Social Psychology- Paper 2

Question 1

How is milgram a pilot study

Answer 1

It is a trial as he carried it out in America whilst basing it on Germany.

Question 2

What does agentic state mean

Answer 2

Authority have responsibility over their actions.

Question 3

What is the aim of milgram

Answer 3

To investigate process of obedience and the power of legitimate authority

Question 4

What is the method of milgram

Answer 4

Controlled observation at a laboratory in Yale university, America

Question 5

What is the sample of milgram

Answer 5

40 male ppts aged 20-50 obtained via self-selecting from news paper advertisement and direct mail in a memory test. Ppts paid £4.50 for showing up.

Question 6

What was the procedure of milgram

Answer 6

Ppts given teacher role , learner was confederate who used pre-determined tape recording for responses. They gave a shock for every wrong answer. 300v- pounded wall 315v- learner no longer responded so experimenter used a ‘prod’ like “you must continue”. They were observed through a one-way mirror. They were fully debriefed after and met confederate.

Question 7

Findings of milgram

Answer 7

100% continued to 300v.
65% continued to 450v.
Many showed stress eg.sweating/trembling (self-report).
White coat represented situational factor and responsibility.

Question 8

Conclusion of milgram

Answer 8

Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people.
People will obey legitimate authority figures.

Question 9

What are the 3 aims of bocchiaro

Answer 9

1) to investigate how people deal with an unethical and unjust request. Participant can obey,disobey or whistleblow.
2) how people think they behave and how they actually behave
3)people who disobey/blow the whistle show different personality characteristics.

Question 10

What was the method (pre-experimental)

Answer 10

Pre-experimental preparation.
8 pilot tests -92 undergraduates to check it was believable, morally acceptable, behaviour of experimenter was standardised(control of EV) ,ethical approval process.
‘Comparison group’ of 138 were asked to predict what would happen. What would you do ? What would an average student do ?

Question 11

Sample of bocchiaro

Answer 11

149 undergraduate students, vu university , Amsterdam.
Paid €7 , recruited by flyers in university, 11 removed from sample of 160 due to suspicions

Question 12

Procedure of bocchiaro

Answer 12

Controlled observation
2 seperate rooms
Male Dutch experimenter - dressed formally and stern.
He asked them to name students (unjust)
Presents cover story of sensory deprivation done before and caused problems like auditory hallucinations- ethically wrong

Question 13

What happened in the first room

Answer 13

They were told committee forms where in other room.
Had to write a statement on why they chose the students they think would be a good fit.
Experiment left for 3 mins.

Question 14

What happend in the second room and what did they have the options to do?

Answer 14

Computer.
Be enthusiastic to make them take part and say there are no negative side effects( there were )
Left for 7 mins
Put form in mailbox if they think it’s wrong (anonymous)
*They either wrote it or didn’t. Obey/disobey.
*obey but still put letter in box (whsitleblew)
*disobey and whistleblew
Asked a few questions to see if ppts were suspicious.
Debriefed fully.

Question 15

What where the 4 measures

Answer 15

-Participants reaction to request of statement. Obeyed/disobeyed.
-whistleblew (letter in mailbox )
Open whistleblew:refused to comply (didn’t write statement)
Anonymous whistleblow: completed request but also whistleblew.
-personality test (HEXACO-PI-R)
SVO- how much importance a person places on welfare of another. Allows person to be categorised as prosocial, individualistic, competitive.

Question 16

Pre-experimental results of bocchiaro

Answer 16

4%- would obey but most believed they would disobey (32 %) whistleblew (65%)
Predicted 19%-obey, 44%-disobey, 37%whistleblew

Question 17

Actual results of bocchiaro

Answer 17

77% obeyed n=114 , 14% disobeyed n=21, 9.5%-whistleblew n=14

6% anonymously whistleblew
3.5% -open whistleblew

No difference in relation to ethnicity, gender, religious group.
Significant difference found with regard to faith. Whistleblowers have more faith.

Question 18

Conclusion of bocchiaro

Answer 18

People obey authority figures, even unjust authority figures. (Sim)
Situational rather than dispositional factors may offer a better explanation for disobedience.

Question 19

what is the aim of Piliavin

Answer 19

to investigate bystander behaviour and apathy in a real life setting.

Question 20

what is the background of Piliavin

Answer 20

diffusion of responsibility- with more people we will shift responsibility onto someone else.
cost-benefit analysis- ‘pros and cons of helping’
altruistic behaviour- selflessness
pluralistic ignorance- people think others will go along with it even though they reject it.
bystander apathy- they just watch
kitty genovese - why did no one help?
Darley and latane- women falls of chair, smoke, seizure- found diffusion of responsibility.

Question 21

what is the sample

Answer 21

estimated 4450 travelling
opportunity sampling- not biased as they just picked people who where there
45% black, 55% white

Question 22

method of Piliavin

Answer 22

field experiment, independent measures design, snapshot study

Question 23

what are the IV’s andf DV’s of
Piliavin

Answer 23

type of victim:
drunk, cane ( blind )
Type of victim :
race - black/white
model- (if they intervened and early or late)
group size
DV- number of people who helped, time taken to help, number of people who moved away or made comments.

Question 24

what is the procedure of Piliavin and the controls

Answer 24

16 researchers in 4 groups
2 female observers
1 male victim ( 3 white, 1 black)
male model dressed casually
controls:
carriages A and D, 7 1/2 minute journey, 103 trails
boarded separate doors, female observer always stood in adjacent area, victim next to pole in critical area then collapses

Question 25

what were the different kind of models

Answer 25

critical early model- helped after 70 secs
late model- helped after 150 secs
adjacent area- early and late model

Question 26

what are the findings for the drunk/cane victim

Answer 26

cane victim got help 95% of the time
drunk was helped 50% of the time
34 people left critical area
more comments made

Question 27

what are the findings for the different race victim

Answer 27

same race effect
black victim received less help.
90% male helpers

Question 28

what are the findings of the different type of model

Answer 28

if model intervened early more help was given
most victims helped before model did

Question 29

what are the findings of group size

Answer 29

more passengers in immediate vicinity were more likely to help.
diffusion of responsibility
women made comments like “its for men to help him”

Question 30

conclusion of
piliavin

Answer 30

someone drunk will get les s help
no diffusion of responsibility- contradicts previous research

Question 31

What is the background of Levine

Answer 31

Kim selection- evolution-we share the same genetic base so more likely to help
Reciprocal altruism- we help because we believe we will get it later.
Pro social value orientation- help because you are able to.
Social exchange- people help because they want a reward
System overload- people in urban areas less likely to help because they have greater sensory overload so fix their attention on things that matter to them.

Question 32

What is the overall aim of Levine

Answer 32

To investigate helping behaviours in a wide range of cultures, in large cities around the world in relation to four community variables

Question 33

What is the correlation aim of Levine

Answer 33

To investigate country level variables that might relate to different helping behaviours

Question 34

What are the 4 community variables used in the correlation

Answer 34

1-population size
2- economic well being
3- cultural values (individualistic, collectivist, sympatia)
4- walking speed (pace of life )

Question 35

What is the experimental aim

Answer 35

Investigate cities tendency to offer emergency help to strangers is stable across situations in which people need help.

Question 36

What is the method/design of Levine

Answer 36

Quasi experiment (countries naturally occurring)
Independent measures( 1 condition in each country )

Question 37

What is the sample of Levine

Answer 37

23 cities- Rio de jenario, New York
Used psychologists from universities in the countries

Question 38

What is the DV of Levine

Answer 38

Helping rates across 23 large cities with 3 measures of behaviour correlated with 4 community variables.

Question 39

What is the dropping pen IV and how it was measured

Answer 39

Drop pen- walked at 15 paces per 10 seconds and walked towards a solitary person passing opposite.
When 10-14 ft they drop pen and continue walking.
Dv- number of people who called experimenter back or returned pen.

Question 40

What happens in the IV hurt leg and how is it measured

Answer 40

Experimenter walked with a heavy limp with brace and dropped a pile of magazines and struggled to pick them up.
DV-if individual helped pick them up

Question 41

What happens in the IV blind person and how was it measured

Answer 41

Exp in dark glasses and can and waited till green lights and pit cane out.
Trail stopped after 60 secs if no one helped.
DV- number of people who told exp lights were green.

Question 42

What are the experimental results -inter correlations (stability between Iv’s)

Answer 42

Relationship (stability) between measures of helping.
All positive but not significant.
If you get help as a blind person you can predict you get help with a hurt leg.
No significant gender differences.

Question 43

Correlation results

Answer 43

Low correlation between community variables between helping measures.
High ppp- less helping behaviours
Individualistic cultures showed less overall helping.
Population size had no correlation

Question 44

What were the results of sympatia

Answer 44

High levels of helping behaviours in countries like Brazil- opposite of New York.
Supports system overload- people in rural areas are more likely to help.

Question 45

What are conclusions of Levine

Answer 45

Helping of strangers is a cross cultural characteristic of a place.
Large cross cultural variations ( not everyone does it )
Helping cross cultures is inversely related to a country’s economic productivity.
Countries with a tradition of sympatia are more helpful