Social area; Milgram, Piliavin, Bocchiaro, Levine

Question 1

Milgram - What was the aim/Background of the study?

Answer 1

.Wanted to see how far people would obey instructions, based of background of Germans in WWII see if they were just bad people.

Question 2

Milgram - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 2

40 males, aged from 20 - 50, range of jobs

Question 3

Milgram - How was the sample collected?

Answer 3

.Volunteered (self selecting) for “learning experiment advertised in newspaper (deception), paid £4,50

Question 4

Milgram - What was the method?

Answer 4

.Start participant met another participant (actor), drew straws for learner and teacher (fixed).
.Learner strapped in chair to be shocked for not getting answer right by the teacher.
.Teacher told by authority figure dressed in grey lab coat to increase the voltage each time from 15v - 450v (30 switches).
.Learner gave mainly wrong answers, would scream, however if the teacher stopped they would be given prods by the authority figure.

Question 5

Milgram - What where the prods?

Answer 5

1 - Please continue
2 - The experiment requires you to continue
3 - It is absolutely essential that you continue
4 - You have no other choice but to continue

Question 6

Milgram - what where the results?

Answer 6

65% = 450v 
100% = 300v

Question 7

Milgram - Name some evaluation points?

Answer 7

• Biased sample (only men)
• Volunteer personality self selecting sample
• Deception / protection of participants
  + Debrief

Question 8

Piliavin - What was the aim/Background of the study?

Answer 8

.Investigate diffusion of responsibility’s after the murder of Kitty Genovese with many bystanders

Question 9

Piliavin - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 9

.People getting the New York subway.

Question 10

Piliavin - What is diffusion of responsibility

Answer 10

.Where many people see an incident thinking the other people will deal with it removing responsibility from themselves.

Question 11

Piliavin - What did the teams consist off?

Answer 11

.Teams of 4 (2m and 2f) (3 different teams), 2 females took the seats and made notes, while male victim and model stood near pole at centre of train.
.4 victims were male 3white and one black, as either a drunk or sober with a cane.

Question 12

Piliavin - What was the method?

Answer 12

.After passing the first station the victim collapsed, in the help condition the model helped him, in the no help he didn’t. There were 4 different help conditions; Critical area early 70 seconds, Critical area late 150 seconds, Adjacent area early 70 seconds, adjacent area late 150 seconds.

Question 13

Piliavin - What were the results?

Answer 13

.Cane = 62/65
.Drunk = 19/38
.Men more likely then women
.60% of cases more then one person helped.

Question 14

Piliavin - What was the evaluation?

Answer 14

• All male victims not generalisable
• Psychological harm, debrief, consent, withdraw
  + Several different conditions added to validity.

Question 15

Bocchiaro - What was the aim/background of the study?

Answer 15

.To study the idea of whistleblowing and who will and won’t blow the whistle
.To understand the personal and situational factors involved in disobedience

Question 16

Bocchiaro - What is the two sample’s of the study?

Answer 16

1. 138 undergraduates from VU uni Amsterdam (M/F)

2. 149 undergraduates from VU uni Amsterdam (96W / 53M)

Question 17

Bocchiaro - How were the samples recruited?

Answer 17

.Volunteer sampling posting flyers on campus cafeteria

Question 18

Bocchiaro - What where the first sample asked to do?

Answer 18

.Given details about the study and conver story and asked how they would react.

Question 19

Bocchiaro - what was the second (main) sample asked to do (procedure)?

Answer 19

.P’s (participants) shown the cover story
.Experimenter left for 3 mins allowing P’s to reflect
.P’s moved 2nd room with computer to write enthusiastic statement, not to mention negative effects.
.left P’s in room for 7 mins, where they could whistleblow by putting a form in the mailbox.
.Debrief

Question 20

Bocchiaro - what was the cover story?

Answer 20

.Experimenter investigating sensory deprivation on brain function, with isolated study with 6 participants.
.Disastrous effects; panic, cognitive abilities impaired, hallucinations, weren’t allowed to stop.
.Same study would be done at the university, so participants, asked to convince specific students to take part

Question 21

Bocchiaro - what did the debrief consist off?

Answer 21

.Full debrief of the real study

.asked to sign consent form

Question 22

Bocchiaro - what were the results of the study?

Answer 22

First group - 3.6% obey, 64.5% whistleblowers , 31.9% disobedient
Second group - 76.5% obey, 14.1% whistleblowers , 9.4% disobedient

Question 23

Bocchiaro - Evaluation?

Answer 23

+Internal validity - Lab study
+Ethics - debrief
- Ethics - Psycholgical harm

Question 24

Levine - What was the aim/background of the study?

Answer 24

.Identify differences (with helping) with cultures
.Identify country level variables that might relate to differences in helping
.To see if cities are inherently less helpful due to population size, and see if this carrie across cultures

Question 25

Levine - What was the sample of the study?

Answer 25

.People around the helping area in each city.

Question 26

Levine - What was the three procedures of the study?

Answer 26

1. Accidentally dropping pen/ help = tell person they dropped it or pick it up and give it to them
2. Experimenter with limp and leg brace drops magazine /help = offering to pick up or acc picking up.
3. Blind person at green light waiting to go/ help = minimum informed person light was green.

Question 27

Levine - What where the 4 variables cultures were measured by?

Answer 27

.Population size
.Economic indicators
.Individualism / collectivism
.Downtown walking speed (pace of life)

Question 28

Levine - What were the results?

Answer 28

.Economic higher capita = less help

.Sympatia (Brazil Spain etc) countries = more helpful

Question 29

Levine - What is a Simpatia country?

Answer 29

.Prioritising amiable social behaviours and being friendly

Question 30

Levine - evaluation?

Answer 30

• Low internal reliability (can’t standardise)
  +High ecological validity
  +Not ethnocentric and no sampling bias