Social Psychology Core Studies

Question 1

Aim of Milgram

Answer 1

To investigate how obedient people would be to orders from a person of authority that would result in pain and harm to another person

Question 2

Research method of Milgram

Answer 2

• lab experiment
• independent measures design

Question 3

What was the IV and DV of Milgram?

Answer 3

IV = voltage of electric shocks
DV = obedience

Question 4

Sample of Milgram

Answer 4

• 40 males
• 20-50 yr old
• from New Haven
• range of jobs and backgrounds
• offered reward of $4.50
• self selected sample
• recruited from a newspaper ad

Question 5

Procedure of Milgram

Answer 5

• arrived at Yale
• introduced to a stooge (ppt thought was another ppt)
• ppt = teacher, stooge = learner
• taken into another room where learner was strapped into a chair and electrodes were attached
• shown electric shock generator 15v-450v (15v increments)
• given a 45v shock to demonstrate the use of it
• wall between them so could be heard but not seen
• learner had to find a word pair that the teacher read out
• if answer was wrong the teacher would have to “shock” the learner
• up to 300v did not signal response to shocks
• at 300v and 315v he pounded the wall
• after this he was silent
• teacher received verbal prods when they wanted guidance
• completed procedure if got to 450v or refused to continue
• then were interviewed and de-hoaxed

Question 6

Results of Milgram

Answer 6

• qualitative and quantitative data
• 100% of ppts went up to 300v
• 65% went to 450v
• groaning, sweating, stuttering, one ppt experienced a seizure

Question 7

Conclusions of Milgram

Answer 7

• people are much more obedient to destructive orders than we might expect
• find the experience of receiving and obeying destructive orders stressfull

Question 8

Evaluation of Milgram

Answer 8

• unethical = psychological harm, deception, no informed consent, right to withdraw not clear
• reliable = can be replicated many times, procedure proved to be consistent
• lab experiment = high control of extraneous variables, not true to real life as artificial setting (low ecological validity)
• sampling bias = androcentric, all from same area so not representative of wider population

Question 9

Aim of Bocchiaro

Answer 9

To investigate who are the people that disobey or blow the whistle

Question 10

Research method of Bocchiaro

Answer 10

• lab study
• volunteer sample
  -VU university Amsterdam

Question 11

Sample of Bocchiaro

Answer 11

• 149 undergrad students
• exchange of either 7euro or course credit
• 11 ppts were removed from initial sample of 160 because of their suspiciousness about the nature of the study
• comparison group of 138 students were used who predicted obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing but did not take part in the actual study

Question 12

Procedure of Bocchiaro

Answer 12

• experimenter asked ppts to give names of fellow students and then presented a cover story
• a uni research committee were evaluating whether to approve the study and were colleting feedback from students
• ppts told research committee forms were in the next room
• ppts told to write a statement to convince the students they had previously indicated to ppt in experiment
• experimenter left room for 3 mins to allow ppts to refelct
• ppts were taken into 2nd room where there was a computer for then to use to write their statement and a mailbox and the research committee forms
• experiment told ppts to begin and left the room for 7 mins

Question 13

What were ppts told about how to write their statement?

Answer 13

• be enthusiastic
• use 2 adjectives from exciting, incredible, great and superb
• negative effects of sensor deprivation were not to be mentioned

Question 14

Conclusions of Bocchiaro

Answer 14

• there were no differences in terms of religion and personality traits
• people tend to obey authority figures
• behaving in a moral appears to be challenging even when it appears to be easy
• people are not very good at predicting what others will do

Question 14

Evaluation of Bocchiaro

Answer 14

• ethical issues = ppts deceived to avoid demand characteristics, ppts put into situation facing a moral dilemma which could result in stress
• sample = unrepresentative as all ppts were from a dutch uni so unrepresentative of general population and other age and cultural groups, large sample = reduced extraneous variables
• highly standardised = easy to replicate as lab experiment

Question 14

Results of Bocchiaro

Answer 14

of the 138 comparison students
- 4% indicated they would obey the experiments
- most believed they would be either disobedient 32% or whistleblowers 64%

of the 149 ppts in the lab study
- 114 obeyed the experimenter
- 21 disobeyed
- 14 blew the whistle

results found that people with higher faith were more likely to be whistleblowers

Question 14

Define bystander apathy - piliavin

Answer 14

unwillingness of bystanders to offer help during emergencies

Question 15

Define diffusion of responsibility - Piliavin

Answer 15

tendency of individuals to feel diminished responsibility for their actions when they are surrounded by others who act the same way

Question 15

Define pluralistic ignorance - Piliavin

Answer 15

a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm but incorrectly assume that most other accept it and therefore go along with it

Question 16

Aim of Piliavin

Answer 16

To investigate the effect of the following variables on helping behaviour
- type of victim (drunk or ill)
- race of victim
- whether people were more likely to help in an emergency situation if they have seen someone else help
- relationship of group size (diffusion of responsibility)
- model position

Question 17

Sample of Piliavin

Answer 17

• 4440 men and women travelling on the NY subway
  55% were white
  45% were black

Question 18

Who were the people involved in Piliavins study

Answer 18

victims = male confederate who would pretend to collapse in the critical area
model = confederate who helped if no one else had
observers = 2 females who sat in adjacent compartments and recorded the behaviour

Question 19

Procedure of Piliavin

Answer 19

• 103 trials
• team of 4 students boarded train using different doors and sat in different compartments
• after train had passed first station the victim would collapse and if her received no help after the train had passes the 4th station the model would get up and help
• 38 trials were the drunk trails and the victim held an alcohol bottle
• 66 trials were the ill trails and defined by carrying a black cane
• victims dressed identically

Question 20

Results of Piliavin

Answer 20

• drunk was helped less often because perceived cost greater as helping a drunk likely to cause harm and the cost of not helping is less as no one will blame you as he is accountable for his own actions
• no diffusion of responsibility with ill condition as cost of not helping is too high
• women less likely to help as the cost of danger is greater

Question 21

Conclusions of Piliavin

Answer 21

• an individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than someone who appears to be drunk
• men are more likely to than women to help a male victim
• people are more likely to help those of the same race as them
• helping is determined by a cost-reward model

Question 22

Evaluation of Piliavin

Answer 22

• large sample so generalisable results, sample ethnically diverse
• ecologically valid as it was a realistic situation in a realistic environment
• standardised, victims acted the same in both conditions

Question 23

Aim of Levine

Answer 23

To look at helping behaviour in a wide range of cultures in large cities around the world in relation to 4 specific variables

Question 24

What were the specific 4 variables

Answer 24

1. Population size
2. Economic well being
3. Cultural values
4. Walking speed

Question 25

IV and DV of Levine

Answer 25

IV = whether the experimenter dropped a pen, had a hurt leg or was blind
DV = helping rate of 23 individual cities

Question 26

Research method of Levine

Answer 26

• field experiment
• independent measures

Question 27

Sample of Levine

Answer 27

• 100s of ppts
• equal males and females
• 17 yr olds or above
• from 2 areas within the 23 cities

Question 28

Procedure of Levine for the dropped pen experiment, hurt leg condition and blind condition

Answer 28

DROPPED PEN =
Experimenters walked at a steady speed towards a solitary pedestrian and dropped the pen in full view

HURT LEG =
Walking with a heavy limp and wearing a large leg brace, dropped a pile of magazines writhing 20feet of a pedestrian

BLIND =
Dressed in dark glasses carrying a white cane, they held out their cane at traffic lights and waited until someone offered to help, after 60s without help they walked away

Question 29

Results of Levine

Answer 29

• most helpful cities = Rio, San Jose and Lilongwe
• least helpful cities = Kuala Lumpur, New York and Singapore

Question 30

Conclusions of Levine

Answer 30

Richer countries are less helpful

Question 31

Evaluation of Levine

Answer 31

• large sample, different countries, large cultural contexts
• situations not ethnocentric
• focus on Americas, Europe and Asia so not highly representative of Middle East or Africa (only 1 city from both used)
• no cause and effect therefore possible that there were other variables affecting responses to people in need