Social Psychology- Paper 2 Flashcards
How is milgram a pilot study
It is a trial as he carried it out in America whilst basing it on Germany.
What does agentic state mean
Authority have responsibility over their actions.
What is the aim of milgram
To investigate process of obedience and the power of legitimate authority
What is the method of milgram
Controlled observation at a laboratory in Yale university, America
What is the sample of milgram
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.
What was the procedure of milgram
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.
Findings of milgram
100% continued to 300v.
65% continued to 450v.
Many showed stress eg.sweating/trembling (self-report).
White coat represented situational factor and responsibility.
Conclusion of milgram
Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people.
People will obey legitimate authority figures.
What are the 3 aims of bocchiaro
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.
What was the method (pre-experimental)
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 ?
Sample of bocchiaro
149 undergraduate students, vu university , Amsterdam.
Paid €7 , recruited by flyers in university, 11 removed from sample of 160 due to suspicions
Procedure of bocchiaro
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
What happened in the first room
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.
What happend in the second room and what did they have the options to do?
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.
What where the 4 measures
-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.
Pre-experimental results of bocchiaro
4%- would obey but most believed they would disobey (32 %) whistleblew (65%)
Predicted 19%-obey, 44%-disobey, 37%whistleblew
Actual results of bocchiaro
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.
Conclusion of bocchiaro
People obey authority figures, even unjust authority figures. (Sim)
Situational rather than dispositional factors may offer a better explanation for disobedience.
what is the aim of Piliavin
to investigate bystander behaviour and apathy in a real life setting.
what is the background of Piliavin
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.
what is the sample
estimated 4450 travelling
opportunity sampling- not biased as they just picked people who where there
45% black, 55% white
method of Piliavin
field experiment, independent measures design, snapshot study
what are the IV’s andf DV’s of
Piliavin
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.
what is the procedure of Piliavin and the controls
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
what were the different kind of models
critical early model- helped after 70 secs
late model- helped after 150 secs
adjacent area- early and late model
what are the findings for the drunk/cane victim
cane victim got help 95% of the time
drunk was helped 50% of the time
34 people left critical area
more comments made
what are the findings for the different race victim
same race effect
black victim received less help.
90% male helpers
what are the findings of the different type of model
if model intervened early more help was given
most victims helped before model did
what are the findings of group size
more passengers in immediate vicinity were more likely to help.
diffusion of responsibility
women made comments like “its for men to help him”
conclusion of
piliavin
someone drunk will get les s help
no diffusion of responsibility- contradicts previous research
What is the background of Levine
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.
What is the overall aim of Levine
To investigate helping behaviours in a wide range of cultures, in large cities around the world in relation to four community variables
What is the correlation aim of Levine
To investigate country level variables that might relate to different helping behaviours
What are the 4 community variables used in the correlation
1-population size
2- economic well being
3- cultural values (individualistic, collectivist, sympatia)
4- walking speed (pace of life )
What is the experimental aim
Investigate cities tendency to offer emergency help to strangers is stable across situations in which people need help.
What is the method/design of Levine
Quasi experiment (countries naturally occurring)
Independent measures( 1 condition in each country )
What is the sample of Levine
23 cities- Rio de jenario, New York
Used psychologists from universities in the countries
What is the DV of Levine
Helping rates across 23 large cities with 3 measures of behaviour correlated with 4 community variables.
What is the dropping pen IV and how it was measured
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.
What happens in the IV hurt leg and how is it measured
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
What happens in the IV blind person and how was it measured
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.
What are the experimental results -inter correlations (stability between Iv’s)
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.
Correlation results
Low correlation between community variables between helping measures.
High ppp- less helping behaviours
Individualistic cultures showed less overall helping.
Population size had no correlation
What were the results of sympatia
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.
What are conclusions of Levine
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
