social approach Flashcards
(24 cards)
Milgram
Aim?
To investigate how obedient people would be to obey destructive orders from a person of authority even if it causes pain or harm to another person.
Milgram
Sample
40 men ages 20-50
New Haven USA
Volunteered through a newspaper advert
Milgram
Procedure?
Participants were told they were taking part in a study to investigate the effect of punishment on learning.
They were given $4.50 for taking part but not for completing.
The confederate was a 47 year old irish/american accountant
Drew straws to see who was the teacher/ learner- rigged so Pp always teacher.
The learner was placed in a separate room and a test shock was given to the Pp.
The Pp had to read out word pairs and the learner had to match them. Incorrect match was an electric shock- up by 15v each time.
300V- no response
315V- bang on glass no response
Pp wants to stop but encouraged strictly to carry on.
Milgram
Results?
300V- 100%
450V- 65%
3 had seizures- shown signs of distress in lip biting, sweating, giggling nervously.
Pilot study estimated only 3% would go up to 415V
Milgram
Conclusion?
People are much more likely to follow destructive orders than originally thought.
There is an internal conflict between 2 ingrained tendencies- to follow those in authority but not to hurt others
Milgram
Evaluation?
Unethical- extreme distress
Androcentric
Population validity- sampling
Ecological validity- lacks mundane realism
Lab experiment- high control and standardised
Bocchiaro
Aim?
To investigate whether personality variables influence an individuals decision to obey, disobey or whistleblow unethical authority?
Bocchiaro
Sample?
149 undergraduate students from VU university in Amsterdam.
11 removed due to suspicion about the true nature of the study
82 pilot studies involving 92 undergrads
Bocchiaro
Method?
Lab experiment- no IV
Male dutch experiments formally dressed with a stern expression. Asked each Pp to write down the name of a fellow student that they would suggest to take part.
Cover story- 6 people in Rome undertook an experiment to see how sensory deprivation affect the brain in which they were unable to see/ hear anything. It had awful results- experienced hallucinations but the experimenter wanted to repeat with younger.
Pp asked to write a letter to encourage their chosen student to take part but not to include potential danger or they could report the study for being unethical to the research committee. Fully debriefed.
Bocchiaro
Results?
Obey- 76.5%
Disobey- 14.1%
Whistleblow- 9.4%
No significant difference regarding age, gender, religion.
Significant difference regarding faith.
No statistically large differences in any of the 6 personality variables measured by HEXACO-PI-R
Bocchiaro
Conclusions?
People tend to obey authority figures even if it is unjust.
How people think they would act and how they really do in a given situation differs especially if the circumstances are unfamiliar or extreme.
Bocchiaro
Evaluation?
Internal validity- high due to control and standardisation
Ecological validity- low mundane realism.
Ethics- no pain inflicted and fully debriefed after but they were deceived
Sampling bias- low generalisation- all dutch undergrads
Piliavin
Aim?
To investigate whether helping behaviour was affected by 4 variables:
- Race of the victim
- Responsibility of the victim
- Modelling behaviour
- Diffusion of responsibility
Piliavin
Sample?
4550 participants
Average of 43 per carriage- 8 in critical area.
Racial mix- 45% black, 55% white
103 trials
Piliavin
Method?
Field experiment carried out on the NY subway on 8th avenue line.
Worked in teams of 4: 2 females record results, 2 males (victim+model)
Male experimenter pretended to be ill or drunk and faked a collapse on trains between stops (7.5 mins between stations). lay still on his back, eyes open, not moving until helped.
Between 6&8 trials a day between 11am+3pm.
Model conditions:
1. male stood in critical area 70s
2. male stood in adjacent area 70s
3. male stood in critical area 150s
4. male stood in adjacent area 150s
DV measured by:
time taken for first Pp to help
Total no. of Pp who help- gender, race, position of each helper
Piliavin
Results?
78% receive spontaneous help
60% helped by more than one person
Ill= 95% help without model Drunk= 50% help without model
Piliavin
Conclusions?
The ill person is more likely to receive help.
The longer an incident goes on, the less likely people are to help and more likely to leave and discuss- model helping after 70s was more likely to lead to help than 150s
Men more likely to help
Slightly more likely to help those of same ethnicity
Piliavin
Evaluation?
Ecological validity- high mundane realism
Internal validity- low as very repetitive and Pp may witness it more than once as same stretch of line used. Pp trapped and couldn’t leave so demand characteristics
Reliability- high as natural exp- 103 repeats 2 observers
Levine
Aim?
To investigate helping behaviour in non-emergency situation.
- universal or dependent on the characteristics of a city
- helping of strangers varies between cultures.
- characteristics of a community
Levine
Sample?
Large cities in 23 countries
Experimenters were cross-cultural psychology students.
1198 participants chosen by being the second person to cross a certain line on a pavement.
children, elderly, disabled excluded from sample.
Levine
Method?
Quasi exp
Carried out in 2 or more parts of the city centres during office hours on sunny days.
Minimise EV- all exp. males and did not talk to Pp.
Helping behaviour tested in 3 situations:
1. E dropped pen and pretends not to notice as Pp approaches
2. E walking with leg brace drops a pile of magazines and struggles to pick them up
3. E is blind- seen as helping if Pp says when its safe to cross
Community variables:
economic prosperity, pace of life, cultural values, population size
Levine
Results?
Most helpful- Rio de Janeiro 93%
Least helpful- Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 40%
Help fairly consistent across 3 measures.
Anomaly- NY 75% help blind, 28% help leg
Simpatia= 83% Non-simpatia= 66%
Levine
Conclusions?
- helping behaviour in non-e situations is not universal
- No relationship between helping and collectivist/ indiviualist
Signif differences in simpatia - Poorer countries had higher rates of helping (-0.43)
Helping not related to city size/ pace
Levine
Evaluations?
High ecological validity- quasi
Large sample- population validity
Opportunity sample
Low internal- lack control and not all Pp had the same experience due to time of day and journey purpose
