SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Flashcards
What were the aims of Milgrams experiment?
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
What was the sample for Milgrams study?
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
What is the word for an all male sample?
Andocentric
What is the word for an all female sample?
Gynocentric
Strengths of Milgrams study
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
Weaknesses of Milgrams study
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
What were the prods used by the experimenter in Milgrams study?
- Please continue
- The experiment requires that you continue
- It is absolutely essential that you continue
- You have no other choice, you must go on
Simplified procedure for Milgram
- Tell Ps they are taking part in a study for memory, locate them role as ‘teacher’
- Both Ps given a 45V shock, then separate teacher from learner
- Teacher would ask Q and if answered wrong shock administered (predetermined response played)
- As shock increases, intensity of response increases
- 4 prods used by experimenter to encourage teacher. Teacher was debriefed after
Quantitative results gathered by Milgram
100% of Ps shocked ‘learner’ to 300V
65% of Ps went up to 450V (no response from learner)
PEC evaluation of Milgram
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
Aims of Bocchiaro’s study
Investigate rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in the situation of no physical violence was involved- but instructions were ethically wrong
Bocchiaro’s method
Initially he conducted 8 pilot studies, involving 92 Ps
What was the sample for Bocchiaro?
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
Results from Bocchiaro
-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
What are strengths of Bocchiaro using a lab experiment?
P-repeatable
E-less ex. variables (alone without distractions from other Ps standardised instructions
C-increase in internal validity
Evaluation of Bocchiaro
Strengths and weaknesses
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
What is a similarity between Milgram and Bocchiaro?
Quantitative data
M-65% males went to 450V
B-76.5% obeyed and only 9.4% blew the whistle
Can create an objective conclusion
What was a difference between Milgram and Bocchiaro?
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
Aims of Piliavins study
- Test bystander behaviour in a real life setting (New York subway)
- To see the effect of the type of victim on helping behaviour
- See the effect of modelling on help of behaviour
- See the effect of group size (diffusion of responsibility) on helping behaviour
What was the method used by Piliavin and independent variables?
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)
What dependent variables were used by Piliavin?
- number of people who helped
- time taken to help
- gender
- location of helpers
What was the sample for Piliavin?
4500 men and women with varying ages
Racial comparison=45% black and 55% white
Procedure of Piliavin
Each trial had 2 female observers and 2 male observer- one acting as victim, one as model
What were the four conditions for Piliavin?
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
What were the results from Piliavin?
- 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
Evaluation of Piliavin
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
Aims of Levine’s study
- Establish if the tendency of people to help strangers is universal or dependent on characteristics of the city
- Test whether the helping of strangers varies between cultures
- Investigate whether the particular characteristics of a community, such as city size, are associated with the tendency to help strangers
What was the method for Levine?
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
What was the sample for Levine?
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
What was the procedure for Levine?
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
What are community variables and what were they in Levine’s study?
Variables that can’t change
- population size (taken from United Nations Demographic yearbook)
- economic prosperity
- cultural values (simpatia or non-simpatia)
- pace of life
What were results from Levine’s study?
- 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
Conclusions from Levine’s study
Helping behaviour in non-emergency situations is not universal but varies between cities
Poorer the country=higher level of helps
Strength of Levine’s study
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
What was an issue with Bocchiaros sample?
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
Procedure of Bocchiaros study
- 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
What was assessed in Bocchiaros study?
Obedience/disobedience-whether or not Ps composed the statement
Whistle-blowing-whether they competed an ethics form and mailed it
