Social area; Milgram, Piliavin, Bocchiaro, Levine Flashcards
Milgram - What was the aim/Background of the study?
.Wanted to see how far people would obey instructions, based of background of Germans in WWII see if they were just bad people.
Milgram - What was the sample of the study?
40 males, aged from 20 - 50, range of jobs
Milgram - How was the sample collected?
.Volunteered (self selecting) for “learning experiment advertised in newspaper (deception), paid £4,50
Milgram - What was the method?
.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.
Milgram - What where the prods?
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
Milgram - what where the results?
65% = 450v 100% = 300v
Milgram - Name some evaluation points?
- Biased sample (only men)
- Volunteer personality self selecting sample
- Deception / protection of participants
+ Debrief
Piliavin - What was the aim/Background of the study?
.Investigate diffusion of responsibility’s after the murder of Kitty Genovese with many bystanders
Piliavin - What was the sample of the study?
.People getting the New York subway.
Piliavin - What is diffusion of responsibility
.Where many people see an incident thinking the other people will deal with it removing responsibility from themselves.
Piliavin - What did the teams consist off?
.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.
Piliavin - What was the method?
.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.
Piliavin - What were the results?
.Cane = 62/65
.Drunk = 19/38
.Men more likely then women
.60% of cases more then one person helped.
Piliavin - What was the evaluation?
- All male victims not generalisable
- Psychological harm, debrief, consent, withdraw
+ Several different conditions added to validity.
Bocchiaro - What was the aim/background of the study?
.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
Bocchiaro - What is the two sample’s of the study?
- 138 undergraduates from VU uni Amsterdam (M/F)
2. 149 undergraduates from VU uni Amsterdam (96W / 53M)
Bocchiaro - How were the samples recruited?
.Volunteer sampling posting flyers on campus cafeteria
Bocchiaro - What where the first sample asked to do?
.Given details about the study and conver story and asked how they would react.
Bocchiaro - what was the second (main) sample asked to do (procedure)?
.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
Bocchiaro - what was the cover story?
.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
Bocchiaro - what did the debrief consist off?
.Full debrief of the real study
.asked to sign consent form
Bocchiaro - what were the results of the study?
First group - 3.6% obey, 64.5% whistleblowers , 31.9% disobedient
Second group - 76.5% obey, 14.1% whistleblowers , 9.4% disobedient
Bocchiaro - Evaluation?
+Internal validity - Lab study
+Ethics - debrief
- Ethics - Psycholgical harm
Levine - What was the aim/background of the study?
.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
Levine - What was the sample of the study?
.People around the helping area in each city.
Levine - What was the three procedures of the study?
- Accidentally dropping pen/ help = tell person they dropped it or pick it up and give it to them
- Experimenter with limp and leg brace drops magazine /help = offering to pick up or acc picking up.
- Blind person at green light waiting to go/ help = minimum informed person light was green.
Levine - What where the 4 variables cultures were measured by?
.Population size
.Economic indicators
.Individualism / collectivism
.Downtown walking speed (pace of life)
Levine - What were the results?
.Economic higher capita = less help
.Sympatia (Brazil Spain etc) countries = more helpful
Levine - What is a Simpatia country?
.Prioritising amiable social behaviours and being friendly
Levine - evaluation?
- Low internal reliability (can’t standardise)
+High ecological validity
+Not ethnocentric and no sampling bias
