Social Psychology

Question	Answer
Who was Kitty Genovese?	A woman who was murdered with 38 witnesses and none of them called the police.
What was the aim of Piliavin's study?	To investigate, in a natural setting, factors that may influence bystander behavior. These could be; type of victim (drunk/ill), race of victim (black/white), impact of modelling and group size.
Where and when did Piliavin's experiment take place?	On the New York subway from 11am - 3pm.
Who were Piliavin's participants?	4,450 passengers on the train at the time of the study.
How did they board the train in Piliavin's study?	The team of students boarded the train separately and the two female observers took seats outside the critical area. The male model and victim remained standing.
How long was each trial in Piliavin's study?	There were no stops for 7 and a half minutes between 59th street and 125th street, the start and end of the study.
Who were the victims in Piliavin's study and what were the conditions they could be in?	4 victims, one black, aged 26-35. They were identically dressed but in the drunk condition the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a brown paper bag. In the cane condition, the victim appeared sober and had a black cane. The victim was drunk on 38 trials and sober on 65.
Who were the models in Piliavin's study and what were the conditions they could be in?	Four white males (aged 24-29) played the models. There were three conditions; No model - the model didn't help. Early model - helped after 70 seconds. Late model - helped after 150 seconds.
What did the observers make note of in each of Piliavin's trials?	One observer noted; - The race, sex and location of every person in the critical area. - The total number who helped the victim. - Race, sex and location of every helper. The other noted; - The race, sex and location of every person in the adjacent area. - Time when help was first offered. Both observed noted verbal comments.
What was the general findings on helping behavior in Piliavin's study?	The frequency of helping behavior was impressive compared to previous laboratory experiments. On 81 of 103 trials, help was given within 70 seconds and therefore there was not time for the model to be involved.
What did Piliavin find in relation to the victims experimental conditions?	The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time, the drunk victim received spontaneous help 50% of the time.
What trends emerged in the spontaneous helpers of Piliavin's study?	There were 81 spontaneous helpers, though none were significant. - White bystanders were more helpful, 64% - Black victims received help less quickly than white victims. - In the drunk condition there was a 'same race effect'.
What did Piliavin find in relation to the impact of modelling?	The impact of modelling was difficult to analyse because, in most cases, help was given before the model had time to act. The model were involved in 19 trials (16 drunk and 3 cane). In all early trials, the model triggered help from a passenger. In four of the late trials, no help was offered (after 150 seconds anyone who was going to help would have already)
What did Piliavin find in relation to group size?	As the group size increased, the response time also increased - the opposite of previous findings (distribution of responsibility).
What did Piliavin conclude?	It indicates that bystander behavior is more complex than suggested by the diffusion of responsibility model, which is based on one factor.
How can Piliavin's results be explained in terms of a cost-reward model?	An emergency situation leads to heightened arousal, people wish to reduce this arousal which can be acheived by helping or not helping. A person will decide to help if the rewards outweigh the costs of both helping and not helping, e.g. the cost of helping may be time, the cost of not helping may be disapproval, the reward may be praise.
What was Milgram's aim?	To demonstrate the power of a legitimate authority when when a command requires destructive behavior.
Who were Milgram's participants?	40 males from various occupational backgrounds, aged 20-50 years old. They were a volunteer sample who responded to an advertisement placed in a local newspaper and sent out in the post. Participants were paid $4.50 for an hour, but upon arriving were told the money was theirs no matter what.
Who played the role of the experimenter in Milgram's study?	A biology teacher dressed in a technician's coat.
Who played the role of the learner in Milgram's study?	A 47 year old accountant who was trained for the role.
Where did Milgram's study take place?	In a laboratory at Yale University.
What were the participants told the aim of Milgram's study was?	To see how punishment affected learning.
What happened when the participant met with the 'confederate participant'/learner in Milgram's study?	Lots were drawn for the parts of teacher and learner, this was rigged so the real participant always got the role of teacher.
How was the participant shown the electric chair and what enforced their belief that it was real?	The teacher witnessed the learner getting strapped to the electric chair and an electrode was attached to the learner's wrist and also attached to the shock generator. After being taken to another room, the participant was given a sample shock of 45V on their wrist.
What did the experimenter say to the participants whilst the learner was being strapped in the chair?	'Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage'.
Describe the shock generator used in Milgram's study.	It had 30 switches, each labelled with a number of volts from 15V to 450V and a word describing the voltage intensity; slight shock, moderate shock, strong shock, very strong shock, intense shock, extreme intensity shock, danger: severe shock, and XXX.
What was the procedure of the learner's 'test' in Milgram's study?	The teacher was asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms, the learner has to indicate which of the four terms was originally paired with the first word. The teacher was told to give a shock for a wrong response and each time increase the shock by one level. They also had to announce the voltage each time.
How was the learner trained to respond to the questions in Milgram's study?	The learner had a predetermined set of responses, giving approx. 3 wrong answers for every correct one. The learner made no protest until 300V in which he pounded on the wall. After this there was no response, at 315V the learner pounded on the door but still no response.
In Milgram's study, what responses did the experimenter give when the participant asked for advice?	When the learner stopped responding, he told them to wait 5-10 seconds before treating the lack of response as a wrong answer. The experimenter also gave a series of standard 'prods' such as; 'please continue' and 'the experiment requires that you continue'.
How did Milgram control for psychological harm after his study?	The participants were given a debrief and some psychological test.
What were Milgram's results on obedience?	65% of participants continued to the maximum voltage. All participants obeyed up to 300V, in which 5 participants stopped.
What behavioral observations showed that the participants in Milgram's study were under a large amount of stress.	Many showed nervousness and a large number showed extreme tension, participants were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh. 14 displayed nervous laughter and 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
What factors did Milgram believe to be the cause of the high level of obedience?	- The location was a prestige university, providing authority and assumes research is important so they do not want to disrupt it. - Participants assume the experimenter knows what he is doing; due to technicians coat and highly regarded job. - Participants assume consent and was a chance (could of been them). - Sense of obligation as paid. - If able to discuss with others may behave differently. - Participant is torn between meeting the demands of the experimenter and the victim, inner conflict between not wanting to hurt someone and needing to obey someone legitimate.
What was the aim of Reicher and Haslam's study?	To study the interaction between dominent and subordinate groups and to understand the conditions under which subordinate groups will challenge the tyranny.
What is tyranny?	An unequal social system.
Who were Reicher and Haslam's participants?	Male volunteers were sought through national newspapers and leaflets. There was an initial pool of 332 applicants, reduced to 27 through assessments by clinical psychologists, medical and and character references and psychometric tests for things such as authoritarianism, depression, and self-esteem. This 27 was narrowed down to a final 15 to ensure a diversity of age, social class and ethnic background.
How were Reicher and Haslam's participants divided?	They were divided into 5 groups and matched closely on personality variables that might be significant, e.g. racism, social dominance, etc. From each group of 3, one person was randomly selected as a guard and two were prisoners.
How did Reicher and Haslam take ethics into consideration?	The study was monitored throughout by independent psychologists and an ethics committee.
How did the living conditions of prisoners and guards differ in Reicher and Haslam's study?	Prisoners were allocated lockable three-person cells. The guards quarters were separated by a lockable steel mesh fence. The guards had much better accommodation and food than the prisoners.
What were the three planned independent variables in Reicher and Haslam's study?	Permeability, legitimacy, and cognitive alternatives.
What was the permeability independent variable in Reicher and Haslam's study?	Participants were told that the guards were selected because of certain personality characteristics and if prisoners showed these traits they might be promoted to being guards. On day 3 one prisoner was promoted but after that prisoners were told no further promotions would be possible.
What was the legitimacy independent variable in Reicher and Haslam's study?	On day 6 participants were told their was actually no differences between guards and prisoners . This meant that the group division was not legitimate and aimed to create insecurity and trigger a search for cognitive alternatives.
What was the cognitive alternatives independent variable in Reicher and Haslam's study?	A new prisoner was introduced after the legitimacy intervention. He was chosen because he was a trade union official and therefore would provide skills to negotiate and organize collective action.
What were the dependent variables measured in Reicher and Haslam's study?	Social Variables - social identification, awareness of cognitive alternatives, right-wing authoritarianism. Organisational variables - compliance with rules and organisational citizenship. Clinical variables - depression and self-efficacy (taken by rating scales, observations and psychological measures).
What were Reicher and Haslam's results for Social Identification?	Prisoners showed little group identification until the group boundaries became impermeable, on day 3. At this point they started to discuss how they could work together to improve their conditions. Therefore impermeability enhanced social identification and collective action. The guards did not identify with their group.
What were Reicher and Haslam's results for Legitimacy and Security?	Low group identify among the guards led to ineffective leadership. This led to prisoners having less regard for the guards' authority as legitimate, creating insecurity and enabling prisoners to feel able to challenge inter-group inequalities, e.g. a prisoner threw his plate on this floor, demanding better food.
What were Reicher and Haslam's results for Cognitive Alternatives?	A prisoner joined on day 5 and established a negotiating structure. Rating scales showed that participants became increasingly aware of cognitive alternatives, as predicted.
What were Reicher and Haslam's results for Organisational and Clinical measures?	Measures of organisational variables dropped significantly on day 5 when the prisoners started to challenge the guards and no longer supported the organisation. The unity of the prisoners led to increased self-efficacy scores and decreased depression scores, whereas the guards became more disorganised and mutually recriminatory.
What were Reicher and Haslam's results for combined impact?	On day 6, prisoners broke out of their cells and occupied the guards quarters.
What were Reicher and Haslam's results for Authoritarianism?	A new commune was set up when participants met with the experimenters, however the new social structure was in crisis because two ex-prisoners violated communal rules. A new group of one ex-guard and three ex-prisoners formulated a plan for a new and harsher prisoner-guard hierarchy. The desire for strong social order was reflected in an increase in right-wing authoritarianism, this increased in those who chose to be prisoners.
Why was Reicher and Haslam's study ended prematurely?	The new regime could not be imposed due to ethical constraints and the existing regime was not working, so the study was stopped on day 8.
What did Reicher and Haslam conclude?	The results contradict the traditional view that group processes are toxic and lead to uncontrolled, mindless, and anti-social behavior. The study shows that it is possible to run ethical field studies into social processes rather than conducting sterile experiments.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Beckie Vautier over 8 years ago