Social Approach Flashcards
(113 cards)
1
Q
Aim of Milgram
A
• To investigate how obedient individuals would be to orders received from an authority figure even when it would result in physical harm to another person
• To see the level of electric shock that would be administered by a participant under the orders of a researcher
2
Q
Milgram background
A
Wanted to know whether Germans were different from others and to understand whether the person’s individual characteristics or the conditions of their environment are more influential on levels of obedience.
3
Q
How was the sample in Milgram collected?
A
Volunteer sampling - newspaper advertisement
4
Q
Number, age, gender of the sample in Milgram
A
40 men, aged 20-50 yrs
5
Q
Milgram method
A
Laboratory experiment (with interview and observation) / controlled observation
6
Q
Where were the participants from? - Milgram
A
New Haven, USA
7
Q
What occupations did the participants have? - Milgram
A
Range of backgrounds
- unskilled workers
- white collar workers
- professionals
8
Q
Milgram design
A
No design - each ppt did the one condition of the study
9
Q
Milgram variables
A
No variables
Sometimes said that:
IV = command to obey
DV = shock intensity level
10
Q
What were the participants in Milgrams study told it was about?
A
Learning and memory
11
Q
How much were participants in Milgram’s study paid
A
$4 + $0.50 for travel
12
Q
What were the experimenters participating as? - Milgram
A
Stooges/confederates
13
Q
Who was the experimenter? - Milgram
A
31 yr HS biology teacher
Wore a grey lab coat
14
Q
Which experimenter acted as the ‘learner’ ? - Milgram
A
Mr Wallace
47 yr accountant trained for the role
15
Q
Apparatus in Milgram’s study?
A
- shock generator labelled from 0-450V (in 15V increments) + more info
- electrodes attached to generator
- chair which learner was strapped to
16
Q
Controls in Milgram
A
Procedure same for all participants
- same drawing of teacher/learner
- same use of equipment
- same word pairs and prods
17
Q
How were levels of obedience measured? - Milgram
A
Through observation
18
Q
What else did observers take note of? - Milgram
A
Participant’s body language, verbal comments/protests made throughout the procedure
19
Q
Type of data gathered in Milgram
A
Qualitative
- verbal comments, ppt’s becoming stressed, etc
Quantitative
- voltage ppt went to before refusing to continue
20
Q
How many people withdrew first and at what voltage? - Milgram
A
5 people at 300V
21
Q
How many participants went to 450V? - Milgram
A
26 (65%)
22
Q
What physical observasions were made? - Milgram
A
- sweating
- trembling
- stuttering
- biting lips
- digging finger nails into flesh
- nervous laughter
- seizures
23
Q
How many people had seizures - Milgram
A
3 (1 was severe)
24
Q
What were the 2 surprising findings reported by Milgram?
A
- sheer strength of obedience shown by participants
- extraordinary tension generated by the procedures
25
2 conclusions of Milgram’s study
- German’s were not different (1960’s American’s obeyed an authority figure when instructed)
- although most participants obeyed, they were not happy in doing so - signs of tension and stress indicated mental torture being experienced
26
Aim of piliavin
To study bystander behaviour in a natural setting and also to investigate the effect of four situational variables on helping behaviour or ‘good Samaritanism’
27
Piliavin Hypotheses
1. An individual would be more inclined to help someone of his race than a person of another race.
2. Regarding type of victim: help would be given more frequently and rapidly to the apparently ill victim.
3. Whatever sympathy individuals may experience when they observe a drunk collapse, their inclination to help him will be reduced by the realisation that the victim may become disgusting, embarrassing and/or violent (cost-reward matrix)
28
Piliavin research method
field experiment
- Took place in realistic environment (NYC subway)
Considerable standardisation between trials and controls ensuring there were few differences between the conditions (e.g. the victim was always identically dressed
29
Piliavin design
independent groups design
- Trials repeated on different days and involved different participants in each condition
30
Piliavin IV’s
- Type of victim (drunk/ill victim)
- Race of victim (black or white victim)
- Behaviour of the ‘model’ (model close/distant from victim and early/late in the event)
- Size of group of bystanders (naturally occurring number of passengers present in the subway carriage)
31
Piliavin Sampling Method
Opportunity sampling - participants not deliberately selected for participation
32
Piliavin sample
- Participants travelling on the NYC subway service between Harlem and Bronx, weekdays between 11am and 3pm
- Total estimated participants - 4450 people
- Around 45% black and 55% white
- Mean number of passengers per carriage was 43
- Mean number of people in the critical area was 8.5
33
Piliavin model description
4 white males aged 24-29 assumed the role of models in each team (all models wore informal clothing but not identically attired)
34
Model conditions in piliavin
• Critical area-early (stood in critical area and waited
• until the 4th stop before helping - approx. 70 sec after collapse)
• Critical area-late (stood in critical area and waited until passing the 6th stop before assisting the victim - approx. 150 sec after collapse)
• Adjacent area-early (stood in middle of car in area adjacent from critical area and waited until passing the 4th stop
• Adjacent area-late (model stood in adjacent area and waited until passing the 6th station)
35
What did the models do if no one provided assistance - piliavin?
They would raise the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial
36
Description of victims in piliavin
- 4 victims were males aged 26-35
- 3 were white, 1 was black
- All identically dressed in Eisenhower jackets, old slacks and no tie
37
How many drunk trials were there in piliavin?
38
38
How many cane trials were there in piliavin?
65
39
Description of drunk victim
smelled of liquor and carrier a liquor bottle wrapped tightly in a brown bag
40
Description of cane victim
appeared sober and carried a black cane
41
What did the female observers record in piliavin?
- race, sex and location of every passenger in the train carriage (seated or standing)
- total number of passengers
- total number who came to help the victim
- race, sex and location of the passengers who came to help the victim
42
Operationalisation (quantitative data) - piliavin
• Time taken for first passenger to help
• Total number of passengers who help
• Race, gender, location in the carriage of each helper
• Verbal remarks made by passengers during each incident
43
What is used to describe the quantitative data in piliavin?
Objective data
44
Qualitative data collected in piliavin
Comments/remarks and movements made by passengers was recorded enabling greater understanding of thoughts and behaviours
45
Piliavin conclusion
• Many people would offer help to a stranger, even in a group situation
—> no evidence of diffusion of responsibility
46
Generalisability weakness of piliavin
All victims and helpers were male - study was androcentric
- findings can’t be generalised to women
47
How can generalisability be increased in piliavin?
by using males and females as the victims and helpers (better if equal number of each gender)
48
Piliavin reliability strength
There were two observers for each trial making the results gathered more reliable than if than if there was only one observer - more data gathered and can compare results to see if they are the same
49
Piliavin reliability weaknesses
• Due to methodological problems, more cane trials than drunk trials took place
• More white than black victims - only one black student in the university class
• Different number of male and female participants
50
Why is it a weakness that there were more black than white victims? - piliavin
Results can’t be compared to each other (decreased reliability)
51
Why is it a weakness that there were a different number of male and female participants - piliavin
Low generalisability and reliability because of lack of control of extraneous variables
52
Piliavin validity weakness
Open setting - some participants may have seen the experiment more than once (e.g. if on the train again as many repeats were made and many people take the same train everyday)
53
Piliavin validity strengths
• ecological validity - the participants were ordinary passengers who were unaware they were taking part in a study, and therefore would have behaved naturally
• Covert field experiment - no demand characteristics or social desirability bias - were unaware they were participating in the study so were acting naturally
• Collected both qualitative and quantitative data
54
Piliavin ethics evaluation
Consent - participants did not give the researchers consent to take part in the study, were unaware they were participating in a study
Deception - participants were deceived because they were unaware that it was not a genuine emergency
Debrief - the participants were not debriefed. It would.of been almost impossible/very difficult due to the large sample size
Psychological harm - following the experiment, it is possible that participants had feelings of guilt, distress and anxiety
Right to withdraw - participants were not able to withdraw themselves and their data from the study as they were unaware that they were in it and that it was taking place
55
Piliavin issues and debates - application to everyday life
• Useful - led to development of cost-reward matrix
• Educate others - always help, as the longer it takes, less likely people are to help and more people would suffer (if one person helps, others will come and help)
Suggests diffusion of responsibility is not typical bystander helping in natural environments
56
Piliavin issues and debates - individual factors affecting behaviour
• Cost of helping
• Personality
• Gender
• Race
57
Piliavin issues and debates - situational factors affecting behaviour
• Diffusion of responsibility
• Pluralistic ignorance
• Captive audience - couldn’t leave the train, could only move to the adjacent area so may have felt like they had to help
58
Examples of individual participants in piliavin
• people who helped
• people who didn’t help
• people who moved away
59
Aim of Yamamoto
To learn more about the helping behaviour in chimpanzees, specifically to find out whether chimpanzees:
• Have the ability and flexibility to understand the needs of conspecifics
• Can respond to those In need with targeted helping
• Can help conspecifics without being asked
60
Theory of Mind in Yamamoto
The ability to attribute mental states to ourselves and others and understand that these can be different to our own
61
Hypothesis of Yamamoto
62
Research method - Yamamoto
Laboratory experiment
63
Design - Yamamoto
Repeated measures design
64
Independent variables of Yamamoto
The ability of the chimpanzee to give targeted helpline behaviour to another chimpanzee. Two conditions:
1. Potential ‘helper’ chimp able to see the other’s tool-use situation
2. Potential ‘helper’ chimp not able to see the other’s tool-use situation
65
Dependent variables of Yamamoto
- Targeted/instrumental helping behaviour
- Operationalised through the items offered by the ‘helper’ chimpanzee to the recipient
66
Sampling method - Yamamoto
67
Sample/participants of Yamamoto
6 chimps involved - Chloe didn’t want to participate
68
Objects in the tray - Yamamoto
- Straw
- Belt
- Chain
- Rope
- Hose
- Brush
- Stick
Stick and straw used - other object are decoy
69
Chloe results
Didn’t want to participate/wasn’t interested so was not forced to
70
Cleo results
Can see 1 - 97.4% gave stick or straw
- Maybe die to prior amount of use with tools
Cant see - 88.9% gave stick or straw
Can see 2 - 95.7% gave stick or straw
71
Ai results
Can see 1 - 1.5% gave wrong item, 87.5% offered stick or straw
Can not see - 54% gave wrong item - 89.4% gave stick or straw
Can see 2 - 81.3% gave stick or straw
Quite consistent
72
Ayumu results
Can see 1 - 78% gave stick or straw
Can‘t see - 93% gave stick or straw - actively asses partners situation - peeking through the hole - require visual assessment of situation to help effectively
Can see 2 - didn’t participate
73
Pan results
Can see - kept giving brush - 79.5% gave non tool - removed brush then 88.6% gave stick or straw
Can’t see - 55.3% gave brush
74
Pal results
Can see 1 - 93.4 % passed either stick or straw
Can’t see - 100%
Can see - 100%
Has a theory of mind
75
Evaluation of sample in Yamamoto
• Used in experiments before - not scared
• Used a minimum number of animals
• Not taken from wild environment
• Generalisability - small sample, not all monkeys are lab animals, same breed
• Low ecological validity - not all can use tools
76
Operationalisation of Yamamoto
77
Yamamoto procedure
78
Yamamoto can see condition
- % of objects offered
- % of chimps requesting objects
- % of correct objects given
- 90.8% object offered
- 90% chimps requested objects - gestures
- 100% correct object
79
How many times would each mother and child give and receive objects (can see) - Yamamoto
48 times give, 48 times recieved
80
Yamamoto can’t see condition
- % object offered
- % object requested
- % that gave stick/straw
- 95.8% object offered
- 71.1% object requested
- 50 gave stick/straw
81
How many times would each mother and child give and receive objects (can’t see) - Yamamoto
48 times give, 48 times recieved
82
Which chimps participated in the second can see condition?
Cleo, Ai, Pal
83
Yamamoto background
84
Yamamoto conclusions
Chimps can understand the need of conspecifics in order to help them in successfully solving tasks
- will offer help to con specific who require it (majority), usually as response to a direct request rather than a spontaneous act
- chimps rely on visual confirmation of conspecifics’ needs in order to offer targeted help
85
Yamamoto strengths
• Laboratory experiment
- controls
Standardisation
—> increased reliability
• repeated measures design
- less participant variables
—> increased validity
86
Yamamoto weaknesses
• Low ecological validity
- artificial environment (however familiar with environment due to previous studies)
• small sample
- 5 chimps
- same research institute
—> Low generalisability - dont represent wild chimps
87
Set up of the booths
88
Issues and debates
89
How many teams used to collect data in PIliavin
4 teams
90
Total number of trials in Piliavin
103
91
People in each team (+gender) - Piliavin
4 Columbia General Studies students
2male, 2 female
92
Where did female confederates sit? - PIliavin
Adjacent area
93
How did the female confederates act when they were recording data? - PIliavin
As unobtrusively as possible
94
What did the male confederates consist of? - PIliavin
Victim and model
95
Where did the victim stand - PIliavin
The pole in the centre of the critical area
96
What did the model do throughout the trial - PIliavin
Remained standing
97
Time gap between the 2 stations - PIliavin
7.5 mins
98
Critical area - early - PIliavin
- stood in critical area
- waited ~ 70 secs to help victim
99
Critical area - late - PIliavin
- stood in critical area
- waited ~ 150 seconds to help victim
100
Adjacent - early - PIliavin
- stood in adjacent area
- waited ~ 70 secs to help victim
101
Adjacent - late - PIliavin
- stood in adjacent area
- waited ~ 150 seconds to help victim
102
No model condition: - PIliavin
Model didn’t help victim until trial was over and train reached next stop
103
% of victims that received spontaneous help - PIliavin
Nearly 80%
104
% of cases where there was more than one helper - PIliavin
Around 60%
105
Help more likely given to which victim
- Number of times they received help - PIliavin
Cane victim
62/65 received help
106
Number of times drunk victims received help - PIliavin
19/38 trials
107
Spontaneous helping occured earlier in which condition - PIliavin
Cane
108
Which condition did not collect any data - PIliavin
Model trials for black cane victim
109
% of help received for white victim trials (cane and drunk) - PIliavin
Cane - 100%
Drunk - 77%
110
% of help received for black victim trials (cane and drunk) - PIliavin
Cane - no data
Drunk - 67%
111
In drunk condition, which race found to receive less help overall - PIliavin
Black
112
Minor evidence of same-race help in which condition - PIliavin
Drunk
113
Why was the effect of modelling difficult to analyse
What did they find - PIliavin
Most helping that occured was spontaneous
Early model intervention at 70 secs was slightly more likely to result in helping behaviour than waiting until 150 seconds had passed
