Social Psychology

Question 1

What was the background and aim of Milgram’s study?

Answer 1

• Parents were killed in concentration camps
• Wanted to find out if obedient behaviour of German SS officers in WW2 was different than in America
• Aim: to investigate how far people will go in obeying an authority figure when the instructions given are morally wrong

Hitler could not have put plans into action without obedience of thousands: do Germans have a personality defect? – readiness to obey authority without question

Question 2

What method did Milgram use, and who was his sample?

Answer 2

• Lab experiment - however has no IV but has DV; could be described as a controlled observational study
  
  • ​DV: max. shock (quantitative) and behaviour (qualitative)
  • also included a minor questionnaire and interview
• Self-selected sample
  
  • 40 males aged 20-50
  • mixed occupations
  • obtained through newspaper ad with offer of $4.50

Question 3

Describe the confederates and apparatus used in Milgram’s study

Answer 3

• Confederates:
  
  • 31-year-old high school biology teacher wearing a grey technician’s coat, with an impassive manner and somewhat stern appearance
  • 47-year-old accountant of Irish-American stock, trained for the role, generally found to be likeable
• Shock generator with switches from 15-450V
  
  • 315V - Extreme Intensity Shock
  • 375V - Danger: Severe Shock
  • 435V - XXX

Question 4

Describe the procedure for Milgram’s study

Answer 4

1. Subjects were told the topic of study was the effect of punishment on memory (in Yale University), and drew paper slips with the confederate to allocate parts of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ (rigged, subject always teacher)
2. Confederate strapped into chair and electrodes connected
3. Subject lead to another room with the shock generator switches
4. Subject given a sample shock of 45V to convince the subject of the authenticity
5. Subject read out word pairs, then read out one word and four possible pairs; learner selected correct pair using switches that lit up the number of his answer
6. Subject had to shock the learner for an incorrect answer, with increasing voltage each time
7. Learner complained of heart trouble and demanded to be let out, stopped giving answers after 300V
8. Experimenter (in a lab coat) used a series of ‘prods’ if the subject expressed a wish to discontinue the experiment

Question 5

What were the 4 prods the experimenter used when the subject expressed a wish to discontinue the experiment? (Milgram study on obedience)

Answer 5

1. Please continue or Please go on
2. The experiment requires that you continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must go on

If subject said the learner did not want to go on:

1. Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.

Question 6

What were the results of Milgram’s study?

Answer 6

• 26/40 (65%) went to the highest voltage
  
  • 5 stopped after 300V
  • 4 stopped after 315V
  • 2 stopped after 330V
  • 1 each 345-375V
• Nervous laughter - three had ‘full-blown seizures’, one so violent the experiment was halted
• High tension - subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh

Question 7

What can be concluded about obedience from Milgram’s study?

Answer 7

• Anyone can show this level of obedience (not specific to Germans)
• However, tension and stress may arise if the orders go against morals
• The prestigious location (Yale), scientific grounds and dress (lab coat) of the experimenter increased obedience (other studies were done outside of Yale and with the experiment casually dressed)
• Payment did not affect obedience as such (subjects were told payment was simply for coming to the lab and not for whatever happens in the experiment; the experiment had been run with unpaid undergraduates with similar results)
• Agentic state - the experimenter has the responsibility, the subject is the tool and just follows orders

Question 8

Evaluate Milgram’s study

Answer 8

• Generalisation: no, small sample (40), all educated, volunteering-personality males from New Haven, not representative of target population
• Reliability: high, shown by Germans and other experiments done by Milgram
• Validity: high, good way of measuring
• Ecological validity: low due to lab setting and ridiculous task, high as setting and personnel looked authentic
• Ethics: low - deception, psychological harm, subjects not screened for medical issues; however, high - debriefing, right to withdraw, follow-up questionnaire one year after
• Usefulness: high, changes attitude to authority and obedience

Question 9

What was the background and aim of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 9

• High recidivism (reoffending) rates show prisons neither rehabilitate nor act as a deterrent for future crime, and are ‘bad’ places - but why?
• Aim: challenge the dispositional hypothesis that ‘the state of the social institution of prison is due to the “nature” of the people who administrate it, or the “nature” of the people who populate it, or both’, and instead put forward a situational hypothesis.
• This is part of the nature/nurture debate

Question 10

What method was used in Zimbardo’s prison study?

Answer 10

Lab experiment - a simulated prison in the basement of a Stanford University building

• IV: role - prisoner/guard
• DV: interactions between and within groups (recorded on audio and video tape and directly observed), reactions on questionnaires, mood inventories, personality tests, daily guard shift reports and post experimental interviews

Question 11

Who was Zimbardo’s sample?

Answer 11

Self-selected sample

• 75 males responded to a newspaper ad offering $15 per day for participation in ‘a psychological study of prison “life”’
• 24 subjects selected after extensive psychological screening
• 2 reserves were not needed, 1 person pulled out
• 10 prisoners and 11 guards used (roles were randomly assigned)

Question 12

Describe the physical aspects of Zimbardo’s simulated prison environment

Answer 12

• 35-foot section of a basement corridor in psych building at Stanford
• small cells (6x9 ft.) made from laboratory rooms with doors replaced by steel barred, black painted ones, and all furniture removed
• prisoners given a cot with mattress, sheet and pillow
• solitary confinement: small (2x2x7 ft.), unlighted closet
• several rooms in the adjacent wing of the building used as guard’s quarters, bedroom for warden and superintendent, interview-testing room
• yard was an enclosed room representing fenced prison grounds
• observation screen at one end of the yard

Question 13

Describe the uniforms of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s study

Answer 13

Prisoners:

• loose fitting muslin smock with id number on front & back (deindividuating), no underwear (emasculating)
• light chain and lock around one ankle (reminder of oppressiveness)
• rubber sandals
• nylon stocking cap (removed distinctiveness, like shaving hair)

Guards:

• plain khaki shirts and trousers (military attitude)
• whistle, police night stick (symbols of control and power)
• reflecting sunglasses (eye contact impossible)

The use of uniforms was to promote feelings of anonymity, reduce individual uniqueness and enhance group identity

Question 14

Describe the induction procedure for the prisoners in Zimbardo’s study

Answer 14

• arrested by real police on Sunday morning at the subject’s home (embarrassing as neighbours looked on)
• charged for burglary or armed robbery, read their legal rights, handcuffed, searched and driven to the police station
• police avoided answering questions about the prison study
• fingerprinted, ID file, placed in detention cell, blindfolded then driven to mock prison by an experimenter and guard
• at prison, stripped, deloused, made to stand alone naked in the yard before given uniform and mug shot taken
• after all prisoners were put in cells, warden read the rules

Question 15

Describe the treatment the prisoners received during Zimbardo’s study

Answer 15

• “count” three times a day (once on each of three guard shifts) - prisoners tested on rules and ID numbers (counts increased in duration as guards became more hostile)
• after the first day, guards established “rewards” (eat, sleep, toilet, talking, smoking, eyeglasses) and “punishments” (confinement, no meals)
• prisoners were generally harassed by the guards
• rebellion on 2^nd morning dealt with by using fire extinguishers, stripping the prisoners naked, taking the beds out and forcing some prisoners into confinement

Question 16

Describe the behavioural results shown by the guards in Zimbardo’s study

Answer 16

• always showed up on time for work, voluntarily working with no overtime pay
• active role assumed in interactions, with verbal agression
• not all guards resorted to hostility, but none objected to hostile behaviour of other guards
• most hostile guards spontaneously took leadership roles
• talked about prison topics in break times
• agression not only in response to perceived threats - a guard vigorously pounded his nightstick into his hand while watching over the sleeping prisoners
• pathology of power demonstrated - control was exhilarating
• most guards appeared distressed when experiment was stopped early

Question 17

Describe the behavioural results shown by the prisoners in Zimbardo’s study

Answer 17

• as experiment progressed, intentions to do harm to others were expressed more frequently
• self-evaluations were more deprecating as the experience of prison life became internalised
• zombie-like, learned helplessness due to dependency on guards
• five prisoners had to be released due to extreme depression, crying, rage and acute anxiety, and in one case a psychosomatic rash
• private conversations almost all (90%) related to prison conditions
• 3/5 prisoners willing to forfeit money for early parole after four days, and did not object when told that discussions with staff must be held before a decision was made
• prisoners deprecated each other in interviews
• some prisoners were ‘obedient’, one coped by refusing to eat, others became ‘sick’ as a passive way of demanding attention and help
• all prisoners were delighted by the experiment stopping early

Question 18

What can be concluded from Zimbardo’s simulated prison study?

Answer 18

• both groups conformed to and believed their roles, and went beyond the expectations of role-playing
• as all subjects were similar, ‘good’ people, this proves that situational factors determined the subjects’ behaviour rather than dispositional factors, though there were some individual differences

Question 19

Evaluate Zimbardo’s study

Answer 19

• Generalisation: yes, as all prisoners were similar, proving situational factors affect everyone
• Reliability: high, as other experiments support the situational hypothesis
• Validity: possibly low as Zimbardo acted as the warden and so became a subject, not objective
• Ecological validity: high, due to close resemblance to a real prison, confirmed by real ex-prisoner
• Ethics: low, extreme emotional distress, no immediate right to withdraw; however, high as consent given, explicit instructions for no physical harm, subjects informed to expect no privacy and some basic civil rights suspended, subjects were debriefed
• Usefulness: high, as demonstrates flaw in penal system and that there should be a limit to power

Question 20

What was the background and aim of Piliavin’s study?

Answer 20

• 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese and apparent apathy of 32 witnesses
• Darley and Latené
• Aims:
  
  • ​test diffusion of responsibility in the field by examining relationship between size of group and frequency and latency of helping (Darley and Latené only in lab)
  • look at effect of type and race of victim on speed, frequency and race of responder(s)
  • investigate impact of modelling in emergency situations

Question 21

What method did Piliavin use, and who was the sample?

Answer 21

• Field experiment and non-participant, naturalistic observation: New York subway on trains between 59^th and 125^th street (weekdays 11am - 3pm) (7.5 minute ride)
  
  • IVs: type of victim, race of victim, modelling
  • DVs: frequency, speed, race, sex of helpers
• Self-selected sample (naïve)
  
  • ​4450 men and women
  • 45% black and 55% white

Question 22

Describe the procedure for Piliavin’s study

Answer 22

• 103 trials run by four different teams (65 cane, 38 drunk)
• 2 male and 2 female Columbia General Studies students

1. team boarded train using different doors
2. females sat outside critical area and observed, males stood, victim next to a pole in the center of the critical area
3. after first station (70 seconds) victim staggered forward, collapsed and remained supine on the floor looking at the ceiling until help given by bystander or model (in model condition)
4. if no help given on train’s arrival, model helped him to his feet
5. team disembarked and went on train in opposite direction (all trials on a given day were in the same victim condition)

Question 23

Describe the victims used in Pilliavin’s study

Answer 23

• Gender and age: males aged 26-35
• Race: three white, one black
• Dress: Eisenhower jackets, old slacks, no tie
• Conditions:
  
  • ‘drunk’ - on 38 trials, victims smelled of liquor and carried a liquor bottle wrapped in a brown bag
  • ‘cane’ - on 65 trials, victims appeared sober and carried a black cane

Question 24

State the model conditions used in Piliavin’s study, and describe the behaviour of the models

Answer 24

1. Critical area - early (4th station / 70 seconds after victim collapse)
2. Critical area - late (6th station / 150 seconds after victim collapse)
3. Adjacent area - early
4. Adjacent area - late

• model raised victim to a sitting position and appeared to need further assistance
• stayed with victim until train’s arrival

Question 25

List the observations made in Piliavin’s study

Answer 25

1st observer:

• Race, sex and location of people in critical area
• Total no. of people in the car
• Total no. of helpers
• Race, sex and location of every helper

2nd observer:

• Race, sex and location of people in adjacent area
• Latency of first helper after collapse and (when appropiate) after model assistance

Both recorded:

• comments made, and tried to elicit comments from a rider sitting next to them

Question 26

Describe the results of Piliavin’s study

Answer 26

• Cane: spontaneous help on 62/65 (95%) trials
  
  • mean helping time 5 seconds
• Drunk: spontaneous help on 19/38 (50%) trials
  
  • mean helping time 109 seconds
• 90% of first helpers were male
• 64% of first helpers were white
  
  • 68% white first helped white victim
  • 50% white first helped black victim
• Less same-race helping than expected, but more prominent in drunk condition
• More than one spontaneous helper on 60% of spontaneously helped trials
• Total of 34 critical area leavers on 21 trials, more likely on drunk trials and when help was not offered before 70 seconds
• Comments included not knowing what to do; women commented they were not strong
• No diffusion of responsibility

Question 27

What did Piliavin conclude from his subway study?

Answer 27

• emotional arousal state in bystanders, reduced by:
  
  1. helping or getting help
  2. leaving the scene
  3. rejecting the victim as undeserving of help
• cost-reward matrix (selfish, not altruistic motives)
  
  • costs to help (effort, time, embarassment, disgust, harm) / not (self-blame)
  • rewards to help (praise, good feelings) / not (continue other activities)
• diffusion of responsibility not found as costs for helping are low and for not helping are high (more investigation needed)
• late model elicits less help as people have already reduced arousal by other methods

Question 28

Evaluate Piliavin’s study

Answer 28

• Generalisation: yes, large sample, ethnically and gender mixed
• Reliability: high, can be replicated
• Validity: low, some people may have seen trial twice due to typical travel plans, enclosed environment so forced to help
• Ecological validity: high, field experiment, naturalistic observation
• Ethics: low, no consent, emotional arousal causing stress
• Usefulness: high, adds to academic knowledge about helping behaviour and diffusion of responsibility, explains reasons for helping

Question 29

What was the background and aim of Tajfel’s study?

Answer 29

• Study by Muzafer Sherif (1956) suggested prejudice arose as a consequence of competition
• Tajfel believed that even a perception of grouping can produce discrimination
• Aim: Test hypothesis that ‘we are likely to act in a manner that discriminates against the outgroup and favours the ingroup
  
  • Study 1: test hypothesis on basis of categorisation into minimal groups
  • Study 2: validate study 1 using different critera for categorisation

Question 30

What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?

Answer 30

• Prejudice is an attitude, and “may be socially learned or due to tendencies to conform”
• Discrimination is the act of favouring one group over another, and is “a function of the objective social situation”

Question 31

What method did Tajfel use, and who was the sample?

Answer 31

• Lab experiment: at the University of Bristol
  
  • IV: grouping (randomly allocated)
  • DV: choice of points allocated on matrices
• Repeated measures design (as all boys are both in-group and out-group, and each judged against their relevant out-group)
• Probably opportunity sampling (not specified):
  
  • Study 1: 64 boys aged 14-15 from a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol (from the same house in the same form, so they knew each other well)
  • Study 2: 48 boys from the same school as Study 1

Question 32

Describe the procedure for study 1 in Tajfel’s Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination

Answer 32

• Boys came in separate groups of 8
• Brought to lecture room and told that the experimenters were studying visual judgements, and flashed 40 clusters of varying numbers of dots on a screen
• Two conditions told to the subjects
  
  • Over- and under-estimators
  • Better and worse accuracy
• Boys told which group they were in (actually random allocation of group)
• Boys worked in cubicles filling in booklet to allocate rewards and penalties (1 point = 0.1p)
  
  • booklet contained 18 sets of matrices
  • one matrix had 14 boxes with two rows
  • never reward/penalise themselves
  • unknown identity by code number
• Three possible options:
  
  • Ingroup choices: both matrix rows referred to members of the ingroup
  • Outgroup choices: both matrix rows referred to members of the outgroup
  • Intergroup choices: One row referred to a boy of the ingroup, the other row referred to a boy of the outgroup.

Question 33

Describe the results shown by study 1 in Tajfel’s Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination​

Answer 33

• fair allocation for ingroup and outgroup choices
• favoured ingroup member in intergroup choices
• choices were ranked from 1 to 14 (1 being maximum given on first row, 14 being maximum given on second row)
  
  • 7.5 for ingroup and outgroup
  • 9.2 for intergroup (significant difference)

Question 34

Describe the procedure for study 2 in Tajfel’s Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination

Answer 34

• Boys came in groups of 16
• Boys shown 6 slides of Klee paintings and 6 slides of Kandinsky paintings (validating Study 1 by using different group division criteria) (was actually done arbitrarily)
• Boys worked in cubicles filling in booklet to allocate rewards and penalties (1 point = 0.1p)
  
  • never reward/penalise themselves
  • unknown identity by code number
• Same as study 1: ingroup, outgroup, intergroup
• Matrices differently structured to investigate three variables:
  
  • Maximum joint profit (MJP)
  • Maximum ingroup profit (MIP)
  • Maximum difference (MD)
• Two types of matrix:
  
  1. MIP one end, MJP at other end, MD mirrored
  2. MIP and MJP at same end, MD mirrored

Question 35

Describe the results shown by study 2 in Tajfel’s Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination​

Answer 35

• Strong effect of MIP and MD against MJP (type A matrices)
• Strong effect of MD against MIP and MJP (type B matrices)
• MD had strongest effect overall

Question 36

What can be concluded from Tajfel’s Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination?

Answer 36

• Discriminatory behaviour can be induced by categorisation on unimportant criteria
• Discrimnation works for maximum difference between the ingroup and outgroup
• Choices made were a compromise between “groupness” and “fairness”
• However, this is a reductionist explanation as many other factors can affect discrimnatory behaviour

Question 37

Evaluate Tajfel’s study

Answer 37

• Generalisation: no, only boys, all same age, same school therefore similar attitudes
• Reliability: high, similar results for both studies
• Validity: low, demand characteristics
• Ecological validity: low, lab experiment, unusual task (could be amended by e.g. looking at discrimination in hiring for jobs)
• Ethics: low, deception, no debriefing; however, high as no harm done
• Usefulness: high, supports social identity theory (favouring ingroup for increaased self esteem), reveals causes for prejudice