Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A LEVEL > Social Studies > Flashcards

Social Studies Flashcards

1
Q

Milgram (1963)

Theme

A

Responses to people in authority-Obedience

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

Bocchiaro et al(2012)

Theme

A

Responses to people in authority-Disobedience and whistleblowing

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

Piliavin (1969)

Theme

A

Helping Behaviour-Good Samaritanism

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

Levine et al(2001)

Theme

A

Helping behaviour- Cross cultural differences in helping

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

Milgram (1963)
Background

Historical
Culture

A
  • Holocaust which involved killing of Jews in WW2 by German soldiers who based their defence on ‘obedience’.
  • Part of character?- can be destructive but also productive.
  • Milgram believed that Germans were more obedient because of their national character. -This was a pilot study to test the procedure.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bocchiaro et al(2012)
Background

Building
Components of the study

A
  • Builds on Milgram’s study on unjust authority and to behave in an anti-social way.
  • Obey, disobey, whistle blow.
  • Questions situational vs dispositional.
  • Investigate how people think they’d behave and how they actually do behave.
  • Personality type and disobeyers and whistle-blowers.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Piliavin (1969)
Background

Definitions
Previous events and experiments

A
  • Bystander Apathy=not helping
  • Bystander Intervention= helping
  • Kitty Genovese- murdered 30 metres away from her apartment
  • Latorie and Darley- smoke in room experiment.
  • Pluralistic ignorance
  • Diffusion of responsibility
  • Social exchange theory=Cost/reward
  • The decision model= to help or not to help
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Levine et al(2001)
Background

Factors
Types of society
Principles of helping behaviour
Aim (x3)

A

3 factors: economic, cultural and cognitive
-Collectivist= society is a group. (simpatia countries) Individualist=self/immediate family.

  • Kin selection= favour chance of survival of those with a similar genetic base.
  • Social exchange theory= calculate costs and rewards of helping.
  • Tendency to help lowers as population increases.

Examine the tendency of people in the largest city of 23 countries to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation.

  1. Universal or dependent by city?
  2. Vary between cultures?
  3. Does a community’s characteristics (size, pace of life) associate the tendency to help strangers?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgram (1963)

Sample

A
  • Self-selected sample
  • New Haven and surrounding areas
  • 40 men.
  • Aged 20-50 years.
  • 500 volunteers of various occupational, financial and educational backgrounds.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Bocchiaro et al(2012)

Sample

A
  • Self-selected
  • Students of Amsterdam university
  • Responded to leaflets in the uni canteen.
  • 149 in total (96women 53 male) mean age of 20.8.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Piliavin (1969)

Sample

A
  • Opportunity sample.
  • 4450 train passengers, 43 roughly per trial.
  • 55% white 45% black
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Levine et al(2001)

Sample

A
  • 1198 in total
  • From 23 large cities across the world
  • Opportunity -2nd person to pass the line on a pavement.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Milgram (1963)

Method
Design
Variables

A
  • Controlled observation (experiment but no IV)
  • DV: how obedient the participant was in response to the learner-Level of shock administered on the volt metre.
  • Independent measures.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bocchiaro et al(2012)

Methods
Variables

A
  • Controlled observation in a lab.
  • Self-report within the two personality tests.
  • Snapshot study.
  • No IV
  • DV: if the email was written or not, in the form that it was asked for. Whistle blowing was determined by if the participant posted the research committee form.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Piliavin (1969)

Method 
Design
Variables 
IVs x4
DVs x4
A

-Field experiment using covert observation.
-Independent measures design.
IVs:
1. Drunk or ill
2. Black or white
3. Absence or presence of model
4. Number of people in carriage.
DVs:
• Number of helpers and speed at which they helped
• Race and Gender of helpers
• If anyone moved out of the critical area
• Comments made by passengers

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

Levine et al(2001)

Method
Design
IV (3 conditions)
DV

A

-Cross-cultural field study
-Quasi experiment
-Independent measures
-IV: City/type
3 conditions: dropped pen, blind person crossing the road, and person with broken leg dropping magazines.
-DV: helping behaviour given to the individual.

17
Q

Milgram (1963)

Materials

A
  • Voltmeter from15 to 450 volts and labelled with voltage intensity.
  • Participants given the 45 volts shock
  • Learner’s responses pre-recorded in the next room
  • Predetermined questions and prods.
18
Q

Milgram (1963)

Procedure 
Steps
Prods
Observation
Afterwards
A
  • How punishment affected learning.
  • True volunteer always got the teacher.
  • Paired association learning task- teacher asked to read a series of word pairs.
  • A pilot study showed it takes a while for the participant to get the procedure so 7 shocks were given which reached up to the moderate level of 105 volts.
  • The learner provided no questions after he had pounded on the neighbouring wall after 300 volts. Told to wait 10-15 seconds than take as a wrong answer. One more pound on the wall at 315 but nothing afterwards.
  • If the fourth prod was refused, the experiment was terminated.
  • 1 “please continue” 4 “you have no other choice, you must continue”.
  • Observers made note of behaviour in observations through one -way windows.
  • Interviewed and debriefed after and asked open questions. Also given psychological test. Procedures were undertaken to ensure that the participants left in a state of well-being. A friendly reconciliation with the learner (47-year old accountant) was arranged to cover any deception.
19
Q

Bocchiaro et al(2012)

Materials

A
  • Research ethics committee form- a measure of whistleblowing. If the participants felt that the study, they were conducting was unethical.
  • HEXACO-PI-R test used a (Likert scale to determine which of the six personalities the participant had.)
  • Decomposed games measure test- nine item test (assesses importance one places on the welfare of one person from their own.)
20
Q

Bocchiaro et al(2012)

Pilot
Comparison group 
Instructions
Room
Tests
Afterwards
A
  • Eight pilot to check that it was believable and morally acceptable.
  • Comparison group asked to predict how they would behave if in the study and how others would behave.
  • The experimenter was seeking names of students on sensory deprivation. Write a statement encouraging nominated students to take part. Told to be enthusiastic and not mention the negative effects of the sensory deprivation as well as using the words exciting, incredible, great and superb.
  • The experimenter was seeking approval for the study from the University research committee and to fill out the form accordingly.
  • The participants were left for 3 minutes for reflection.
  • Second room to write the statement and fill in the form. Left for 7 minutes.
  • HEXACO-PI-R and the Decomposed Games measure.
  • Debriefed with understanding the need for the deception.
21
Q

Piliavin (1969)

Conditions

A
  • Ill person had a cane.
  • The drunk person had a jacket that smelt of alcohol and held a paper bag with a bottle init.
  • Both wore a bomber jacket and dressed the same.
22
Q

Piliavin (1969)

Enter
Observers
Journey
Trials
Conditions
Afterwards
A

-The team enter different doors and then the victim would enact the ‘collapse’ after 70s.
-2 observers (both female) would stand in the adjacent area, making recordings.
-Journey lasting 7 minutes with no stops in-between.
-There were 65 ill trials and 38 drunk trails.
• Critical early=same area, at 70s
• Critical late=same area at 150s
• Adjacent early=different area, 70s
• Adjacent late=different area, 150s
• No model=no help given
-At the next station, if no one helped, the model would sit the victim up with the observers and help him off of the train.

23
Q

Levine et al(2001)

Procedure

A
  • Carried out in 2+ locations in the city during office hours on summer days.
  • Male experimenters were trained on how to carry out the procedure.
  • Population size= taken from United Nations Demographic Yearbook.
  • Economic prosperity= from Purchasing Power parity statistics published by World Bank.
  • Cultural values= six independent cross-cultural psychologists rated each contour from 1 (collectivist) to 10 (individualistic). The average of these were used.
  • Spanish and Latin American countries coded at simpatia and all others non-simpatia.
  • Pace of life= measured by observed walking speed.
24
Q

Levine et al(2001)

Dropped pen

A

-appeared not to notice as approaching participant.

25
Q

Levine et al(2001)

Hurt

A

-walking with a limp and wore a leg brace, dropped a pile of magazines and appeared to struggle to get them up

26
Q

Levine et al(2001)

Blind person

A

-dark glasses, white cane and stepped onto a crossing, signalling they wanted help.

27
Q

Milgram (1963)

Results
Quantitative and Qualitative

A
  • 26 participants went all the way to the 450 volts.
  • 5 participants at 300volts just after the first pounding on the wall.
  • Another 4 stopped after the second pounding and then some others in between.
  • 14 participants displayed nervous laughter and 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
  • .“chicken out” “take your money” “I’d like to continue but I can’t”
28
Q

Bocchiaro et al (2012)

Results
Actual
Predictions of comparison

A

-114 obeyed, 21 disobeyed and 14 blew the whistle.
Comparison:
3.6% said they’d obey and that the average person 18.8% would.
Said 64.5%of them would blow the whistle and the average student would 37.3%
-no significance of personality tests

29
Q

Piliavin (1969)

Results
Receiving help
Helper profile 
Model
Comments
Race
Helping time
A

-Ill=62/65 received help
-Drunk=19/38 received help
-90%of helpers were men. -64% of helpers were white.
•(same race helping only seen in black drunk condition)
•Model was hardly used (3 for ill, 16 for drunk)
•Most who did not help (women) made comments explaining they had a reason for moving

  • Race-same number of black/white victims were helped.
  • Help took around 5 seconds for ill and 109 seconds for the drunk.
30
Q

Levine et al (2001)

Results
Brazil
Malaysia
Simpatia

A
  • Brazil helped 93% of the time over all three conditions. (100% on the dropped pen+ blind trial)
  • Malaysia was the least helpful at only helped 40% of the trials.
  • Simpatia countries 82.87% but non-simpatia countries 65.87%.
31
Q

Milgram (1963)

Conclusion

A

-People will obey those who deem to be legitimate authority figure, even if they are asked to do something that goes against their moral beliefs.

32
Q

Bocchiaro et al (2012)

Conclusions x2

A
  • See ourselves as different to others, rational and able to resist social influences- more vulnerable as we have no awareness that we are going to be influenced
  • People tend to obey authority even if the authority is unjust.
33
Q

Piliavin (1969)

Conclusions
Victim
Profile

A
  • Ill victims more likely to be helped than drunk victim.

- Men more likely to help than women.

34
Q

Levine et al (2001)

Conclusions
Cities
Society
Pace
Economic prosperity
A

•Helping behaviour varies between cities.
•Large variations of receiving help. Individualistic slightly less helpful than collectivist.
•Fast paced city=less likely to help.
•Economic prosperity was a characteristic which related to helping behaviour.
Poorer cities= higher rates of helping.

A LEVEL (15 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions