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
Piliavin explanation of findings
Couldn’t leave the situation
Less effort as they’re waiting on the train anyway
Cost of helping- effort, harm, embarrassment
Cost of not helping- disapproval, judgement, guilt
Reward for helping- praise, feeling good
Piliavin ethical guidelines
No informed consent, deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm.
However did uphold confidentiality and debriefing
Piliavin internal reliability
Low reliability, hard to replicate, field setting makes it difficult
Piliavin External reliability (enough trials)
Yes there were a lot of trials
Piliavin external reliability (sample)
Sample was large but ethnocentric
Piliavin internal validity (accurate measure)
Yes, natural setting and made specific to investigate certain factors
Piliavin external validity (sample generalisability)
Low validity
Only people who took the train in that area, opportunity sampling
Piliavin external validity (ecological- results reflect real life situation)
Yes, natural setting
Experiments in key theme responses to people in need
Piliavin
Levine
Experiments in key theme responses to people in authority
Milgram
Bocchiaro
Levine aims
- If similar level of help across different non-emergency situations
- If helping strangers varies across countries
- Identify characteristics of communities which strangers are more or less likely to help
Levine research method
Correlation
Covariables
Overall procedure summary Levine
1 male confederate (usually student) trained for their role to ensure consistency
Had detailed instructions
Mostly conducted in cities, all had pop over 230,000
Tasks
- dropped pen
- hurt leg
- helping blind person cross street
Levine discarded tasks
Asking for change
Lost letter technique
Levine dropped pen task
Walked at a practiced moderate pace
Dropped pen 10-15 ft from solitary participant walking opposite way
214 men/210 women
Picking up/returning/shouting after them counted as help
Levine hurt leg task
Walk with heavy limp and clearly visible leg brace
Accidentally drop pile of magazines and struggle reaching down
253 men/240 women
Offering to help or starting help counted
Levine helping blind person cross street task
Confederate wore dark glasses and white cane
Just as light turned green to cross the road they would step out to the corner, hold out the cane and wait for help
281 trials
If they at least told them the light was green it counted as help
Levine where/when trials and how participants selected
Two or more locations used in each city
During business hours and summer months between 1992/1997
Avoided under 17 and elderly/disabled participants
Random selection, second person to cross a predetermined line
Levine list some cities trials took place
Vienna, Rio de Janeiro, Shang Hai, Prague, Tel Aviv, Bangkok, NYC
Some areas not studied by Levine
Australasia
Only 1 Africa
None Middle East Arabic
None in former soviet republics
3 most helpful cities Levine
- Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (93.33%)
- San Jose, Costa Rica (91.33%)
- Lilongwe, Malaysia (86%)
3 least helpful cities Levine
Singapore (48%)
NYC (44.67%)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40.33%)
Compare aims to findings Levine
- Similar level of help across different non emergency tasks (moderate consistency)
- Varied across cultures
Brazil- 93%
Malaysia- 40%
Levine 3rd aim result population size characteristic
No relationship with population size and help
Levine 3rd aim purchasing Power Parity characteristic
Significant negative relationship
As PPP increases, help decreases
Levine 3rd aim collectivist individualist findings
No relationship
Levine 3rd aim for pace of life characteristic findings
Small relationship
Faster pace less likely to see confederate help
Levine simpatia
Latin American/Spain all above mean levels of helping
Simpatia countries= 82.87%
Non= 65.87%
Simpatia encouraged social qualities- friendly, nice, agreeable
Levine conclusions
Levels of helping inversely related to economic productivity
Simpatia tradition on average more helping than those without that tradition
Levine ethical issues
Consent
Right to withdraw
Debriefing
Internal reliability Levine
High in reliability
Procedure was standardised- confederates trained
Tested several different tasks in helping behaviour- proves consistency
External reliability Levine
High reliability- enough trials
Interval validity Levine
Low- demand characteristics if they see confederate repeat behaviours with other people
External validity Levine
(Population)
Lots of different settings so can be generalised but also only urban
(Ecological)
True to life scenario, natural environment and normal occurrences in everyday life
Levine ethnocentrism
Across different cultures but mostly urban areas
Bocchiaro first aim
Expect a higher percentage of participants that will obey the experimentor than in Milgram
(Psychological aggression is softer)
Bocchiaro second aim
Predict lower level of whilstleblowers than disobedience because it involves potential confrontation to authority
Bocchiaro third aim
Substantial overestimation of tendency to disobey and and whilstleblow
Bocchiaro fourth aim
Due to the unusual situation, personality variables will only have weak effects
Bocchiaro pilot studies
8 pilot studies to ensure procedure was credible and morally acceptable
Post experimental interviews showed participants believed cover story and felt study was ethically appropriate
Also used to standardise experimentor
Ethical guidelines Bochiarro broke
Deception
Protection from harm
Bocchiaro internal reliability
High internal reliability
Controls, standardised cover story, time in each room, instructions
Bocchiaro external reliability
High overall
149 participants
Only 21 disobeyed and 14 whistleblowers so not much can be applied to specific groups
Bocchiaro internal validity
Low
Could have been suspicious of cover story
High
Pilot study shows they believed cover story
Bocchiaro external validity
Population
Low- Participants students from same uni
Ecological
True to life task
Bocchiaro ethnocentrism
Only in Netherlands but at a uni so potential for international students
Bocchiaro sample
149 students
Bocchiaro method
Experimentor stern demeanor askes for names of fellow students
Told stansardised cover story of sensory deprivation experiment and asked to make statement telling friends to take part
Left 3 mins to let them think
Told must have 2 adjectives like ‘incredible’ ‘exciting’ and requested not to mention negative effects
Left in second room 7 minutes to make statement
Room had mailbox with committee forms where could anonymously report ethics of it
Back into first room 2 personality tests (HEXACO PI R / SVO) then debriefed
Bocchiaro results
Prediction: 4% obey/ 32% disobedient/ 65% whistleblow
Real: 77% obey/ 14% disobey/ 9% whistleblow
Only significant relation to whistle blow was faith
Bocchiaro conclusion
Could be due to strong situational forces
