Core studies Flashcards by Ella Measham

Milgram
Background?

Milgram wondered if German obedience in WWII was dispositional therefore wanted to pilot a procedure to assess obedience

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Aim?

To investigate the process of obedience and the power of authority

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Sample?

40 New Haven men
20-50yrs old

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Sampling method?

Self selected
Recruited from an advert asking for volunteers in a newspaper

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Experimental design?

Independent measures

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Research Method?

Controlled Observation

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Materials/Apparatus?

Shock generator

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
What were the participants rewarded with for participating?

Paid $4.50

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Where did the study take place?

Yale University

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Quantitive Results?

100% of participants reached 300v
65% reach 450v

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Qualitative Results?

Participants observed sweat, tremble, bite their lips and dig their nails into their skin
One participant started hysterically laughing and had to be stopped
Participants said after the laughter didn’t mean they enjoyed shocking the victim

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Milgram
Conclusions?

Social settings strongly influence obedient behaviour

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Background?

Milgram’s study of obedience to an authority figure.
Bocchiaro wondered what would happen if people are offered the option to take personal action against unjust authority such as disobey

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Aim?

To investigate how people deal with unethical requests and see the difference between how people think they will behave compared to how they actually behave

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Sample?

149 dutch uni students
96f 53m

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Sampling method?

Self selecting
Recruited by flyers in campus cafe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What were participants rewarded with?

Paid 7 euros or given course credit

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Experimental design?

Independent measures

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Research Method?

Controlled observation
in a laboratory!

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Materials/Apparatus?

An ethics form

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Where did the study take place?

A lab in VU university

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Quantitive Results?

76.5% obey
14.1% Disobey
9.4% whistleblow

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Qualitative Results?

People obeyed due to external forces and entered agents state so did not see themselves responsible for their behaviour.
Those that felt responsible disobeyed

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bocchiaro
Conclusions?

People tend to obey authority figures even if the authority is unjust
What we say often differs from what we do

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Piliavin Aim?

To investigate the effects of four types of victims (IV's) on helping behaviour in a real life setting

Piliavin Background?

Bystanders in an emergency situation often do not offer help. Latane and Darley had participants overhear an epileptic seizure showing a diffusion of responsibility as the numbers of bystanders increased they were less likely to help. Piliavin tested this in a real life setting

Piliavin Sample?

4,45O Passengers travelling on the New York subway on 15th April- 26th June in 1998 60% were men

Piliavin Sampling method?

Opportunity sampling

Piliavin Experimental design?

Independent measures

Piliavin Research Method?

Field experiment

Piliavin Materials/Apparatus?

black cane or liquor bottle

Piliavin Where did the study take place?

Harlem Bronx New York Subway

Piliavin Quantitive Results?

90% of first helpers were men

Piliavin Qualitative Results?

A person using a cane is more likely to receive help than someone who is seen drunk The black victim received help less quickly than the white victim Helping was greater in 7 person groups rather than 3 person groups

Piliavin Conclusions?

No diffusion of responsibility found Action will depend on whether the rewards of helping are greater than the costs of not helping

Levine Aim?

To investigate cultural differences in helping

Levine Background?

Studies in several countries (USA & Saudi Arabia) found urban areas tend to be less helpful than rural areas.

Levine Sample?

Largest city in 23 countries including: Brazil, Costa Rica & Malaysia

Levine Sampling method?

Opportunity sampling

Levine Experimental design?

Independent measures

Levine IV?

1. Dropped Pen 2. Hurt leg 3. Help blind person

Levine DV?

1. called or gave pen back 2. if offered to help or started to help 3. If they at least told them the light was green

Levine Research Method?

Quasi experiment

Levine Quantitive Results?

Most helpful- Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 93% San Jose (Costa Rica) 91% Least helpful- Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) 40% New York (USA) 45%

Levine Qualitative Results?

No relationship between population size and helping behaviour

Levine Conclusions?

Simpatia (family tradition) countries more helpful than non simpatico countries

Loftus & Palmer Aim?

To investigate how leading questions influence witness memories of a car crash accident.

Loftus & Palmer Background?

Daniels (1972) showed that memory for a drawing was influenced by the verbal labels given afterwards

Loftus & Palmer Sample?

EXP 1 - 45 Washington Uni students EXP 2 - 150 Washington Uni students

Loftus & Palmer Sampling method?

Opportunity sampling

Loftus & Palmer Experimental design?

Independent measures

Loftus & Palmer IV?

The verb

Loftus & Palmer DV?

EXP 1 - Estimate of speed EXP 2 - Whether participants said they saw broken glass

Loftus & Palmer Research Method?

Lab experiment

Loftus & Palmer Materials/Apparatus?

EXP 1 - EXP 2 -

Loftus & Palmer EXP 1 Results?

The verb labels brought about a change in speed estimate Smashed - 40.8 Collided - 39.3 Bumped - 38.1 Hit - 34.0 Contacted - 31.8

Loftus & Palmer EXP 2 Results?

Smashed was seen as faster than hit Smashed- YES - 16 NO - 34 Hit - YES - 7 NO - 43 Control (not asked about speed) YES - 6 NO - 44

Loftus & Palmer Conclusions?

Verbal labels cause a shift in the actual memory of the accident in the direction of the label

Grant et al Background?

Grant et al Aim?

Grant et al Sample?

Grant et al Sampling method?

Grant et al Experimental design?

Grant et al Research Method?

Grant et al Materials/Apparatus?

Grant et al Where did the study take place?

Grant et al Quantitive Results?

Grant et al Qualitative Results?

Grant et al Conclusions?

Moray Aim?

Moray Background?

Moray Sample?

Moray Sampling method?

Moray Experimental design?

Moray Research Method?

Moray Materials/Apparatus?

Moray Where did the study take place?

Moray Quantitive Results?

Moray Qualitative Results?

Moray Conclusions?

Simons & Chabris Aim?

Simons & Chabris Background?

Simons & Chabris Sample?

Simons & Chabris Sampling method?

Simons & Chabris Experimental design?

Simons & Chabris Research Method?

Simons & Chabris Materials/Apparatus?

Simons & Chabris Where did the study take place?

Simons & Chabris Quantitive Results?

Simons & Chabris Qualitative Results?

Simons & Chabris Conclusions?

Bandura Aim?

Bandura Background?

Bandura Sample?

Bandura Sampling method?

Bandura Experimental design?

Bandura Research Method?

Bandura Materials/Apparatus?

Bandura Where did the study take place?

Bandura Quantitive Results?

Bandura Qualitative Results?

Bandura Conclusions?

Chaney Aim?

Chaney Background?

Chaney Sample?

Chaney Sampling method?

Chaney Experimental design?

Chaney Research Method?

Chaney Materials/Apparatus?

Chaney Where did the study take place?

Chaney Quantitive Results?

Chaney Qualitative Results?

Chaney Conclusions?

Kohlberg Aim?

Kohlberg Background?

Kohlberg Sample?

Kohlberg Sampling method?

Kohlberg Experimental design?

Kohlberg Research Method?

Kohlberg Materials/Apparatus?

Kohlberg Where did the study take place?

Kohlberg Quantitive Results?

Kohlberg Qualitative Results?

Kohlberg Conclusions?

Lee et al Aim?

Lee et al Background?

Lee et al Sample?

Lee et al Sampling method?

Lee et al Experimental design?

Lee et al Research Method?

Lee et al Materials/Apparatus?

Lee et al Where did the study take place?

Lee et al Quantitive Results?

Lee et al Qualitative Results?

Lee et al Conclusions?

Sperry Aim?

Sperry Background?

Sperry Sample?

Sperry Sampling method?

Sperry Experimental design?

Sperry Research Method?

Sperry Materials/Apparatus?

Sperry Where did the study take place?

Sperry Quantitive Results?

Sperry Qualitative Results?

Sperry Conclusions?

Casey Aim?

Casey Background?

Casey Sample?

Casey Sampling method?

Casey Experimental design?

Casey Research Method?

Casey Materials/Apparatus?

Casey Where did the study take place?

Casey Quantitive Results?

Casey Qualitative Results?

Casey Conclusions?

Blakemore & Cooper Aim?

Blakemore & Cooper Background?

Blakemore & Cooper Sample?

Blakemore & Cooper Sampling method?

Blakemore & Cooper Experimental design?

Blakemore & Cooper Research Method?

Blakemore & Cooper Materials/Apparatus?

Blakemore & Cooper Where did the study take place?

Blakemore & Cooper Quantitive Results?

Blakemore & Cooper Qualitative Results?

Blakemore & Cooper Conclusions?

Maguire Aim?

Maguire Background?

Maguire Sample?

Maguire Sampling method?

Maguire Experimental design?

Maguire Research Method?

Maguire Materials/Apparatus?

Maguire Where did the study take place?

Maguire Quantitive Results?

Maguire Qualitative Results?

Maguire Conclusions?

Freud Aim?

Freud Background?

Freud Sample?

Freud Sampling method?

Freud Experimental design?

Freud Research Method?

Freud Materials/Apparatus?

Freud Where did the study take place?

Freud Quantitive Results?

Freud Qualitative Results?

Freud Conclusions?

Baron- Cohen Aim?

Baron- Cohen Background?

Baron- Cohen Sample?

Baron- Cohen Sampling method?

Baron- Cohen Experimental design?

Baron- Cohen Research Method?

Baron- Cohen Materials/Apparatus?

Baron- Cohen Where did the study take place?

Baron- Cohen Quantitive Results?

Baron- Cohen Qualitative Results?

Baron- Cohen Conclusions?

Gould Aim?

Gould Background?

Gould Sample?

Gould Sampling method?

Gould Experimental design?

Gould Research Method?

Gould Materials/Apparatus?

Gould Where did the study take place?

Gould Quantitive Results?

Gould Qualitative Results?

Gould Conclusions?

Hancock Aim?

To examine if language of psychopaths reflects a goal focused predatory world view, unique socio- emotional needs and a poverty of emotion

Hancock Background?

Studies have shown psychopaths (1% of the population) exhibit a wholly selfish orientation and emotional deficit Language appears less organised than non psychopaths

Hancock Sample?

52 muders in Canadian prison who admitted to crime all men 14 psychopaths 38 non- psychopaths

Hancock Sampling method?

Self selecting

Hancock Experimental design?

Independent measures

Hancock Research Method?

Quasi experiment

Hancock DV?

Measures of language from text analysis

Hancock IV?

Psychopath or non- psychopath

Hancock materials/apparatus?

Psychopathy checklist a score of 25+ indicated psychopathy

Hancock Qualitative Results?

No significant difference in the number of words used to describe the murder by the psychopaths and non-psychopaths Psychopaths used more conjunctions (because) Non-psychopaths used more words relating to higher social needs such as family where as Psychopaths used more 'basic needs' words such as food and was less fluent

Hancock Conclusions?

-Significant differences between the language used by psychopaths and non-psychopaths -More likely to view their crime as a logical outcome of a plan

Core studies Flashcards

(223 cards)