The Social Area Flashcards
What is the social area about
Behaviour which is influenced by the presence of others
Studies?
Milgram & Piliavin
Background to Milgram’s experiment
Adolf Eichmann was a high up Nazi arrested one 1960 and brought to trial in Israel as a war criminal. He said he wasn’t guilty as he was obeying orders. An idea that Germans had a defect that made them blindly obedient
Milgram aims
To investigate the process of obedience by testing how far ordinary Americans would go in obeying an authority figure
Milgram type of experiment
Controlled observation
No IV
Milgram sample and sampling method
Sample: 40 men between 18-50 from new Haven
Method: self selecting though letters and an advert in the local paper. Paid $4 or $4.50 if they drove
Milgram sample evaluation
Weaknesses:
Can only generalise to men between 18-50. Can’t apply to women, restricted sample.
Strengths:
Ages 20-50 more representative of Nazi officers, what inspired them to conduct the research
Less ethical issues with self selecting adults
Milgram sampling method evaluation
Weaknesses:
Social desirability bias due to volunteering themselves, less valid as they are overly aware they’re taking part now
Expensive
Strengths:
Self selecting leads to less ethical issues
No researcher bias
Milgram procedure
Participant and Mr Wallace do a fixed draw. Mr Walls always ‘learner’ participant always ‘teacher’
He is strapped to the chair with electrodes to his arms, participant sees this.
Test shock of 45 V.
Learner given word pairs to remember. Teacher checks if they have memorised them with multiple choice questions.
If he answers wrong, teacher gives electric shock. Starts at 15V, goes up my 15 each time.
300V he bangs on the wall. Stops responding after that. Goes up till 450 V
Milgram controls
Standardised procedure- same 4 prods in same order. ‘Learner’ and their reactions Equipment Same questions Test shock Saw Mr Wallace in shock generator
Milgram quantitative findings
100% to 300V
65% went 450V
Milgram qualitative findings
All participants showed signs of stress (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter)
3 participants had seizures
Milgram Conclusion
Germans are not ‘different’. In stressful situations with authority American’s are obedient too.
People obey authority even against their own moral views if situational factors pressure them
Milgram’s explanation of the findings
Took place in credible institution
Mr Wallace and then volunteered, equal chance of being learner
Paid, felt needed to complete it
We’re told shocks weren’t dangerous by an ‘expert’ in white lab coat- trust methods and are intimidated
Milgram’s ethical issues
Deception- lied about aims
Right to withdraw- prods
Protection from harm- 3 had seizures
Informed consent- weren’t informed of the real purpose before giving consent
Confidentiality and debrief✅
Milgram ethnocentrism
Participants from same place New Haven, USA
Other cultures found similar results. Italy and Germany both had 85% obedience
Milgram internal reliability
High internal reliability
Standardised procedure, easily replicable, lab setting, same prods
Milgram external reliability (sample)
Lower reliability. Smaller sample then he wanted and ethnocentric sample
Milgram Internal validity (was it testing obedience)
High validity, lab setting meant no extraneous variables.
Low validity, highly regarded Uni, payment, pressure to act how the researcher wanted them to
Milgram external validity (can sample be generalised)
Sample can’t be generalised, ethnocentric(only from New Haven) all male
Milgram External ecological validity (scenario true to life)
Low validity. Artificial task in artificial environment
Piliavin background
1964 woman was stabbed in an attack. She shouted for help. Although for over half an hour, 38 citizens heard this, no one called the police until after she was dead
What causes people to stand by and not help?
Piliavin’s aims/hypotheses
Type of victim (drunk/disabled) drunk= less help
Race (black/white) same race= more help
Number of witnesses- larger group= more help
Setting an example of helping behaviour: model= encourage more help
Piliavin research method
Field experiment
Manipulated IV in natural setting
Piliavin independent variables
Victim
Black/white
Drunk/disabled
Model conditions
Early/late
Critical area/adjacent area
Piliavin dependent variables
How long to help How many people helped Gender of helper After model helped, how long Comments made
Piliavin procedure
70 seconds in on an express train, victim collapses. 70 or 150 seconds later the ‘model’ helped the victim. Two female observers recorded variables like sex, race and location of helpers. Victim info: Male(26-35) 3 white 1 black 38 drunk trials, 65 disabled trials 103 trials
Piliavin controls
Victims clothing and behaviour and gender Same train in same area Same times everyday Female observers 7&1/2 minute train
Piliavin sample
4450 passengers
3 month period
45% black 55% white
43 per carriage mean
Sampling method Piliavin
Opportunity
Used whoever was on the train at that time
Piliavin quantitative results
Disabled : 95% help Took 5 seconds Drunk: 50% help Room 109 seconds
90% first help male
34 left critical area
Piliavin qualitative results
Race didn’t have a large effect Models rarely needed Number of bystanders made no difference ‘It’s for men to help’ ‘You feel bad when you don’t know what to do’
Piliavin conclusions
State of victim impacts help
Males more likely to help
Race makes no difference
No diffusion of responsibility
