Strengths and weaknesses of the area

Question 1

Strength-1

Answer 1

• Research is useful in providing practical applications
• e.g. Bocchiaro- Whistleblowing policies in workplace/GP to prevent mistreatment
• Piliavin- encouraging people to help in emergency situations and not be affected by the bystander effect/break stereotypes and encourage helping everyone

Question 2

Strength-2

Answer 2

• Can have high ecological validity so more generalisable to everyday life as it uses field experiements, a natural setting, or a lab exp with no IV, so not fully controlled
• Levine’s study- tasks were realistic + repeated in 23 different cities so easily generalisable+ Ps weren’t aware taht their behaviour was being investigated- no DC
• Piliavin- Conducted in a natural setting real NY subway train, ps weren’t aware that the victim was a researcher or that they were part of a study so results reflect real life helping behaviours.
• Bocchiaro-tasks were more realistic than Milg.+ setting wasn’t artificial as the situation investigated was a psych. carrying out a study

Question 3

Strength-3

Answer 3

• Supports both the nature and the nurture side of the debate
• Milgram- nature: some Ps may be genetically predisposed to obey to authority so went all the way with the shocks, whilst some may be more conscious of others so stopped at 315V + displayed signs of distress nurture: the env. they were in, further pressured them to continue
• Piliavin- nature: some may be less predisposed to feeling anxious in stressful events so may be more willing to help the victims. Nurture: seeing the RM intervene encouraged others to step in; they were in a moving train so they couldn’t remove themselves from the situation so no diffusion of responsibility & had to help

Question 4

Weakness-1

Answer 4

• Unethical due to direct harm to the participants, making it harder to replicate in the future
• Milgram- deceived Ps about the aim; physical harm from teh sample shocks; psychological harm from the idea that they were harming others+ some displayed signs of distress; restricted withdrawal due to prods, setting, researcher, lack of confidentiality; only some were fully debriefed + some were still confused
• Piliavin- Ps weren’t asked for their informed consent, psychological harm as they were put in a stressful situation & couldn’t remove themselves from it so restricted withdrawal; not debriefed

Question 5

Weakness- 2

Answer 5

• Only gives a snapshot of Ps behaviour so can’t investigate lon-term effects on behavior- unreliable
• Milgram- Ps only tested once+ different environment/situation/time may change results
• Piliavin- Only tested Ps between certain hrs- more busier hrs=Ps less willing to help; only in a train-diff setting= more/less willing to help; both victims male- diff gender=more/less helpful; only drunk and ill victim-diff situation=more/less helpful

Question 6

Weakness-3

Answer 6

• Reductionist (understanding complex behaviors and mental processes by breaking them down into simpler components): ignores other influences on behaviour
• Milgram- ignores how obedience could be due to setting, prods, money paid
• Levine- ignores how helping rate is affected by individual differences like personal values/free will not just socialisation from respective cultures+ assumes that everyone from that city will be just as nice- ignoring how some Ps could be tourists or not locals