Unit two - core studies

Question 1

What was the background to Milgram’s study?

Answer 1

Adolf Eichmann was on trial for crime during the holocaust and claimed he was simply a victim of an error of judgement and only guilty of obedience
This led people to think Germans had something different in their brain to blindly follow orders

Question 2

What was the aim of Milgram’s study?

Answer 2

To investigate obedience by testing how far ordinary people would go in obeying an authoritative figure

Question 3

How was the sample obtained in Milgram? What were they told about the study from this?

Answer 3

A self-selecting method was used - obtained through newspaper articles and posters
They were told they would be paid $4.50 for showing up and were told the study would be about memory and learning

Question 4

What was the dependent variable and what was the research method in Milgram’s study?

Answer 4

DV = what voltage participants continued to

As there was no IV, it was a controlled observation

Question 5

What happened in Milgram when the participant first walked in to take part?

Answer 5

Experimenter explained to the ‘victim’ and the participant that the purpose of the experiment was to investigate the effect of punishment on learning
They then drew a slip of paper to determine who would be the learner - fixed draw so this was always the confederate

Question 6

What did the experimenter declare to the learner once strapped into the ‘electric chair’?

Answer 6

“Although shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage”

Question 7

What voltage was the sample shock and why was this used?

Answer 7

45 volts - to convince participants of the authenticity of the generator

Question 8

Describe the word pair task

Answer 8

The participant would read a series of words from a word par task over the intercom and the ‘learner’ was asked to identify the correct answer by pressing a switch
Answer correct = next question
Incorrect or no response = teacher would have to administer a shock, increasing by 15 volts each time

Question 9

What 4 prompts would the teacher use?

Answer 9

• Please continue
• The experiment requires that you continue
• It is absolutely essential that you continue
• You have no choice. You must go on

Question 10

When would Milgram’s experiment come to an end?

Answer 10

When 450 volts was reached, or when the participant withdrew/refused to continue

Question 11

What were the quantitative results in Milgram’s study?

Answer 11

65% continued to 450 volts

No one dropped out before 300 volts

Question 12

What were the other (qualitative) results in Milgram’s study?

Answer 12

Participants showed signs of extreme tension such as trembling, sweating and nervous laughter, with 3 having full blown, uncontrollable seizures
“I don’t think this is very humane….Oh I can’t go on with this”

Question 13

What conclusions can be drawn from Milgram’s study?

Answer 13

• Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people

- The presence of an authoritative figure can produce strong tendencies to obey

Question 14

What reasons can be given as an explanation for the behaviour in Milgram’s study?

Answer 14

Yale University - prestigious setting and so participants more likely to believe nothing could go wrong
They were paid so may feel more obliged to continue
They were told there would be no permanent damage

Question 15

Who did Milgram’s sample consist of?

Answer 15

40 males from the New Haven area, aged 20-50 and with a wide range of occupations

Question 16

What was the context behind the study by Piliavin et al?

Answer 16

Following the Kitty Genovese case, social psychologists began investigating why people fail to help someone in need
Darley and Latane set up an experiment where participants heard someone having an epileptic seizure over an intercom and 85% reported whilst alone but only 31% when 4 others were present

Question 17

What were the aims in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 17

• Would it make a difference if the victim was drunk or ill?
• Would the victim’s race make a difference?
• Would having a ‘model helper’ affect people’s reactions?
• Would the number of witnesses affect how many people helped?

Question 18

What did the sample in Piliavin consist of? How many trials were conducted?

Answer 18

Passengers on the train in New York
Over 103 trials (6-8 per team on a given day), observers recorded around 4450 men and women in the carriage where the emergency was stages
Racial composition 45% black, 55% white

Question 19

What were the independent and dependent variables in Piliavin?

Answer 19

IV - Victim conditions: black/white, drunk/cane
Model conditions: critical/adjacent area, 70 or 150 seconds after (latency period)
DV: race, sex and location of every passenger in the carriage

Question 20

Describe the procedure in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 20

• A journey where there would be 7.5 minutes with a captive audience
• On weekdays, 4 teams of 4 students (victim, model and 2 observers) would board the trains
• Around 70 seconds into the journey, victim would stagger forward and collapse, remaining laying on the floor looking up at the ceiling until he received help

Question 21

What were the quantitative results in Piliavin et al?

cane, drunk, time taken, gender, race, how many helpers

Answer 21

Help given on 62/65 cane trials but only 19/38 drunk trials
Help was given quicker to the cane victim (5 v 109 seconds)
90% of first helpers were male
Race didn’t make a significant difference
On 60% of the trials where help was given, 2+ people helped

Question 22

What were the qualitative results in Piliavin et al?

Answer 22

Most comments were made by women and during the drunk condition
“It’s for men to help him”
“I wish I could help him…I’m not strong enough”

Question 23

Explanation of the findings in Piliavin?

Answer 23

Passengers were trapped and couldn’t leave the situation easily and so it was less effort for them to help
Unlike in the Kitty Genovese case, it was clear what was happening
The arousal-cost-reward model in deciding whether or not to help

Question 24

What was the context behind Bocchiaro’s study?

Answer 24

Ethical issues prevent psychologists from using Milgram’s procedure to continue research into obedience
Whilst we have important knowledge on the mechanisms of obedience, we have little knowledge of the nature of disobedience, such as who are people that disobey/whistle blow and why do they choose to take this path? Do they have characteristics different to those who obey?

Question 25

What was the aim of Bocchario’s study?

Answer 25

To investigate whether disobedient participants and whistle-blowers have different personality characteristics to those who obey?

Question 26

What did Bocchiaro’s sample consist of and how was it obtained?

Answer 26

149 undergraduate students, 96W, 53M

Recruited by flyers in the cafeteria at VU University, Amsterdam and were either paid $7 or got course credits

Question 27

What was Bocchario’s procedure in room 1?

Answer 27

Researcher greets participant in lab at the university - formally dressed with stern demeanour
Ps were asked to provide the names of fellow students and were presented with a cover story (about recreating a previous study on how sensory deprivation effects brain function) - after reading they were asked to write a statement convincing the students to take part in that study
Experimenter then left the room for 3 minutes for reflection

Question 28

What was Bocchario’s procedure in room 2?

Answer 28

Participant was taken into a second room with a computer
In the statements they were asked to write they had to use at least 2 adjectives amongst: exciting, incredible, great and superb
Told not to mention negative effects of sensory deprivation
Mailbox and research committee form was also in this room and experimenter left 7 minutes to write their statement
If participants felt something wasn’t right they were able to tick a box on the research committee form and place it in the mailbox

Question 29

What happened in Bocchiaro when they went back to room 1?

Answer 29

Participants had to fill out: HEXACO-PI-R - measures of 6 personality dimensions
social value orientation - allows them to be classed as prosocial, individualistic or competitive
Ps then probed for suspiciousness on study and given a full debrief
Asked not to discuss research with anyone, were given a form for consent to use data and given an email address for any complaints or questions

Question 30

Explain the pilot tests conducted in Bocchiaro?

Answer 30

8 pilot tests were conducted on undergraduates from the same VU University to ensure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable. The tests also helped standardise the experimenter-authority behaviour during the experiment

Question 31

What were the quantitative results in Bocchiaro’s study?

Answer 31

76. 5% obedient
77. 1% disobedient
78. 4% whistle-blowers

Question 32

What results did Bocchiaro gain about personality measures linking to results?

Answer 32

No statistically significant differences in any of the personality factors measured by HEXACO-PI-R or between the groups in terms of SVO
The only significant difference was that in relation to faith, whistle-blowers tend to have more faith than obedient or disobedient participants

Question 33

What is the main conclusion that can be drawn from the study by Bocchiaro’s study?

Answer 33

That behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people, even when this reaction seems to be the simplest path to follow (according to observers in the comparison group who were asked what they would do)

Question 34

What are the similarities between Milgram and Bocchiaro?

Answer 34

• self-selected sample
• received payment for taking part
• laboratory on a university campus
• experimenter was a formally dressed male with stern demeanour
• high level of deception

Question 35

What are the differences between Milgram and Bocchiaro?

Answer 35

• Different countries
• Bocchiaro studied both genders
• Different time periods
• In Milgram, the person suffering as a result of their obedience was someone they had only met briefly
• It didn’t require confrontation to be a whistleblower, they could simply tick on the form and place it in the mailbox

Question 36

What were the aims of Levine’s study?

Answer 36

• To see if the tendency of people within a city to offer non-emergency help to strangers was stable across different situations
• To see if helping strangers varied across cultures
• To identify characteristics of communities where strangers are more (or less) likely to be helped

Question 37

How was Levine’s study conducted (what type of study)?

Answer 37

A major cross-cultural study in 23 large cities around the world

Question 38

What was the general procedure in Levine’s study?

Answer 38

One local individual, often a student returning home for summer, would act as confederates on behalf of the researcher to collect the data
They were all of college age and dressed neatly and casually and they were all men

Question 39

Why were the asking for change and mislaid letter tasks not analysed/carried out?

Answer 39

In one country there was a general shortage of small value coins and notes and in another there was a fear of letter bombs at the time

Question 40

Who was not approached in the study?

Answer 40

Children, people who may not be able to help (eg. carrying items or old/disabled) and for the first 2 measures, only people walking alone