearly stated what was helping behaviour or not
Why does Levine fall in social area
Didn’t explicitly investigate likelihood of being helped in presence of others, but all 4 variables against which they correlated levels of helping behaviour were social
What does levines study show in regard to individual, social and cultural diversity
Significant cultural differences in levels of helping behaviour between different countries around world
How is levine similar to piliavin
Data collected in field
Neither had consent
Victim always male
How was levine different to piliavin
Levine is cross cultural, piliavin only completed in New York
Piliavin was snapshot Levine was over a few years
Piliavin had one scenario, Levine had 3 scenarios
