Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > The Social Area > Flashcards

The Social Area Flashcards

(83 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What is the social area about

A

Behaviour which is influenced by the presence of others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Studies?

A

Milgram & Piliavin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Background to Milgram’s experiment

A

Adolf Eichmann was a high up Nazi arrested one 1960 and brought to trial in Israel as a war criminal. He said he wasn’t guilty as he was obeying orders. An idea that Germans had a defect that made them blindly obedient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Milgram aims

A

To investigate the process of obedience by testing how far ordinary Americans would go in obeying an authority figure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Milgram type of experiment

A

Controlled observation

No IV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Milgram sample and sampling method

A

Sample: 40 men between 18-50 from new Haven
Method: self selecting though letters and an advert in the local paper. Paid $4 or $4.50 if they drove

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgram sample evaluation

A

Weaknesses:
Can only generalise to men between 18-50. Can’t apply to women, restricted sample.
Strengths:
Ages 20-50 more representative of Nazi officers, what inspired them to conduct the research
Less ethical issues with self selecting adults

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgram sampling method evaluation

A

Weaknesses:
Social desirability bias due to volunteering themselves, less valid as they are overly aware they’re taking part now
Expensive
Strengths:
Self selecting leads to less ethical issues
No researcher bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgram procedure

A

Participant and Mr Wallace do a fixed draw. Mr Walls always ‘learner’ participant always ‘teacher’
He is strapped to the chair with electrodes to his arms, participant sees this.
Test shock of 45 V.
Learner given word pairs to remember. Teacher checks if they have memorised them with multiple choice questions.
If he answers wrong, teacher gives electric shock. Starts at 15V, goes up my 15 each time.
300V he bangs on the wall. Stops responding after that. Goes up till 450 V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Milgram controls

A 
Standardised procedure- same 4 prods in same order.
‘Learner’ and their reactions
Equipment 
Same questions 
Test shock 
Saw Mr Wallace in shock generator
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Milgram quantitative findings

A

100% to 300V

65% went 450V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Milgram qualitative findings

A

All participants showed signs of stress (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter)
3 participants had seizures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Milgram Conclusion

A

Germans are not ‘different’. In stressful situations with authority American’s are obedient too.
People obey authority even against their own moral views if situational factors pressure them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Milgram’s explanation of the findings

A

Took place in credible institution
Mr Wallace and then volunteered, equal chance of being learner
Paid, felt needed to complete it
We’re told shocks weren’t dangerous by an ‘expert’ in white lab coat- trust methods and are intimidated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Milgram’s ethical issues

A

Deception- lied about aims
Right to withdraw- prods
Protection from harm- 3 had seizures
Informed consent- weren’t informed of the real purpose before giving consent

Confidentiality and debrief✅

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Milgram ethnocentrism

A

Participants from same place New Haven, USA

Other cultures found similar results. Italy and Germany both had 85% obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Milgram internal reliability

A

High internal reliability

Standardised procedure, easily replicable, lab setting, same prods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Milgram external reliability (sample)

A

Lower reliability. Smaller sample then he wanted and ethnocentric sample

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Milgram Internal validity (was it testing obedience)

A

High validity, lab setting meant no extraneous variables.

Low validity, highly regarded Uni, payment, pressure to act how the researcher wanted them to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Milgram external validity (can sample be generalised)

A

Sample can’t be generalised, ethnocentric(only from New Haven) all male

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Milgram External ecological validity (scenario true to life)

A

Low validity. Artificial task in artificial environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Piliavin background

A

1964 woman was stabbed in an attack. She shouted for help. Although for over half an hour, 38 citizens heard this, no one called the police until after she was dead
What causes people to stand by and not help?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Piliavin’s aims/hypotheses

A

Type of victim (drunk/disabled) drunk= less help
Race (black/white) same race= more help
Number of witnesses- larger group= more help

Setting an example of helping behaviour: model= encourage more help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Piliavin research method

A

Field experiment

Manipulated IV in natural setting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Piliavin independent variables
Victim Black/white Drunk/disabled Model conditions Early/late Critical area/adjacent area
26
Piliavin dependent variables
``` How long to help How many people helped Gender of helper After model helped, how long Comments made ```
27
Piliavin procedure
``` 70 seconds in on an express train, victim collapses. 70 or 150 seconds later the ‘model’ helped the victim. Two female observers recorded variables like sex, race and location of helpers. Victim info: Male(26-35) 3 white 1 black 38 drunk trials, 65 disabled trials 103 trials ```
28
Piliavin controls
``` Victims clothing and behaviour and gender Same train in same area Same times everyday Female observers 7&1/2 minute train ```
29
Piliavin sample
4450 passengers 3 month period 45% black 55% white 43 per carriage mean
30
Sampling method Piliavin
Opportunity | Used whoever was on the train at that time
31
Piliavin quantitative results
``` Disabled : 95% help Took 5 seconds Drunk: 50% help Room 109 seconds ``` 90% first help male 34 left critical area
32
Piliavin qualitative results
``` Race didn’t have a large effect Models rarely needed Number of bystanders made no difference ‘It’s for men to help’ ‘You feel bad when you don’t know what to do’ ```
33
Piliavin conclusions
State of victim impacts help Males more likely to help Race makes no difference No diffusion of responsibility
34
Piliavin explanation of findings
Couldn’t leave the situation Less effort as they’re waiting on the train anyway Cost of helping- effort, harm, embarrassment Cost of not helping- disapproval, judgement, guilt Reward for helping- praise, feeling good
35
Piliavin ethical guidelines
No informed consent, deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm. However did uphold confidentiality and debriefing
36
Piliavin internal reliability
Low reliability, hard to replicate, field setting makes it difficult
37
Piliavin External reliability (enough trials)
Yes there were a lot of trials
38
Piliavin external reliability (sample)
Sample was large but ethnocentric
39
Piliavin internal validity (accurate measure)
Yes, natural setting and made specific to investigate certain factors
40
Piliavin external validity (sample generalisability)
Low validity | Only people who took the train in that area, opportunity sampling
41
Piliavin external validity (ecological- results reflect real life situation)
Yes, natural setting
42
Experiments in key theme responses to people in need
Piliavin | Levine
43
Experiments in key theme responses to people in authority
Milgram | Bocchiaro
44
Levine aims
1. If similar level of help across different non-emergency situations 2. If helping strangers varies across countries 3. Identify characteristics of communities which strangers are more or less likely to help
45
Levine research method
Correlation | Covariables
46
Overall procedure summary Levine
1 male confederate (usually student) trained for their role to ensure consistency Had detailed instructions Mostly conducted in cities, all had pop over 230,000 Tasks - dropped pen - hurt leg - helping blind person cross street
47
Levine discarded tasks
Asking for change | Lost letter technique
48
Levine dropped pen task
Walked at a practiced moderate pace Dropped pen 10-15 ft from solitary participant walking opposite way 214 men/210 women Picking up/returning/shouting after them counted as help
49
Levine hurt leg task
Walk with heavy limp and clearly visible leg brace Accidentally drop pile of magazines and struggle reaching down 253 men/240 women Offering to help or starting help counted
50
Levine helping blind person cross street task
Confederate wore dark glasses and white cane Just as light turned green to cross the road they would step out to the corner, hold out the cane and wait for help 281 trials If they at least told them the light was green it counted as help
51
Levine where/when trials and how participants selected
Two or more locations used in each city During business hours and summer months between 1992/1997 Avoided under 17 and elderly/disabled participants Random selection, second person to cross a predetermined line
52
Levine list some cities trials took place
Vienna, Rio de Janeiro, Shang Hai, Prague, Tel Aviv, Bangkok, NYC
53
Some areas not studied by Levine
Australasia Only 1 Africa None Middle East Arabic None in former soviet republics
54
3 most helpful cities Levine
1. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (93.33%) 2. San Jose, Costa Rica (91.33%) 3. Lilongwe, Malaysia (86%)
55
3 least helpful cities Levine
Singapore (48%) NYC (44.67%) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40.33%)
56
Compare aims to findings Levine
1. Similar level of help across different non emergency tasks (moderate consistency) 2. Varied across cultures Brazil- 93% Malaysia- 40%
57
Levine 3rd aim result population size characteristic
No relationship with population size and help
58
Levine 3rd aim purchasing Power Parity characteristic
Significant negative relationship | As PPP increases, help decreases
59
Levine 3rd aim collectivist individualist findings
No relationship
60
Levine 3rd aim for pace of life characteristic findings
Small relationship | Faster pace less likely to see confederate help
61
Levine simpatia
Latin American/Spain all above mean levels of helping Simpatia countries= 82.87% Non= 65.87% Simpatia encouraged social qualities- friendly, nice, agreeable
62
Levine conclusions
Levels of helping inversely related to economic productivity Simpatia tradition on average more helping than those without that tradition
63
Levine ethical issues
Consent Right to withdraw Debriefing
64
Internal reliability Levine
High in reliability Procedure was standardised- confederates trained Tested several different tasks in helping behaviour- proves consistency
65
External reliability Levine
High reliability- enough trials
66
Interval validity Levine
Low- demand characteristics if they see confederate repeat behaviours with other people
67
External validity Levine
(Population) Lots of different settings so can be generalised but also only urban (Ecological) True to life scenario, natural environment and normal occurrences in everyday life
68
Levine ethnocentrism
Across different cultures but mostly urban areas
69
Bocchiaro first aim
Expect a higher percentage of participants that will obey the experimentor than in Milgram (Psychological aggression is softer)
70
Bocchiaro second aim
Predict lower level of whilstleblowers than disobedience because it involves potential confrontation to authority
71
Bocchiaro third aim
Substantial overestimation of tendency to disobey and and whilstleblow
72
Bocchiaro fourth aim
Due to the unusual situation, personality variables will only have weak effects
73
Bocchiaro pilot studies
8 pilot studies to ensure procedure was credible and morally acceptable Post experimental interviews showed participants believed cover story and felt study was ethically appropriate Also used to standardise experimentor
74
Ethical guidelines Bochiarro broke
Deception | Protection from harm
75
Bocchiaro internal reliability
High internal reliability | Controls, standardised cover story, time in each room, instructions
76
Bocchiaro external reliability
High overall 149 participants Only 21 disobeyed and 14 whistleblowers so not much can be applied to specific groups
77
Bocchiaro internal validity
Low Could have been suspicious of cover story High Pilot study shows they believed cover story
78
Bocchiaro external validity
Population Low- Participants students from same uni Ecological True to life task
79
Bocchiaro ethnocentrism
Only in Netherlands but at a uni so potential for international students
80
Bocchiaro sample
149 students
81
Bocchiaro method
Experimentor stern demeanor askes for names of fellow students Told stansardised cover story of sensory deprivation experiment and asked to make statement telling friends to take part Left 3 mins to let them think Told must have 2 adjectives like ‘incredible’ ‘exciting’ and requested not to mention negative effects Left in second room 7 minutes to make statement Room had mailbox with committee forms where could anonymously report ethics of it Back into first room 2 personality tests (HEXACO PI R / SVO) then debriefed
82
Bocchiaro results
Prediction: 4% obey/ 32% disobedient/ 65% whistleblow Real: 77% obey/ 14% disobey/ 9% whistleblow Only significant relation to whistle blow was faith
83
Bocchiaro conclusion
Could be due to strong situational forces

Psychology (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions