the social area

Question 1

background of milgram study

Answer 1

ww2- germans must have a basic defect that allowed them to blindly obey their authority figures

Question 2

aim of milgrams study

Answer 2

investigate the process of obedience by testing how far ordinary americans would go in obeying an authority figure

Question 3

method of milgrams study

Answer 3

1.participants greeted by experimenter+mr wallace
2.playing memory game where mr wallace always learner+participant teacher
3.match words by memory-every one got wrong mr wallace electric shock of 15V inc by 15V every time- participant given test shock of 15V and learner taken to diff room
4.at 300v learner bangs on wall to show hes distressed
5. at 315v learner stops answering,told to treat as wrong answer
6.experiment ends once teacher reaches 450V or refuses to continue

Question 4

design of milgrams study

Answer 4

controlled observation-
not lab experiment as lacks independant variable
control variables include the test shock

Question 5

findings of milgrams study

Answer 5

quantitative:65% went to 450V, 0%stopped before 300V, 14 had nervous laughter, 3 had full blown seizures
qualitative:observed to ‘sweat,tremble,stutter,bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their skin’, “well its not fair to shock the guy”,”im sorry, i cant do that to a man, ill hurt his heart”

Question 6

milgrams sample

Answer 6

40 new haven working men aged 20-50
self-selected

Question 7

conclusions of milgrams study

Answer 7

the situation produced strong tendencies to obey
the situation caused emotional strain and tension on the participants
overall,germans arent different

Question 8

what reasons were given for why milgram found high levels of obedience

Answer 8

conducted in yale-with good rep
had volunteered so felt obliged to continue
were paid so felt obliged

Question 9

evaluation of milgrams study

Answer 9

strengths-replicable, controlled experiment, had debrief,no demand characteristics
weaknesses: only 40 men from one area, unethical, lacks ecological validity

Question 10

how does milgrams study relate to the social area

Answer 10

testing how authority figures can influence our behaviour and our obedience to authority
situation=lab experiment and experimenter presence make it feel more real and formal

Question 10

background to piliavin study

Answer 10

kitty genovese murder-38 citizens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman on 3 seperate occasions in kew gardens. police only called once after she had died.
Darley and latane- intercom discussion about problems, one had elipeptic seizure and tested how long it took for people respond. found the presence of others inhibits helping behaviours

Question 11

what is the social area

Answer 11

understanding how human behaviour is influenced by the social context which is occurs

Question 12

4 aims of piliavins study

Answer 12

1. would an ill victim get more help than a drunk one?
   2.would people help others of the same race before those of different race?
2. if a model person started helping the victim, would that encourage others to help?
   4.would the number of bystanders who saw the victim influence how much help was given?

Question 13

bystander apathy

Answer 13

when people fail to act and help someone in need when others are present

Question 14

diffusion of responsibility

Answer 14

when there is a victim and lots of bystanders, each individual takes less responsibility so no one helps.

Question 15

altruism

Answer 15

the unselfish concern for others and doing things out of a desire to help and concern for their wellbeing

Question 16

what type of experiment was piliavins study

Answer 16

field experiment
on a train so natural setting not controlled

Question 17

variables in piliavins study

Answer 17

independant:
victim conditions: drunk or ill,black or white
model conditions: intervened early or late, intervened from critical or adjacent area
dependant:
2 observers recorded the race,sex and location of every passenger in the critical and adjascent areas, and the latency of the first helpers response and total helpers

Question 18

sample in piliavin

Answer 18

passengers on 8th avenue train to NY
overall 4,450 participants studied over 3 months and 103 trails. on average 43 people in each carriage
opportunity sampling

Question 19

procedure in piliavin study

Answer 19

took place on weekdays from 11-3 over 3 months
1.70s into the journey a student would collapse in the ‘critical area’
2. participants reactions would be convertly observed by 2 observers
3.on some trials the victim would use a cane to appear ill, or a brown paper bag smelling of alcohol to appear drunk

Question 20

piliavins findings

Answer 20

quantitative:90% of first helpers were male,participants helped in 62/65 ill trials and 19/38 drunk trials, median of 5s for ill victims to get help and 109s for drunk victims, victims were helped faster when 7+ passengers on train, model had no effect on level of helping
qualitative: “its for men to help him” “i wish i could help-im not strong enough” “you feel so bad that you dont know what to do”

Question 21

conclusions of piliavins study

Answer 21

the state of the victim affects how likely people are to help
males are more likely to help than females
there was no diffusion of responsibility

Question 22

explanation of piliavins findings

Answer 22

passengers were trapped on the train so couldnt leave the situation
it was less effort for passengers to help as they were waiting there anyway
the problem of the victim was clear unlike with kitty genovese
model of response: when faced with a situation creating a sense of arousal we want to either leave or help depending on the costs and rewards of either option

Question 23

evaluation of piliavins study

Answer 23

strengths:confidentiality,no observer effect, high ecolocial validity,no experimenter bias, large sample, opportunity sampling, results were conclusive
weaknesses: no debrief, no consent, deception, no right to withdraw, no protection from harm, participants may get train more than once so change their behavipur to situation

Question 24

how does piliavins study link to the social area

Answer 24

they were investigating if the likehood of someone helping out in an emergency situation is influenced by the known visible presence of otherwitnesses to the event

Question 25

bocchiaro background

Answer 25

milgrams study into obedience and
psychosocial dynamics involved in whistleblowing

Question 26

bocchiaro aims

Answer 26

replicating a real life scenario to test what participants would do rather than just in a hypothetical situation to see if they would obey, disobey or whistleblow against authority, to ensure its ecological validity

Question 27

bocchiaro sample

Answer 27

149 undergraduate students from VU uni in amsterdam, recruited by posters in the cafeteria on campus by being given either $7 or course credit

Question 28

bocchiaro procedure

Answer 28

partitipants took part individually. greeted by formal male experimenter who gave them the names of students and explained a study about sensory deprivation that caused harm which he wanted to replicate.
he asked participants to write a statement to convince students to take part, and that they could expect more work and money from this. he added that the ethics committee were interested in feedback from students.
participants taken in room for 7 mins with a computer and a box to ethics committee with forms to tick if this study broke ethical guidelines
see if they: -obey-disobey-whistleblow

Question 29

bocchiaro results

Answer 29

compared to a sample just given the hypothetical scenario:
comparison group said they would be most likely to whistle blow-64.5% VS actual group where only 9.4% did
actual group most were obedient 76.5% but only 3.6% in the comparison group said they would be
he got participants to complete HEXACO and SVO (personality inventories) and found whistle blowers were more significantly likely to have faith, with no other personality differences

Question 30

bocchiaro ethics

Answer 30

high levels of deception but debrief given
confidentiality and consent and right to withdraw respected
protection from harm potentially broken as stress and embarssment and guilt

Question 31

bocchiaro evaluation

Answer 31

validity:
potential low construct if participants agreed with the idea
low ecological as whistle blowers in employment wouldn’t be paid and have more to loose
reliability:
standardised- same cover story, time in room so easily replicable
149 students enough to establish consistent effect

Question 32

comparison of classic vs contemporary of people in authority

Answer 32

similarities:
both controlled observation, both situational
differences:
milgram low ecological validity bocchiaro high, milgram in US, bocchiaro in amsterdam

Question 33

levine background

Answer 33

tendency to help strangers declines as the size of the city increases, or how it is based on cities personalities beyond this
previous studies investigating peoples helping behaviours using individual producedures has used 3 countries max

Question 34

levine aims

Answer 34

1. see if helping of strangers varies between cultures
2. see if helping strangers is a characteristic of a culture that is stable across different helping situations
3. investigate characteristics of communities that may be related to helping of strangers

Question 35

levine sample

Answer 35

data on helping of strangers from 23 countries- based on convinience (where students were going on holiday) data was collected from major cities within this country, during summer months

Question 36

levine producedure

Answer 36

one individual (male, college age, dressed neatly and casually) would:
1. drop a pen when walking
2. drop a pile of magazines while walking with a limp and wearing a leg brace
3. act like a blind person needing help to cross the road
they gathered data on who helped (not inc children or elderley, or unable to help)

Question 37

levine findings

Answer 37

1. considerable variation was found between cultures in helping behaviour ( rio most helpful- 93% of time time VS Kuala Lumpur least helpful with only 40%)
2. overall, a citys helping rate was relatively stable across the three measures of helping behaviour
3. with regard to community variables that might be related to helping of strangers, levine analysed findings and found there were negative relationships between helping behaviour and purchasing power, and helping behaviour with the pace of life. simpatia culture countries also had a higher tendency to help. no differences in helping in males of females

Question 38

levine evaluation

Answer 38

reliability:
standardised- same experimenter look, 3 procedures all repeated
sample size- 23 countries used across 5 continents
validity:
ecological- field study, plausible scenarios
construct- members of public may have been suspicious if they saw what they had been doing before

Question 39

comparison of class vs comtemporary study of helping behaviours

Answer 39

similarities:
both field experiments
person needing help was a young male
differences:
piliavin only used USA, and levine 23 countries
data was collected in confined space for piliavin, but on the street for levine.