Psychology - Year 12
Aims & Objectives
By the end of this booklet you should be able to:
ψ Describe and evaluate the social approach in psychology
ψ Describe and evaluate the various methodologies used by the social approach
ψ Consider issues and perspectives relevant to the social approach
ψ Consider relevant context and theory
ψ Describe and evaluate the 3 core studies in this approach
o Milgram – Behavioural Study of Obedience
o Reicher & Haslam – Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny
o Piliavin – Good Samaritans; an underground phenomenon
ψ Consider the implications of core studies for the social approach
Ψ Milgram (1963) ‘Behavioural Study of Obedience’
Ψ Reicher & Haslam (2006) ‘Rethinking the psychology of Tyranny: The BBC prison study’
Ψ Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969) ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’
| |MILGRAM |PILIAVIN |REICHER & HASLAM |
|SECTION A EXAM QUESTIONS | | | |
|SECTION B EXAM QUESTIONS | | | |
|MOCK EXAM | |
|NOTES COMPLETE | | | |
|2 SIDED SUMMARY COMPLETE | | | |
|E LEARNING | | | |
|COMMENTS | | | |
| | | | |
Am I reaching my target grade in this unit?
What are my strengths in this area of Psychology?
What are my weaknesses?
What do I need to do to improve?
Attendance in this unit
G. Allport (1935) defined social psychology as
“the scientific investigation of how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others”
ψ Researchers are said to adopt a social psychological approach when they focus on social behaviour between individuals or groups and tend to regard other people and social contexts as just as, if not more important than any other influence (such as personality)
ASSUMPTIONS
Social psychologists assume that for anyone who has been raised in a society;
ψ All behaviour occurs in a social context, even when nobody else is physically present
ψ Other people, and the society they have created, have a major influence on people’s behaviour, thought processes and emotions.
|STRENGTHS |WEAKNESSES |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|CONTRIBUTION TO PSYCHOLOGY |METHODS USED |
Aims & Objectives
1) To be able to describe the background and context of the
core study:
□ I can define conformity and obedience
□ I can describe Asch’s study into conformity and explain how this influenced Milgam’s work
□ I can give details of how the holocaust triggered Milgram’s work
2) To be able to describe the core study in detail:
□ I can state the aim and hypothesis of Milgram’s study
□ I can describe the sample used and how they were selected
□ I can state the method used in the study
□ I can give a thorough step by step account of the procedure used
□ I can describe the results of the study using numbers and percentages (quantitative data)
□ I can describe the qualitative data that was obtained
□ I can describe the 3 stages of the debrief
□ I can suggest at least 5 possible reasons for the high level of obedience found
□ I can state the conclusions for this study
3) To be able to evaluate the core study on the relevant issues:
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of generalisability
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of reliability
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of ethics
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of ecological validity
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of demand characteristics
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of relation to context
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of data
□ I can evaluate Milgram’s study on the issue of strengths and limitations of the method
THE HOLOCAUST
C.P. Snow (1961) noted that ‘when you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
One such example of this was when six million innocent people were systematically slaughtered on command by the Nazis during Hitler’s regime. The inhumane policies of the Nazis could only have been carried out on such a massive scale if a very large number of people obeyed orders. The defence for many of the war criminals was that they were only following orders.
Many historians in attempting to explain these horrors have argued that the destruction of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and many others was made possible because of some sort of character defect which makes Germans more obedient. Milgram’s study is an attempt to test ‘the Germans are different’ hypothesis.
The Germans are different hypothesis states that German’s have a basic character deficit which means they have a readiness to obey people in authority regardless of the act they are being asked to carryout.
The Germans are different hypothesis is an example of a dispositional attribution as it is arguing that the cause of behaviour is believed to result from the persons own personality or characteristics.
However, Milgram set out to question this dispositional attribution of the Germans. He believed that the situation had led to the inhumane behaviour of the Nazis and therefore that anybody in the same situation as those committing such atrocities would have done the same in the same circumstances. Milgram argued that people would commit atrocities if required to do so by an authority figure. This argument is an example of a situational attribution as it is arguing that the behaviour resulted from the situation a person was in.
This study investigates the nature of obedience. Obedience can be defined as complying to the demands of others, particularly those in positions of authority.
ASCH – CONFORMITY
Milgram’s interest in the power of social influence (how our actions can be affected by others) had also been aroused by studies into conformity – for example Asch (1955) as summarised below:
Asch wanted to test conformity in non-ambiguous conditions – i.e. would people still conform to a wrong answer even if the right answer was clear. He therefore devised a simple perceptual task of matching the length of a line to three other comparison lines. The task was so easy that the control subjects made almost no errors. In the experimental group only one real subject was tested at a time but he was surrounded by confederates of the experimenter who he believed to be other participants. The confederates had been instructed to all give the same wrong answer to 12 out of the 18 trials. The only real subject was second to last to give their estimate, and was, therefore faced, with either giving their own opinion or conforming to the group opinion on the critical trials.
The average rate of conformity was 32%. 74% conformed at least once and 26% never conformed. Even subjects that did not conform felt strong social pressure to do so. One was heard to exclaim ‘I always disagree – darn it!’ and on being debriefed, commented ‘I do not deny that at times I had feeling of “to heck with it I’ll go along with the rest”’
1) Out line the replication of Asch’s procedure
2) What were the results?
3) What caused people to conform?
4) How were participants recruited for Milgram’s experiment?
5) Outline Milgram’s basic procedure
6) How did people think the participants in the experiment would behave?
7) How is the participant encouraged to continue? What phrases are used?
8) Who are they told takes responsibility for the learner?
9) What happens if the experimenter leaves the room?
10) What does this say about the participants’ motives for continuing?
11) Name three things that were part of the debriefing
12) What percentage of the participants went to the final switch?
13) How did this percentage change when
a. The learner was in the same room?
b. The learner had to put their hand on a metal plate to receive the shock?
14) Why was the experiment carried out again in offices? What result was found in the offices?
15) What explanations does Milgram give for obedience?
Aim
The aim of the experiment was to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.
Method
Procedure
40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age, were recruited from the New Haven area. They were obtained by responding to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. The participants represented a wide range of occupations, including postal clerks, high-school teachers, salesmen, engineers and labourers. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment but importantly they were told that the payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, regardless of what happened after they arrived.
Milgram created a phoney ‘shock generator’ which in the 1960s looked very impressive and realistic. The phoney shock generator had 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts.
To improve the authenticity of the phoney shock generator written labels were also clearly indicated for groups of four switches: ‘slight shock’, ‘moderate shock’, ‘strong shock’, ‘very strong shock’, ‘intense shock’, ‘extreme intensity shock’, ‘danger: severe shock’. Two switches after this were marked XXX).
[pic]
The phoney generator also had buzzers, flashing lights and moving dials. The generator could give a 45-volt shock, which again was designed to make it appear genuine.
The experiment took place in a smart psychology laboratory in Yale University.
The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old biology teacher, who introduced himself as Jack Williams. He wore a technician’s coat and appeared stern and emotionless throughout the experiment.
The victim was played by Mr Wallace, a 47-year-old accountant, trained for the role, whom most observers found mild-mannered and likeable.
One participant and one victim (a confederate) were used in each trial. In order to justify the administration of the electric shocks by the participant a cover story was used. After a general introduction about the relation between punishment and learning the participants were told:
But actually we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning, because almost no truly scientific studies have been made of it in human beings.
For instance, we don't know how much punishment is best for learning, and we don't know how much difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment, whether an adult learns best from a younger or an older person than himself, or many things of that sort.
So in this study we are bringing together a number of adults of different occupations and ages. And we’re asking some of them to be teachers and some of them to be learners. We want to find out just what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners, and also what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation.
Therefore, I’m going to ask one of you to be the teacher here tonight and the other one to be the learner.
Does either of you have a preference?
The participant was asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat to determine which role he would play. The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and Mr. Wallace (the confederate) was always the learner.
The teacher (participant) and learner were taken to an adjacent room and in full view of the teacher (participant) the learner was strapped into the ‘electric chair’. The experimenter explained to the teacher (participant) that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked; the effect was to make it impossible for him to escape the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and electrode paste (cream) was applied ‘to avoid blisters and burns’.
The participant (teacher) was told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room. The participant (teacher) then heard the experimenter tell the learner ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’.
To further enhance the authenticity of the generator the participant (teacher) was given a sample shock of 45 volts, applied by pressing the third switch. The shock generator was actually powered by a 45-volt battery and not wired to the mains.
The participant (teacher) was then seated in an adjacent room in front of the shock generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner. The learner was asked to learn (memorise) these pairs (this is known as ‘paired-association learning’). The participant (teacher) then tests the learner by giving him one of the words in a pair along with four other words. The learner has to indicate which of the four words had originally been paired with the first word. The learner’s answer was communicated by pressing one of four switches which illuminated a light on top of the shock generator. If the answer was correct the participant (teacher) had to move onto the next word on the list, if the answer was wrong the participant had to tell the learner the correct answer and then the level of punishment that they were going to give them. They would then press the first switch on the shock generator (15 volts). For every subsequent incorrect answer the participant was required to move one switch up the scale of shocks (15 volts higher than the voltage of the last shock delivered).
In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the word pair test, based on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer.
There was a standardized set of responses given by the learner (mr Wallace) for different voltages on the shock generator
[pic]
If the participant asked advice from the experimenter, whether it be; ‘should I continue administering shocks’, or some other indication that he did not wish to go on, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised ‘prods’:
Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’;
Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’;
Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’;
Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.
The prods were always made in sequence. Only if Prod 1 was unsuccessful could Prod 2 be used, etc. If the participant continued to disobey after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was always firm, but not impolite. If the participant asked if the learner could suffer permanent physical injury, a special prod was used; ‘although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. If the participant said that the learner did not want to go on, another special prod was used; ‘whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. The experiment would end either when the 450 volt shock had been administered, or when the participant walked out.
A participant who breaks off at any point prior to the highest shock level (450 volts) is called a defiant participant, while one who obeys up to the 450 volts is called an obedient participant.
The sessions were also filmed and notes were taken by observers looking through an observation mirror. The latency and duration of shocks were timed.
After the experiment, the participants were thoroughly debriefed using open-ended questions and to test that the participants were not harmed a number of psychometric measures (projective tests and attitude scales) were used.
The participant was also reunited with the victim to show them that the victim was not harmed and it was explained to them that there behaviour was normal. These measures were taken to ensure that the participants left that laboratory in a state of well being.
Obedience:
Participant / subject:
Sample:
Self-selected sample:
Stooge / confederate:
Random allocation:
Deception:
Prompt / prod:
Debrief:
S I O P A T X E A S G U E U T P G G L R
Z P B D N O S L N L Z D H G P M Y K U C
T J E B B S C P G L B A C P V X X C X J
S K D Z I L I M F Z A L J E W N U I K F
S V I T X E V A J E P S G U O B A K B O
W A E U R U M S Z Q I O H I D B R R R J
Y O N G H R H D D M O R T I N Y E S I E
A X C U S P T E X T Y A B R M Z R Q L S
E D E C L L C T S R C O L E Z T M R K H
L T N G O E Y C N O I A M O D K E X Z N
P G V V P N B E L P A R T I C I P A N T
M K G T K D F L T C E J B U S Z G K K Q
A G I Q I L A E K S U I U V J B N A Z A
S O O R Y M L S D P R O M P T K V O P H
N K K T O E D F M E W X V R K Y W J L Z
P S F D X Y D L K F R I D C E S R X W L
D R N X F T J E S I Z A A X O C T S I L
D A O V R S M S M T J C T C Q Z V P K B
R N O D M F G F F C J W T E G X O A R K
Z B W X M U E Y S N G E X I U B E E O S
1. Complete the following table:
|Voltage |270 |285 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
When evaluating a study in the AS course we will adopt the GREED DISC analysis.
1. GENERALISABILITY
DEFINITION
In order to be generalisable a study must have
a.
b.
Milgram’s sample was;
This sample could not therefore be considered generalisable. Think of 3 reasons why;
1.
2.
3.
However, the study was redone in New Haven with 636 participants. There was only 40 females in this sample but they showed the same level of obedience as the males in the study.
Milgram’s results have been replicated since in many different countries, therefore we say the results have cross cultural validity.
2. RELIABILITY
DEFINITION:
Milgram’s research was carried out in a lab and had a very standardised procedure. This means it would be possible to replicate Milgram’s research to produce similar results. This has been done by many other researchers – all showing that it is a reliable result.
3. ETHICS
Milgram’s experiment was criticised because three ethical guidelines were broken;
1. Deception
Give 4 ways in which Milgram deceived his participants:
A.
B.
C.
D.
2. Protection from harm
Participants could have been harmed as a result of taking part and believing that they had killed another person.
But…
3. Withdrawal
Aspects of Milgram’s procedure made it very difficult for the participants to withdraw, including the prompts and prods and the payment. Why would being paid make it difficult for the participants to withdraw?
However, Milgram’s ethics can be defended;
a) Milgram did not anticipate the extent of the obedience that he found, he surveyed people before the experiment and no one said they would continue to 450 volts.
b) Participants were given a full debrief which consisted of 3 parts;
1.
2.
3.
4. ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
DEFINITION
The Milgram study was a lab experiment so can never be very realistic. The participants were in an unfamiliar situation so their behaviour may be different than it would be in their everyday lives.
Hofling and Seridan & King both attempted to improve the ecological validity of research into obedience.
Hofling –
Sheridan & King –
5. DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
DEFINITION:
In Milgram’s study participants realised that they were taking part in an experiment and thought that the experimenter wanted them to proceed to the end of the scale (through the use of prompts and prods), so they could have obeyed simply to please the experimenter
DATA
DEFINITIONS:
1. Quantitative;
2. Qualitative;
The data collected were quantitative in that they involved measuring particpants’ obedience levels, numerically, in terms of how far up the voltage scale they were prepared to go. This type of data has the advantage of being easy to compare and to analyse statistically. However, Milgram included no qualitative descriptions of why the participants obeyed or how they felt during the experiment although there are a few brief descriptions of participants’ behaviour during the experiment.
IMPLICATIONS
REAL WORLD IMPLICATIONS (APPLICABILITY)
How USEFUL do you think the results of Milgram’s study are?
IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOLOGY
What does Milgram’s study tell us about the dispositional vs situational explanations?
STRENTGHS & WEAKNESSES OF METHOD
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
OTHER EALUATION ISSUES – LONGITUDINAL VS SNAPSHOT
DEFINITIONS:
Longitudinal =
Snapshot =
CHANGE TO METHOD
|What change will you make? |Why are you making this change? |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|What are practical implications of making this change? |What are the ethical implications of making this change? |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|What effect do you think making this change will have on the results. Be specific about how the results will change (if at all) and give reasons why you think |
|they will change. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
SECTION A
1. From Milgram’s study of obedience:
a) Describe how the sample was obtained. (2)
b) Outline one disadvantage of the way this sample was obtained. (2)
2) From the Milgram study on obedience, outline how two ethical guidelines were broken. (2)
3) From Milgram’s study of obedience
a) Describe how obedience was measured (2)
b) Suggest one problem with measuring obedience in this way (2)
4) Outline two explanations Milgram gave for his findings (4)
5) Explain how Milgram broke the ethical guideline of deception (4)
Section A out of 20
SECTION B
a. Briefly outline the previous research or event which was the stimulus for your chosen study (2)
b. Describe how the sample in your chosen study was selected and suggest one advantage of using this sample (6)
c. Explain why your chosen study can be considered a lab experiment (6)
d. Give one advantage and one disadvantage of conducting your chosen study in a laboratory(6)
e. Suggest how your chosen study could be improved (8)
f. Outline the implications of the improvements you have suggested (8)
Section B out of 12 marks
TOTAL MARKS AVAILABLE = 32
GRADE BOUNDARIES
|A 80% |27 |
|B 70% |23 |
|C 60% |20 |
|D 50% |16 |
|E 40% |13 |
Aims & Objectives
1) To be able to describe the background and context of the core study:
□ I can describe the lab experiments of Latane & Darley
□ I can describe 4 possible explanations for bystander behaviour
□ I can give details of how the case of Kitty Genovese triggered Piliavin’s work
2) To be able to describe the core study in detail:
□ I can state the aim and hypothesis of Piliavin’s study
□ I can describe the sample used and how they were selected
□ I can state the method used in the study
□ I can give a thorough step by step account of the procedure used
□ I can describe the results of the study using numbers and percentages (quantitative data)
□ I can describe the qualitative data that was obtained
□ I can suggest at least 2 possible reasons for the high level of helping found
□ I can relate the results found to the cost-reward-empathy model developed by Piliavin
□ I can state the conclusions for this study
3) To be able to evaluate the core study on the relevant issues:
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of generalisability
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of reliability
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of ethics
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of ecological validity
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of demand characteristics
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of relation to context
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of data
□ I can evaluate Piliavin’s study on the issue of strengths and limitations of the method
Draw a table indicating the potential costs and benefits of helping others.
|Costs of helping after an accident |Benefits of helping after an accident |
| | |
Social psychologists became particularly interested in the behaviour of bystanders following the case of the brutal murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964. The murder attracted interest from psychologists because not one person out of the 40 people, who witnessed the attack lasting over half an hour, tried to help or contacted the police.
Many laboratory studies were carried out by social psychologists to test bystander apathy. That is the phenomenon of when observers of an emergency situation do not intervene. Importantly social psychologists looked for the cause of bystander behaviour not in the type of people who do or do not help but in the situational factors which influence helping behaviour
Two important concepts investigated by social psychologists were diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance.
The early laboratory experiments into bystander apathy consisted of candid camera/trigger happy style scenarios where people were placed in situations such as a smoke filled room to investigate if people would sound the alarm or not. (e.g. Latane and Darley 1968). These experiments usually consisted of one participant and a number of confederates. One of the findings of such laboratory experiments was that people did demonstrate diffusion of responsibility. That is they were less likely to help as the number of bystanders increased.
However Piliavin et al. recognised that these laboratory experiments lacked ecological validity in that they did not demonstrate how people would react in a realist situation. They therefore planned to investigate helping behaviour using a field experiment where they could observe behaviour as it is in the real everyday world.
Explanations of bystander behaviour
|EMPATHY |DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY |
|This is where we can put ourselves in the position of someone |When in a group the responsibility of helping is shared among |
|else; we can imagine what they feel like. A bystander may be |all the bystanders, each person feels individually less |
|able to imagine how they would feel if a similar thing happened |responsible and so no one helps. |
|to them. |Example: |
|Example: | |
|PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE |COST-BENEFIT MODEL |
|Looking to others to see how to react because we are unsure. If |An evaluation of the rewards and costs of not helping. |
|everyone does this then no one does anything to help. |Example: |
|Example: | |
Aim
To investigate, under real life conditions, the effect on the speed of helping of
□ Type of victim (drunk or ill)
□ The race of victim (black or white)
□ The presence of helping models (present or absent)
□ The size of the witnessing group
Method
Field Experiment:
IV = 1. DV = 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5.
6.
Participants
Type of sampling:
Where:
Time:
Number of pts:
Number of trains:
Why were these trains selected?
Racial mix:
Procedure
4 teams of 4 researchers
□ 2 female who recorded reactions
□ 2 male, one acting as victim, one as model
Figure 1: Layout of adjacent and critical areas of subway car
[pic]
The team entered the carriage using different doors and positioned themselves. The two females sat in the adjacent area and covertly recorded:
□ the total number of passengers that came to help the victim & their race, sex and location
□ the race sex and location of every passenger in both the critical and adjacent areas
□ how long it took for help to arrive
□ comments made by nearby passengers
The two male observers staged the event in the critical area. The victim always stood next to the pole in the centre of the carriage.
What happened when the train started?
How long did the victim wait before he did this?
What happened if the victim received no help?
What happened when the train reached the station?
How many trials were there;
in total?
in the drunk condition (where the victim smelt of alcohol & carried a paper bag)?
in the ill condition (which involved a sober man carrying a cane?
The frequency of help received by the victim was impressive and surprised the experimenters, bearing in mind the results of previous research into helping behaviour. The results were analysed and examined in terms of who received help, by whom and by how many, as well as how many people left the area or made spontaneous comments
| |Cane |Drunk |
|No. of trials where spontaneous help | | |
|was received | | |
|Tendency to same race helping | | |
|Sex of helpers | | |
|Likihood of leaving critical area | | |
More spontaneous comments were made during the drunk condition. Comments generally tended to be an attempt to justify or gain support for in action. Comments were mainly made by women & included the following:
“Its for men to help him”
“I wish I could help him – I’m not strong enough
“I never saw this kind of thing before – I don’t know where to look”
“You feel so bad that you don’t know what to do”
Why was there no data for the effect of the model helping first?
Why were there different numbers of trials for the drunk / cane conditions?
The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis predicts that as the number of bystanders increases, then the likelihood that any individual will help decreases. Do the results from the study support this hypothesis?
What difference might it have made if the study had been conducted on the street rather than a non-stop train?
How do Piliavin et al explain their results?
How can this explain more cane victims receiving help than drunk?
More men helping than women?
The longer the emergency continued without help being given the less impact the model had on the other bystanders, the more likely bystanders were to leave the area and the more likely it was that observers would discuss their behaviour. How can this be explained in terms of the Arousal: Cost – Reward Model?
| |The sample is likely to be fairly representative of the American public. *There was|
| |a large sample of 4450 *There |
| |was a racial mix of 45% black and 55% white people *It was an |
| |opportunity sample therefore we expect roughly equal numbers of males and females (not androcentric) |
| |*The chosen train passed through many areas of the city so a wide range of social classes should be present |
| |However the sample was restricted to the people who were using that train at that time and since it was during office|
| |hours the sample may have been biased towards people not in work or school |
| |Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure. An aspect of reliability relevant to observation studies is how |
| |consistent the observers are when recording information on the same event. This is known as inter-rater reliability. |
| |This was increased in Piliavin’s study as there was always two independent researchers that observed and recorded the|
| |data, meaning no behaviour was missed and there was no bias. |
| |However reliability was lowered as field experiments are less standardised than lab experiments. The psychologist |
| |does not have the same amount of control over the situation e.g. the number of people in the carriage. The fact that |
| |there was 4 teams of students equalling 4 different victims also lowered reliability as the behaviour of the victim |
| |could be slightly different in each trial. |
| |The study was a field experiment and so was high in ecological validity, given that it was an everyday situation for |
| |the passengers, who did not know that they were taking part in a study. |
| |However if participants had already been witness to the same event on a previous trial they may have realised what |
| |was happening thus lowering the ecological validity. |
| |There are many ethical issues to be considered in this study. As this was a field experiment no consent was gained |
| |from the participants, they were unaware they were taking part in a study and they were deceived into thinking that |
| |what they were witnessing was a real event. This was however necessary in order to gain valid results and as it was a|
| |public place observations were deemed acceptable. However the design of the study meant that there was also no |
| |debrief. All these factors resulted in participants having no opportunity to withdraw at any time along with the fact|
| |that they were contained on the carriage with the event taking place for 7-8 minutes making it difficult to leave. |
| |Those people who did not help may have left feeling guilty and distressed. It is likely that the event caused |
| |distress / worry for all the participants. These issues may give psychological research a bad reputation with the |
| |general public and put people off wanting to take part in any future research. |
| |Demand characteristics in this study should have been very low as the participants did not know that they were being |
| |observed or were part of a study and therefore should behave naturally |
| |However as the same train route was used for all the trials it is possible that some participants witnessed the event|
| |more than once and figured out what was happening. This may have changed the behaviour of the participants into |
| |helping when they would not normally have done to please the experiment and appear socially desirable; or it may have|
| |resulted in people who would normal help refraining from doing so because they did not believe it to be real. |
Data
The data gathered was both quantitative and qualitative.
The quantitative data included
The qualitative data came from
Both types of data are valuable in building up a full picture of what happened. The quantitative data allowed for comparisons and statistical analysis
and the qualitative data provided some of the thoughts and feelings of those involved, perhaps providing explanations for why they did or did not help.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Method
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Observation |
|High ecological validity if observer is ‘undisclosed’. Researcher can gain |Raises ethical issues of consent & deception. Researcher’s presence may |
|first hand knowledge. |change situation. May be observer bias. |
| |The observers tried to elicit comments from observers – may have influenced |
|Observers were acting as passengers giving them unique insight and enabling |what was said reducing validity |
|them to observer behaviour first hand without participants becoming suspicious | |
|However in order to maintain ‘cover’ it may have been difficult to record data |Two observers used to try and achieve inter-rater reliability and reduce |
|promptly and objectively. View may have been obstructed |bias |
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Field Experiment |
|Has high ecological validity and low demand characteristics making the results |Has low reliability as it is difficult to control the situation meaning the |
|more valid |study is hard to replicate and there is more likely to be bias from |
|The participants’ behaviour was not manipulated - they take the train as part |extraneous variables. Also ethical problems of consent, deception, invasion |
|of their everyday life. It is unlikely that the participants were aware they |of privacy etc. Field studies can be very time consuming |
|were in a study and thought the collapse was real therefore the behaviour |There may have been subtle differences in the way the event was staged each |
|displayed would be natural and not to please the experimenter |time or in the behaviour of others on the train that influenced the |
|The high ecological validity also low reliability as there is a lack of control|participants’ behaviour. Almost every ethical guideline was broken to some |
|over the situation |extent and the study took over 2months to complete |
| | |
| |Controlling the situation and adhering to ethical guidelines would |
| |significantly reduce the ecological validity and may create demand |
| |characteristics. Standardised procedure used for collaspe |
Implications
Contribution to Ψ
Piliavin had to introduce the arousal: cost-reward model as in the study no diffusion of responsibility was shown – the more people on the train, the faster and the more help was given. This contradicts the findings of Latane & Darley.
| |What is it |How it was shown in the study |
|Arousal | | |
|Cost : Reward | | |
|Diffusion of responsibility | | |
|Pluralisitic Ignorance | | |
Real world implications
We see examples everyday of heroes who risk their lives to save other people, but we also see extreme examples of selfish behaviour such as adults trampling over children to escape emergency situations. The question of why this happens is one which is worth investigating as this study attempts to do.
Piliavin et al suggest a way of predicting how people will behave in emergency situations by proposing their arousal; cost – reward model, which seems a useful tool in planning for emergencies.
|What change will you make? |Why are you making this change? |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|What are practical implications of making this change? |What are the ethical implications of making this change? |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|What effect do you think making this change will have on the results. Be specific about how the results will change (if at all) and give reasons why you think |
|they will change. |
| |
| |
| |
Change to Method
SECTION A
1. In the Subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin & Rodin:
a) Define diffusion of responsibility (2)
b) What did the study tell us about diffusion of responsibility in relation to bystander behaviour (2)
2. In their subway Samaritan study, Piliavin et al proposed and arousal/cost-reward model. From this model give TWO ways of reducing arousal in the subway emergency. (4)
3. (a) Briefly describe ONE quantitative measure recorded by the observers (2)
(b) Outline the findings of one of the quantitative measures recorded (2)
4. In the Piliavin study some of the researchers acted as victims and some as models.
(a) Identify one of the model conditions (2)
(b) Outline one finding that was drawn from the model conditions (2)
5. Outline two ethical issues raised by Pilavin, Rodin & Piliavin’s Subway Samariatn study (4)
Total for section A 20 marks
SECTION B
a. What was the aim of the study? (2)
b. Describe the method in the study and give one advantage of using this method(6)
c. Describe two ethical issues raised by the study (6)
d. Explain one reason why the researchers needed to break ethical guidelines and one reason why they should not have done so (6)
e. Suggest how the study could be made more ethical. (8)
f. Outline the implications of the ethical changes you have suggested (8)
Total for section B 16 marks
TOTAL MARKS AVAILABLE = 36
GRADE BOUNDARIES
|A 80% |29 |
|B 70% |25 |
|C 60% |22 |
|D 50% |18 |
|E 40% |15 |
Aims & Objectives
1) To be able to describe the background and context of the
core study:
□ I can define the situational hypothesis, social identity theory & deindividuation
□ I can describe Zimbardo’s Prison study and explain how this influenced Reicher & Haslam’s work
□ I can give details of how war crimes triggered Reicher & Haslam’s work
2) To be able to describe the core study in detail:
□ I can state the aim and hypothesis of Reicher & Haslam’s study
□ I can describe the sample used and how they were selected
□ I can state the method used in the study
□ I can describe the seven ethical safeguards that were used
□ I can give a thorough step by step account of the procedure used
□ I can describe the 3 interventions used
□ I can describe the results of the study using numbers and percentages (quantitative data)
□ I can describe the qualitative data that was obtained
□ I can state the conclusions for this study
3) To be able to evaluate the core study on the relevant issues:
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of generalisability
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of reliability
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of ethics
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of ecological validity
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of demand characteristics
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of relation to context
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of data
□ I can evaluate Reicher & Haslam’s study on the issue of strengths and limitations of the method
• Tyranny: the arbitrary and/or oppressive exercise of power
• Question: How do we come to condone the tyranny of others and/or act tyrannically ourselves?
1) What is meant by deindividualisation?
2) What effect can this have on group behaviour? (Refer to Diener)
3) Name two things can lead to deindividualisation. Back up your answer with reference to research.
• previous explanations suggest that group psychology always moves in the direction of extreme anti-social behaviour
• when in a group individuals lose their self-identity (deindividuation) and become capable of barbaric acts
4) Explain what is meant by the dispositional hypothesis
5) What is meant by the situational hypothesis?
6) Which of these hypotheses can be used to explain tyranny shown by the guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment? Why?
7) Briefly describe how Eichmann and WW2 influenced Reicher and Haslam’s work.
8) Briefly describe how events in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004 influenced Reicher and Haslam’s work
In a famous study, Haney, Banks & Zimbardo built a mock prison in a university basement and recruited 21 healthy and well-adjusted students as volunteers who were then randomly allocated to the role of prisoner or guard. Zimbardo reported that interpersonal relationships deteriorated, becoming dehumanising. The guards became increasingly aggressive and the most hostile guards became role models for the other guards. The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was terminated on 6th day because the prisoners could not cope and the behaviour of the guards became even more
tyrannical. Zimbardo concluded: that the illusion of ‘power’ had become real, that both prisoners
and guards identified with, and conformed to, their allocated social role and that the situation
people are in, rather than individual characteristics, determines behaviour. However, the guards
in the SPE were given clear guidance on how to cause powerlessness in prisoners. Also, because
of ethical concerns the SPE has never been replicated.
Reicher & Haslam wanted to test the situational hypothesis proposed by Zimbardo: the idea that the situation could have such a powerful influence over a person’s behaviour. Reicher & Haslam wanted to get away from the idea that people had no control over their behaviour and to show that to accept that people have a natural tendency to behave in pathological ways in certain situations was to ‘apologise for the inexcusable’.
They wanted to show that the group membership has a more powerful influence over an individuals behaviour, specifically the extent to which a person identifies with the group or the power of group membership
(SIT) social identity theory – a theory that proposes that group membership affects our identitiy, self esteem and behaviour
Reicher & Haslam were also interested in the conditions that can lead to changes in the behaviour of a group, including the effect of a new group member in bringing about a change. For example, if a successful footballer joined the bottom-of-the-league team where moral was low it would re-energise the other team members and might even make them hope that they can move up the league.
They also wanted to show that people are capable of reflecting before acting, and do not just follow the behaviours of others. This is a more optimistic view of people and suggests that negative behaviour is not situationally inevitable.
AIM
Fill in the gaps in the description of the prison study, using your knowledge of the study and the words or phrases on the fourth sheet.
The BBC prison study
An artificial social hierarchy of prisoners and guards was created, to simulate a general social hierarchy, to investigate groups unequal in power, status and resources.
Method
An institutional environment was created within Elstree Film Studios in north London.
Ethical considerations
1. Discussions were taken with the chair of the BPS and with Exeter University’s _____________ _______________.
2. The participants undertook clinical, medical and background screening – to ensure that they were not vulnerable, nor likely to put others at risk.
3. The participants signed an a priori (before the study) ______________ __________, including that they may be subject to physical and psychological discomfort, confinement, constant surveillance and stress.
4. Two independent clinical psychologists monitored the study. They could see, or remove, any participant at any time.
5. A ___________________was on constant standby to treat any illness or injury.
6. On-site security guards were provided, with a set of rules about intervening if dangerous behaviour emerged.
7. An independent five-person ethics committee monitored the study as it progressed. They had the right to demand ___________, or to terminate the study at any time.
Selection of participants
Self-selected ___________________were recruited via advertisements in the national press and through ___________________. Males only were targeted, to ensure compatibility with the Stanford study and to avoid the ethical complications regarding men and women together in cells.
An initial pool of 332 applicants was whittled down to 27 men.
The aim of screening was to test ____________________________ and pro-social people. The participants were screened by:
1. A battery of psychometric tests, measuring both social and clinical variables.
8. A full weekend assessment by__________________ ____________________ _______________________.
9. Medical and character ________________were obtained and police checks were conducted.
The final sample consisted of ______ ________________, to ensure diversity of age, ethnicity, and social class.
Data measurements included:
Continuous video and ___________________ recordings
Authoritarianism was measured using 8 items abstracted from a 30-item scale and administered during pre-testing, then on days 1, 3 and 7.
Daily psychometric tests, as well as measures of self-identification and depression and saliva swabs (____ _______________ ___________) were taken.
Procedure:
The five guards were _________________the night before, in a hotel.
They were given the prison timetable.
With no other guidance than a set of ethically determined ‘basic rights’ – in particular all participants were told that ________________ ________________would not be tolerated:
a) The guards drew up _____________ ___________, under the experimenters’ headings.
b) The guards listed a series of punishments for rule ___________________.
Guards were taken in a __________________ _______ __________ (so they could not see the outside, or the location, of the prison). Once inside, they were briefed about the prison layout, the resources available to them and they were given ___________ to access all prison areas (including the upper level – the guards-only area).
The guards’ area had
1. a surveillance system to _________________ the prisoners.
10. resources (e.g. snacks, cigarettes) to dole out or withdraw as__________________ ________ __________________________.
11. the ability to put prisoners on a ___________ and water diet.
12. better living conditions than the prisoners, e.g. well-made__________________, superior meals, extra drinks and snacks.
The prisoners were admitted _________ _____ ___ _________________ (initially only nine prisoners from the pool on day one – the tenth to be admitted later). His head was ______________ and he was given a uniform, which comprised:
1. a t-shirt with a ____________ _________________ __________________,
13. loose trousers
14. flimsy _______________________.
The prisoners were given the prison rules and a list of prisoner rights
|15 participants |audio |blacked-out van |
|bread |briefed |changes |
|consent form |Ethics panel |for cortisol levels |
|independent clinical psychologists |keys | |
|leaflets |monitor |one at a time |
|paramedic |physical violence |prison rules |
|references |rewards or punishments |sandals |
|shaved |three-digit number |uniforms |
|violations |volunteers |well-adjusted |
Manipulated Variables:
■ Permeability of roles
■ prisoners & guards were told guards were selected on basis on reliability, trustworthiness, initiative BUT that test not perfect and that guards would watch out for prisoners who showed ‘guard like’ qualities - that promotion was possible on day 3. Thus all believed movement between groups was possible
■ Legitimacy of roles
■ It was planned that on day 3 prisoners would be told that there were really no differences between prisoners & guards, but that it was impractical to reassign roles so the groups would stay the same. This would lead to the perception that group differences were not legitimate
■ Cognitive alternatives
■ On the 4th day, a new prisoner, chosen because of his background as a Trade Union official, was introduced. It was expected that he would provide the skills required to organise ‘collective action’
Can you identify how each of the IVs were manipulated at each stage of the experiment?
| | DAY NUMBER: |
| | |
| |1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
|Permeability of group | | | |
|boundaries | | | |
|Legitimacy of group divisions | | | |
|Possibilities of change | | | |
|cognitive alternatives | | | |
Discuss how the prisoner’s beliefs changed at each stage of the experiment?
Qualitative data
Main events during phase 1
Main events during phase 2
The graphs below show the results from the various self reports and psychometric tests that were conducted through out the study. Study each one carefully and write an appropriate conclusion.
SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION – DEFINITION
Self report
I identify with Ps / Gs
I feel strong ties with Ps / Gs
I feel solidarity with Ps / Gs
FINDINGS
AUTHORITARIANISM - DEFINITION
Self report examples
We need strong leaders that people can trust
There are two kinds of people, strong and weak
FINDINGS
COMPLIANCE - DEFININTION
Self report examples
I try to do what the Gs want
I try to comply with the rules
FINDINGS
COLLECTIVE SELF-EFFICACY – DEFINITION
Self report example
My prison group can manage to solve problems if we try
FINDINGS
AWARENESS OF COGNITIVE ALTERNATIVES - DEFINITION
Self report examples
I think the Gs will always have more privileges than Ps
I think the relationship between Ps and Gs is likely to change
FINDINGS
DEPRESSION - DEFINITION
Self report example
Do you ever feel low or depressed?
FINDINGS
Conclusions:
• the way in which members of a group behave depends on the norms & values of the group social identity and may be pro or anti social
• failing groups create problems for their own members and for others because when people cannot create a social system they will accept extreme solutions proposed by others
• The breakdown of groups, and powerlessness, create the conditions for tyranny
• It is possible to design and run powerful social psychological research studies that are also ethical
• the role of G was positively valued in the prison but the Gs were concerned with possible negative evaluation by future audiences & this made them reluctant to identify with their role
• thus, rather than present situation ‘only’ determining behaviour, past and future context may also have an affect
Discuss: How might the knowledge that this was to be a TV programme have affected behaviour?
Data
|Advantages |Disadvantages |
|The data collected in the study were a mixture of quantitative and |One weakness could be the lack of qualitative self reports: it would |
|qualitative data, collected via a range of techniques including |have been useful to ask the participants how they felt and what they |
|observation, psychometric testing and physiological measures. This |were thinking rather than just giving them tests and scales, which can|
|variety of measures can increase the validity of the study, since the |be reductionist. |
|weaknesses of individual measuring systems can be overcome. | |
Implications
|Theoretical - for Psychology |Practical – for the real world |
| | |
Strengths & Weaknesses of Method
|Strengths |Weaknesses |
|Observation |
| | |
|Field Experiment |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Generalisability |Reliability |Ethics |Ecological Validity |Demand Characteristics |
|*The sample was chosen to reflect a wide |*Lab based experimental method allowed the|*The ethical implications of the study |*The participants got sufficiently |*As the study was being shown on national |
|variety of variables including age, social|researchers to control many of variables |were much reduced by the many steps taken |involved to react naturally suggesting the|TV it could mean the participants were |
|class and ethnic background. *However the |in the study |to avoid harming the participants. |study achieved experimental realism. This |faking their behaviours for the cameras – |
|participants were all male and had |*e.g. the selection procedure and the |*Fully informed consent was gained from |is a similar phenomenon to what happens in|Zimbardo even criticised the study for |
|volunteered, which suggests they may all |prison environment. |all participants. |shows like Big Brother which last long |being ‘reality TV’ |
|have had similar personalities, making the|*This high control allows cause and effect|*The study was stopped before things |enough and are intense enough for |*However the researchers made several |
|sample less representative. |to be established; |turned nasty |participants to forget they are being |arguments in defence of their study; they |
| |*in this study to see the effect of |*On the whole the study avoided many of |watched. |suggest that acting would be very |
| |manipulating group conditions on social |the ethical problems of the SPE |*Extracts of conversations between |difficult to sustain for nearly 9 days |
| |behaviour. *However so much control can |*The ethical committee’s report concluded |prisoners and guards suggest that they did|*They also argue that surveillance is |
| |result in artificiality, lowering the |that the study showed it possible to |get genuinely involved in the situation |becoming a common feature of our lives and|
| |ecological validity of the study |conduct dynamic field studies that are |*However the prison was not real and the |would not necessarily cause unnatural |
| | |also ethical |participants were not real participants |behaviour |
| | |*However Alex Holmes, BBC executive |and guards- they will have been aware that|* It would also have been hard to fake the|
| | |producer on The Experiment commented: |they could withdraw at any time. |psychometric and physiological data that |
| | |‘There was a lot of aggression, there was | |were gathered on a regular basis |
| | |a lot of tension, this is a tough | | |
| | |environment’. Who really knows what damage| | |
| | |was done to participants | | |
Change to method
What change could you make to Reicher & Haslam’s study?
Why should this change be made?
How do you think the change will affect the results?
What are the ethical implications of this change?
What are the practical implications of this change
SECTION A
1) From Reicher & Haslam’s BBC prison study:
a) Describe what is meant by the term tyranny (2)
b) Describe one of the variables manipulated to create a situation in which tyranny could develop (2)
2) From Reicher & Haslam’s BBC prison study outline two reasons why the prisoners were given uniforms (4)
3) Reicher & Haslam studied the behaviour of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison.
a) Describe one way the researchers tried to ensure ethical guidelines were upheld (2)
b) Outline one reason why stress or psychological harm is an ethical concern in this study (2)
4) Give two examples of what the daily psychometric tests given to participants measured (4)
5) Describe ONE of the planned interventions used in Reicher & Haslam’s study (4)
Section A out of 20
SECTION B
Answer the following in relation to Reicher & Haslam’s study:
a) What was the aim? (2)
b) Describe the sample and give one limitation of it. (6)
c) Describe how the qualitative and quantitative data were gathered (6)
d) With reference to your chose study, give one advantage and one disadvantage of conducting social psychology research in the lab. (6)
e) Outline the results found. (8)
f) Suggest how your chosen study could be improved, give reasons for your answer (8)
Section B out of 14
TOTAL MARKS AVAILABLE = 34
GRADE BOUNDARIES
|A 80% |27 |
|B 70% |24 |
|C 60% |20 |
|D 50% |17 |
|E 40% |14 |
[pic]
| |Milgram |Piliavin |R&H |
|Method | | | |
|Sample | | | |
|Sampling technique | | | |
|Location | | | |
|Type of observation | | | |
|Data | | | |
|Behaviour investigated | | | |
|Snapshot / longitudinal | | | |
|Year | | | |
[pic]
| |POINT |EXAMPLE |COMMENT |
|ADV |The social approach has many useful practical applications, so | | |
| |results from research can be used to encourage desirable behaviour| | |
| |or discourage undesirable behaviour | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|ADV |The social approach often uses lab environment for research, there|Milgram – Shock generator was used to measure level of obedience | |
| |is therefore a high degree of control so cause and effect |objectively but Milgram could also observe participants through a | |
| |relationships can be established, technical equipment can be used |one way mirror to collect qualitative data such a trembling and | |
| |and behaviour can be observed clearly |signs of nervousness. He was able to change the proximity of the | |
| | |learner and the experimenter systematically to assess the impact on| |
| | |obedience | |
|DIS |Studies in the social approach often require high levels of |Piliavin – participants were an opportunity sample, they were just | |
| |deception. This is because the research is a social situation in |the people who were on the train at the time the incident happened | |
| |itself and if participants are fully aware of what is happening |and so were not able to give their informed consent and could not | |
| |this may influence their behaviour |be debriefed as the team of researchers simply left the train | |
|DIS | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------
What do social psychologists research
Social influence:
Social perception & judgement:
Self-perception & identity:
Social interaction:
Conformity – a change in behaviour due to real or imagined pressure from a group
Compliance – a change in behaviour without a change in opinion
Obedience – a change in behaviour due to a direct order from another person
Example test card
CONFEDERATE
DEBRIEF
DECEPTION
OBEDIENCE
PARTICIPANT
PROD
PROMPT
RANDOMALLOCATION
SAMPLE
SELF-SELECTEDSAMPLE
STOOGE
Latane & Darley (1968) arranged for smoke to billow from under a door into a waiting room housing a naïve participant. 75% of participants waiting alone reported it, while only 10% of those waiting with strangers (confederates of the experimenter) did.
In another experiment students were recruited to take part in some discussions via an intercom. Each student had to talk for two minutes, then comment on what the others said, though in fact there was only one real person taking part – the other ‘students’ were pre-recorded. As the students listened one of the other voices appeared to have a seizure & started to choke before becoming silent. If the student thought they were the only one to hear this emergency 85% tried to help but if they thought others could also hear this dropped to 30%.
Piliavin
Reicher & Haslam
Milgran
[?] |
"#()-145678JL~¶·òàÜÕÜòÜòÜòÜÃÜ¿Ü¢?‚ÜpÕ`ÜUM
h $ZOJQJh¢.]h $ZOJQWhat is your target grade?
What mark did you get?
What is your target grade?
What mark did you get?
What is your target grade?
What mark did you get?
GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENOMENON?
What factors affect whether people will help in an emergency situation?
PILIAVIN
BEHAVIOURAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
How much pain will one person inflict on another when ordered to do so by an experimental scientist?
MILGRAM
CORE STUDIES
THE BBC PRISON STUDY
What are the conditions under which people do or do not conform to allocated social roles?
REICHER & HASLAM
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.