Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSYCHOLOGY- CASE STUDIES/PERSPECTIVES > SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY > Flashcards

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Flashcards

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

What were the aims of Milgrams experiment?

A

Investigate what levels of obedience would be shown by Ps when asked by an authority figure, even where the commands would breach the moral code that an individual should not hurt another person against his will

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

What was the sample for Milgrams study?

A

40 males Ps aged between 20-50 years
From New Haven (obtained through a newspaper advert-volunteer)
Range of occupations (engineers, teachers, etc)
Paid $4.50

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

What is the word for an all male sample?

A

Andocentric

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

What is the word for an all female sample?

A

Gynocentric

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

Strengths of Milgrams study

A

Volunteer sample
Rich in Ps=quicker

Less likely to have sample attrition (dropping out)
They are being paid and they have volunteered
Range of occupations=increase in population validity

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

Weaknesses of Milgrams study

A

Self-selected//similar group of people + all males (andocentric) so can’t see female obedience

They were deceived (they were testing obedience not memory)=unethical

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

What were the prods used by the experimenter in Milgrams study?

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

Simplified procedure for Milgram

A
  1. Tell Ps they are taking part in a study for memory, locate them role as ‘teacher’
  2. Both Ps given a 45V shock, then separate teacher from learner
  3. Teacher would ask Q and if answered wrong shock administered (predetermined response played)
  4. As shock increases, intensity of response increases
  5. 4 prods used by experimenter to encourage teacher. Teacher was debriefed after
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Quantitative results gathered by Milgram

A

100% of Ps shocked ‘learner’ to 300V

65% of Ps went up to 450V (no response from learner)

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

PEC evaluation of Milgram

A

P-main strength was the amount of control he was able to administer
E-eg; Ps beloved they were being randomly assigned to either ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’, believed they were actually administrating shocks, all used the same apparatus, had the same prods
C-due to this control, the study has high reliability because procedure was consistent

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

Aims of Bocchiaro’s study

A

Investigate rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in the situation of no physical violence was involved- but instructions were ethically wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bocchiaro’s method

A

Initially he conducted 8 pilot studies, involving 92 Ps

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the sample for Bocchiaro?

A

Undergraduates from the University of Amsterdam
Initially tested 92 students from here and then a further 149 students were tested for main study
Ratio of women to men=96:53

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

Results from Bocchiaro

A

-Only 3.6% of Ps in comparison group believed they would obey and 64% beloved they would blow the whistle. The remaining 31.9% beloved they would disobey

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

What are strengths of Bocchiaro using a lab experiment?

A

P-repeatable
E-less ex. variables (alone without distractions from other Ps standardised instructions
C-increase in internal validity

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

Evaluation of Bocchiaro

Strengths and weaknesses

A

Strength:
P-quantitative data, comparable
E-he could compare predictions of disobedience with actual results can compare statistics
C-strength because you can make objective conclusions to who blew the whistle

Weakness:
P-lack of qualitative data
E-by just using data, unable to identify why people with a deeper faith are more obedient
C-weakness because there is little info to explain behaviour

17
Q

What is a similarity between Milgram and Bocchiaro?

A

Quantitative data
M-65% males went to 450V
B-76.5% obeyed and only 9.4% blew the whistle
Can create an objective conclusion

18
Q

What was a difference between Milgram and Bocchiaro?

A

B=more ethical
M-high in stress as Ps ordered to inflict harm on others, and by having a person of authority in their company the Ps were more likely to comply
However B did not order Ps to inflict harm and were not encouraged to carry on by prods

19
Q

Aims of Piliavins study

A
  1. Test bystander behaviour in a real life setting (New York subway)
  2. To see the effect of the type of victim on helping behaviour
  3. See the effect of modelling on help of behaviour
  4. See the effect of group size (diffusion of responsibility) on helping behaviour
20
Q

What was the method used by Piliavin and independent variables?

A

Study is a field experiment (IV still manipulated but in natural setting)
IV:
-type of victim (drunk or cane)
-race of victim
-size of witnessing group (naturally occurring)

21
Q

What dependent variables were used by Piliavin?

A
  • number of people who helped
  • time taken to help
  • gender
  • location of helpers
22
Q

What was the sample for Piliavin?

A

4500 men and women with varying ages

Racial comparison=45% black and 55% white

23
Q

Procedure of Piliavin

A

Each trial had 2 female observers and 2 male observer- one acting as victim, one as model

24
Q

What were the four conditions for Piliavin?

A

Critical area- early
-model stood in critical area and helped after 70 seconds
Critical area- late
-model stood in CA and helped after 150 seconds
Adjacent area- early
-model stood in adjacent area and helped after 70 seconds
Adjacent area- late
-model stood in AA and helped after 150 seconds

25
Q

What were the results from Piliavin?

A
  • Cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time compared to drunk victim 50%
  • Overall cane victim was helped 100%of the time, whereas drunk=81%
  • 90%of helpers were males suggesting women are less likely to help in emergency situations
  • No diffusion of responsibility was found
26
Q

Evaluation of Piliavin

A

Strengths:
P-field experiment, natural setting
E-NY subway
C-ecological validity-can be generalised to other real world settings
P-qual. and quantitative data
E-eg: gender of helpers (90%) and comments ‘wish I could help’
C-explains who helps and why=increases usefulness

Weaknesses:
P-cannot control ex. variables
E-age may affects how someone responds
C-affects DV and lacks face validity
P-breaks ethical guidelines
E-consent not gained as on NY subway for a short period of time
C-justified because a decrease in demand Cs=increase in face validity

27
Q

Aims of Levine’s study

A
  1. Establish if the tendency of people to help strangers is universal or dependent on characteristics of the city
  2. Test whether the helping of strangers varies between cultures
  3. Investigate whether the particular characteristics of a community, such as city size, are associated with the tendency to help strangers
28
Q

What was the method for Levine?

A

Study was both file and quasi and cross cultural (as comparing people in a range of countries)
=increases population validity
However it is expensive to travel/employ world wide

29
Q

What was the sample for Levine?

A

23 countries, such as Austria, Brazil and China.
Total number of Ps= 1,198, done through opportunity sampling
Participants not tested include children, elderly, and visible physical disabilities

30
Q

What was the procedure for Levine?

A

To reduce ex. variables the experimenters were all male and didn’t speak to the Ps.

Dropped pen- second person to cross line=participant (same for every condition)
DV-if Ps gives pen back or calls to experimenter

Hurt leg- DV=offered to help or beginning to help[ with no verbal offer

Helping blind person cross street- DV=if Ps helped cross the street or at least informed experimenter that lights green

31
Q

What are community variables and what were they in Levine’s study?

A

Variables that can’t change

  • population size (taken from United Nations Demographic yearbook)
  • economic prosperity
  • cultural values (simpatia or non-simpatia)
  • pace of life
32
Q

What were results from Levine’s study?

A
  • mean rate of helping for simpatia countries was 82.87% compared to 65.87% in non-simpatia countries
  • helping was not found to be related to population size
  • as economic wealth increased, help decreased=negative correlation of -0.43
33
Q

Conclusions from Levine’s study

A

Helping behaviour in non-emergency situations is not universal but varies between cities
Poorer the country=higher level of helps

34
Q

Strength of Levine’s study

A

P-strength=field ex.=increase in ecological validity
E-in this study, non emergency situations were tested in real life situations in the largest cities from the 23 collected countries (including Austria and China)
C-this means we can generalise results to predict that people would or wouldn’t be likely to show the same levels of helping behaviour around the cities that were tested when someone else requires help in non emergency situations

35
Q

What was an issue with Bocchiaros sample?

A

P-not a balance between men and women
E-96 women, 53 men
C-unable to collect an even amount of data for a comparison

36
Q

Procedure of Bocchiaros study

A
  • Paid 7 euros or course credit
    1. Arrived alone and met by stern experimenter, said research was about sensory deprivation
    2. Each P was instructed to write a statement to convince other other students to take part in the sensory deprivation procedure
  • told they needed to use at least two words from choice of ‘exciting’, ‘incredible’, ‘great’ and ‘superb’
  • told not to mention any negative effects of sensory deprivation
    3. Offered regular paid work in the future
    4. Ps taken into second room and left in room to compose their statement
  • if P believed the study was unethical they, therefore had the option of completing a form and putting it in the mailbox
37
Q

What was assessed in Bocchiaros study?

A

Obedience/disobedience-whether or not Ps composed the statement
Whistle-blowing-whether they competed an ethics form and mailed it

PSYCHOLOGY- CASE STUDIES/PERSPECTIVES (7 decks)

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