social psychology

Question 1

The Social Approach

Answer 1

The Social Approach
- All behaviour occurs in a social context and is influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others and the environment.
- Our relationship with others influences our behaviour and thought process.

Key theme 1 : Obedience to authority
- Milgram
- Bocchiro

Key theme 2 : helping behaviour
- Piliavin
- levine

Question 2

What is the background of Milgrams study ?

Answer 2

• During WW2, millions of innocent people were killed on command by the Nazis during Hilter’s regime. We are socialised to obey certain people who are seen as legitimate authority figures. This extreme example of obedience to an authority figure highlights the atrocities’ that can occur when people simply follow orders.
• This example of obedience highlighted the ability of people to move into an agentic state, recognising the need to obey and giving up their own free will to become an agent to authority.
• Events such as the WW2 prompted the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis, stating that Germans have a deficit which means that they have a readiness to obey people in authority regardless of the act that they are asked to carry out,
• prompting Milgram to conduct research to test his hypothesis through the use of American men.

Question 3

Milgram - Aim

Answer 3

To investigate levels of obedience shown when asked to administer electric shocks to another person.

Question 4

Milgram - Sample

Answer 4

• 40 males
• Aged 20-50
• From New Haven area
• Volunteer sampling: in response to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement for a study on memory and learning, paid $4.50

Question 5

Milgram - Apparatus

Answer 5

• Shock generator
• Burn/blister cream
• White lab coat

Question 6

Milgram - Research Method

Answer 6

Controlled Observation (There is no clear IV or DV)

Question 7

Procedure

Answer 7

• The study took place in a lab at Yale University,
  -A confederate (Mr Wallace) and the participant drew lots for the role of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’, whereby the participant was always the teacher.
• The confederate ‘learner’ was then strapped to an electric chair, with an electrode attached to the wrist and cream applied to prevent blisters. - To enhance authenticity the teacher was given a sample shock of 45 volts.
• The teacher then conducted a word pair task, whereby the learner would select a word to match the paired word from the teacher, by pressing one of 4 buttons. -If the answer was incorrect the teacher would shock the learner, increasing by 15 volts each time.
• If the participant indicated he didn’t wish to continue administering shocks, the experimenter (Jack Williams, dressed in a white lab coat) would respond with standardised prods such as “please continue teacher ”.
  -Participants who administered all electric shocks up to 450v were classed as obedient,
• those who stopped before 450v were classed as disobedient.

-Participants were observed behind a one-way mirror by the experimenter and other observers to record their responses. At the end participants were fully debriefed and reunited with the victim.

Question 8

Milgram - Results

Answer 8

Quantitative:
* All 40 participants obeyed up to 300 volts
* 65% of participants obeyed whereas 35% disobeyed

Qualitative:
* Participants showed signs of nervousness and tension e.g. sweating, trembling, 14 participants had nervous laughing fits
* “No I don’t want to go on, this is crazy”

Question 9

Milgram -Conclusion

Answer 9

• There is no such thing as an obedient type and in the wrong situation we all enter an agentic state, obeying orders of an authority figure.
• German’s are not different, situational factors led to rates of obedience and the situation we are in could cause anybody to act in the same way.

Question 10

Evaluate the sample in Miligrams study

Answer 10

Sample
+ Representative of German soldiers (different occupations)
-Participants only from one area (New Haven)
Sampling Bias
-Volunteer sampling, increased risk of demand characteristics as were paid

Question 11

Evaluate the Data in Miligrams study

Answer 11

Data
+ Qualitative descriptions of behaviour increased insight
+ Quantitative results allow for objective measures of obedience (scientific)

Question 12

discuss the ethics of Milgrams study

Answer 12

Ethics
+ Debriefed participants afterwards
-Deception (two false aims, role allocation, shocks were real etc.)
-Right to Withdraw (Ppts felt obliged to stay as were being paid, standardised prods used when they asked to leave)
- Protection of participants - participants showed clear signs of stress e.g sweating and trembling

Question 13

Evaluate the validity of Miligrams study

Answer 13

Internal validity
+ high control over extraneous variables- highly controlled lab experiment
+ participants tested alone controlling for SDB

Ecological Validity
-Too extreme to be realistic, conducted in a lab at Yale
+ Ppts believed shocks were real, therefore showed genuine reaction

Question 14

Evaluate the use of a snapshot study in Miligrams study

Answer 14

Snapshot
+ Easy to compare obedient behaviour of 40 males
-Can’t track development of obedience

Question 15

Research Method: State the R.M used and the
Strengths and Weaknesses

Answer 15

Controlled Observation
+ High control of EVs, so increased internal validity
+ Highly standardised, so increased internal reliability
-Risk of demand characteristics

Question 16

Bocchiaro - Background

Answer 16

ocial power refers to the influence an individual has to change another’s thoughts, feelings or behaviour. Individuals in authority have social power to influence those with lesser power or status. Research has shown that it is difficult to defy an authority figure, suggesting that there are more than situational explanations responsible. Whistle-blowers report or expose unjust behaviour in organisations or institutions after observing the behaviour take place. Previous research by Milgram found that a high proportion of people will obey an authority figure when asked to harm another person. However, little is known about the nature of disobedience or defiance to someone in authority and the dispositional factors which may cause someone to defy social power. Bocchiaro therefore wanted to expand on Milgram’s research by giving participants the option to obey, disobey or whistle-blow in relation to an unjust request.

Question 17

Bocchiaro - Aim

Answer 17

To investigate rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing in response to highly unethical instructions
+ To investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing
+ To investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing

Question 18

Bocchiaro - Sample

Answer 18

• 149 undergraduate students,96 women, 53 men,
• from VU University,
• average age 20.8
• paid €7 or given course credit
  (11 removed as they were suspicious)

Question 19

Bocchiaro - Research Method

Answer 19

Scenario study in a lab at VU University, Amsterdam 8 Pilot tests: used to ensure cover story on sensory deprivation was believable, to standardised experimenter-authority behaviour Comparison group: Read the cover story on sensory deprivation study in Rome, asked what they would do (3.6% would obey) and what they thought other people would do (18.8% would obey)

Question 20

Bocchiaro - Procedure

Answer 20

ROOM 1 =
- Main participants informed of task, given R2W and assured of confidentiality.
-Greeted in lab by male, Dutch authority figure formally dressed, with a stern demeanour.
- Asked to provide names of 3 friends for study on sensory deprivation.
- Research Committee was evaluating whether it should be passed.
-Participants asked to write a statement to convince 3 friends to take part (Obedience).
-Option was also made clear that Research Committee forms were in next room (Whistle-blowing).
-Experimenter left room for 3 minutes where participants made their decision.

ROOM 2=
Participants told to be enthusiastic in letter and not mention negative effects of sensory deprivation.
Experimenter then left the room for 7 minutes. Participants then carried out their decision.

Obey = write the letter,
Disobey = do nothing,
Whistle-blow = complete Research Committee form.
Experimenter returned and taken back to Room 1.

ROOM 1=
-HEXACO and SVO personality inventories given,
- fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form.

Question 21

Bocchiaro - results

Answer 21

· Comparison group- 3.6% said they would obey · Main participants- 76.5% obeyed (14% disobeyed, 9% blew the whistle)
· HEXACO and SVO- no significant difference, however, trend with those who whistle-blew having a faith.

Question 22

Bocchiaro - Conclusion

Answer 22

· People tend to obey authority figures even when the authority is unjust.
· What people say they and others will do in response to an unethical request differs from what actually happens.

Question 23

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Research Method:

Answer 23

Research Method:
Lab scenario study
+ Highly standardised, increasing internal reliability
+ Ethical- allowed researchers to test obedience in an ethical way
+ High levels of control, increasing internal validity
-Low ecological validity as not a natural setting -Risk of demand characteristics as they know they’re part of a study

Question 24

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Sample

Answer 24

Sample:
+ Quite large so can establish a consistent effect (increasing reliability)
-All undergraduate students (20.8) so can’t be generalised to adults

Question 25

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Snapshot:

Answer 25

Snapshot: + Allowed researchers to compare levels of obedience between individuals -Unable to track development of obedient behaviour over time

Question 26

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Sampling Bias:

Answer 26

Sampling Bias:
+ Reached a wide range of people (different courses), not just one type of student
-Volunteer sampling used- risk of demand characteristics as being paid

Question 27

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Ecological Validity:

Answer 27

+ Cover story is believable (piloted) so scenario seemed plausible -Not as realistic as real life (e.g. at work) due to use of a scenario study, participants not actually experiencing it so not able to generalise

Question 28

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Data:

Answer 28

Data:
+ Comparisons can be made with quantitative data between those who obeyed, whistle-blew etc.
+ External reliability increased as can be replicated to check for consistency
-Reduced insight as oversimplified explanation of complex behaviour
+ Qualitative data (comments made in debrief) useful to help assess how they really felt “it was expected of me, that’s why I continued”

Question 29

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Ethics:

Answer 29

Ethics:
+ Confidentiality, R2W, Consent gained twice, fully debriefed

-Deception- fake cover story

Question 30

Bocchiaro - Evaluation
Ethnocentrism:

Answer 30

Ethnocentrism:
-Dutch participants (individualistic) so limited in drawing conclusions about collectivist cultures
+ However, similar findings to Milgram (USA) so not only true of Americans

Question 31

Piliavin - Background

Answer 31

Piliavin was inspired by the murder of a young girl, Kitty Genovese in New York in the 60s, 38 of her neighbours could hear her being attacked but no one did anything to help. Social psychologists would argue the neighbours displayed the bystander effect, specifically diffusion of responsibility; there were other neighbours who could help so they didn’t see it as their responsibility. Previous lab experiments such as the smoke filled room by Latane and Darley found evidence for diffusion of responsibility; the majority of people don’t ask for help when a room is filling with smoke because no one else does. However, these experiments lacked ecological validity and did not explore helping behaviour in a realistic setting. Piliavin therefore wanted to investigate this further using a field experiment in a more natural situation, a train.

Question 32

Piliavin - Aim

Answer 32

To investigate the rate of helping behaviour in different social contexts and situations.

Question 33

Piliavin -Sample

Answer 33

4,500 men and women on the New York subway during a 3 month period, from 11am - 3pm

Question 34

Piliavin - Apparatus

Answer 34

Cane for the ill victim,
bottle wrapped in brown paper bag for the drunk victim

Question 35

Piliavin - Research Method

Answer 35

This was a field experiment as it took part in a natural setting, a New York subway train during the hours of 11am-3pm when many people would be riding the train.
The task was also true to real life, witnessing someone collapse on the train and deciding whether to help or not.
IVs- drunk or ill victim, effect of model (how soon the model helped 70 seconds of 150 seconds and from adjacent or critical area), race of the victim (black or white), size of witnessing group
DVs- were measured by 2 female observers: any comments made, the race of the helper, the speed of help given, the frequency of help given, the gender of the helper, movement out of the critical area

Question 36

Piliavin - Procedure

Answer 36

· Piliavin standardised the behaviour of the confederates before the experiment began.
· In groups of 4 (2 male confederated and 2 female observers) each group of researcher would get onto the train, one male would act as the ill or drunk victim and one male the model. The 2 females would sit either in the adjacent area of the critical area, the victim would stumble and fall over the stay on the floor until someone helped.
· If no one helped then the role model would intervene
· The ill victim held a cane and the drunk victim a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag
· They would then get off the train and start all over again

Question 37

Piliavin - Results

Answer 37

· Helping rate for the ill victim was 100% whereas for the drunk it was only 81%
· There was more same race help
· There was more males who helped than females
· Many females were recorded saying (qual) that it wasn’t their job to help it was a mans

Question 38

Piliavin - Conclusion

Answer 38

Piliavin suggested that when there is no escape to a social situation and the victim who needs help is in front of you, then diffusion of responsibility is much less likely, regardless of how many people are around, which disagrees with the previous belief.
More people are likely to help an ill person than a drunk person, as being drunk is seen as self-induced in a social context, therefore, these people are less worthy of help

Question 39

Piliavin - Strengths

Answer 39

· The study was highly standardised- internal reliability
· The study collected quantitative data which can be checked for consistency
· The study also collected qualitative data which allowed for insight into the reasons why many women didn’t offer help
· The study was highly useful as it enhanced our understanding of the bystander effect and how it differs in situations were escape is not possible
· The study was scientific in many ways as it collected quantitative data and piliavin tried to control the situation by using confederates and training them before they began so that their behaviour didn’t impact on the cause and effect between the situation and helping behaviour
· The study considers the free will of the participants as it shows that many of them didn’t help when the victim was drunk as they saw this as self-induced
· The study addressed the situational debate and enhanced our understanding of the power of the situation and how it impacts helping behaviour, which can be practically applied to encourage helping strangers in need

Question 40

Piliavin - Weakness

Answer 40

· There was a lack of control against situational and individual variables as the experiment was a field e.g. many people may have seen the scenario twice if they got on the train more than once
· The procedure may have caused harm to the participants as they may have felt anxious when observing the confederate fall over
· The sample may have involved many tourists and people who do not work, which is unrepresentative of the population of New York, lacks population validity
· The results do not explore the nature debate, as individual factors such as anxiety, disability or cultural background may have led to the participants not offering help-reductionist
· The study may be seen as ethnocentric as it only takes place in New York and it doesn’t consider other cultural norms outside of black and white people e.g. Hispanic/Asian

Question 41

Levine - Background

Answer 41

Levine was interested in the cultural differences in helping behaviour. Population size has been suggested as one of the reasons for this. Research suggests that people living in urban areas are less helpful than those in rural areas and this is supported by Steblay who found that urban environments of 300,000 people or more were some of the worst places if someone was looking for help. In addition to this, cultural values are also thought to influence helping behaviour. Individualistic cultures focus on independence and the needs of their own in comparison to collectivist cultures that focus on the needs of the group and community. Much of the research into helping behaviour has focussed on single communities or countries, therefore, Levine wanted to investigate cross-cultural differences in helping behaviour, focussing on a number of factors which could affect helping rates.

Question 42

Levine - Aim

Answer 42

To investigate helping behaviour using a cross cultural study focusing on 3 main aims;
1. Cross Cultural difference in helping behaviour
2. Whether helping behaviour is stable across all emergency or non-emergency situations
3. Difference based on community variables (pace of life, individualist, collectivist or simpatia, economic wellbeing of country and population size)

Question 43

Levine - Sample

Answer 43

23 large cities across different countries, including Kuala Lumpar (Malaysia) Rio de Jenero (Brazil) New York (America)

Question 44

Levine - Apparatus

Answer 44

Dark glasses, white cane, magazines, pen

Question 45

Levine - Research Method

Answer 45

· Cross Cultural Study
· This is a quasi-experiment as the IV of the different cities is naturally occurring
· Research partners from these different cultures were used when they were travelling back home to each city.
· IV- The 23 cities
· DV- The helping rate · A series of correlations were also ran to see a relationship between the three helping situations and the 4 community variables

Question 46

Levine - Procedure

Answer 46

· Levine standardised the 3 helping situations and got his research partners to practice so they were all doing the same thing.
· Each scenario took place in each city in a fairly busy area
· Each bystander was approached only if they were on their own, so that the people they were with didn’t impact whether they helped or not

Dropped Pen: The confederate would approach a bystander, and then as they walked past them, they dropped a pen behind them and kept walking.
Helping Behaviour = bystander brought the pen to them or called out and told them they had dropped their pen.

Hurt Leg: The confederate would be wearing a leg brace and carrying a pile of magazines. They would drop the pile and struggle to pick them up when the bystander was in sight.
Helping behaviour = they physically helped or offered to help pick them up.

Blind Man: The confederate would be carrying a white cane and wearing dark glasses. They would walk to the edge of the side walk and as the lights turned green, they would look as if they were about to walk out into the road. Helping behaviour = bystander put their hand out to stop the confederate or verbally told them to stop.

Question 47

Levine - Results

Answer 47

Each aim has its own set of results
1. There was a significant cross-cultural difference in helping behaviour, with Rio being the most helpful with a helping rate of 93% and Kuala Lumpar the least with 40%.
2. Helping behaviour was consistent across all 3 scenarios, apart from New York, with less people helping the blind man cross the road.
3. The type of culture (community variable) had a significant impact on helping behaviour, with Simpatia cultures (Hispanic) being the most helpful, and individualist cultures being the least. Also, there was a negative correlation between wealth of country and helping rate. (The richer the country, the less helpful)

Question 48

Levine - Conclusion

Answer 48

Levine found that the wealthier the culture, the less helpful they are, which suggests that when cultures are individualist and the population are taught to think about themselves and their own wellbeing, the less helpful they are to strangers who need help. On the other hand, cultures that are collectivist and exercise simpatia values (friendliness, thinking of the good of others and the group) are more likely to come to the help of others.

Question 49

Levine - Strengths

Answer 49

+The study is highly standardised which makes it high in internal reliability
+The study gathers quantitative data making it easier to compare helping rate and check for consistency is the procedure is replication
+The study follows many scientific principles; replicability, quantifiable measures
+ The study is not ethnocentric as it is cross cultural so it enhances our knowledge of the differences between cultures in relation to helping behaviour
+ The study is holistic as it considers many variables when comparing the helping behaviour of different cultures

Question 50

Levine - Weakness

Answer 50

Weakness
- The study lacks control of extraneous variables as it takes place in the field-low internal validity
- The study doesn’t consider individual differences of the bystanders which may lead to an invalid helping rate for that city
- The study only focuses on one large city in each country, in which the helping behaviour may not be representative of the whole country and less populated areas, making the results less valid and representative of the entire population of that culture.