Study Summaries - Psychology Revision for Component 2 OCR PDF

Preview

Summary

Psychology Revision for Component 2 OCR...

Description

Milgram et al.

Background

It was based on the “Germans are different” hypothesis which was from the war and was proving that Germans did what they did because they were told to, not because they enjoyed inflicting pain. It was also based on other historical events and was proving that dispositional attribution is not correct and it is not based on a person’s characteristics.

Aim

To investigate whether participants would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person

Method

Controlled observation (DV = obedient/disobedient)

Sample

40 males (aged 20-50), all from New Haven and middle-class workers

Results

100% of participants got to 300v but only 26/40 administered the full 450 volts. Participants displayed signs of sweating, trembling, stuttering and groaning. Some even said comments such as “I can’t go on with this”

Conclusion

Milgram concluded that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation that a person is in. Also, an authority figure who looks professional will also make people obey because they could be afraid to disobey so carry on because they are unsure of the consequences if they do not

Key Theme

Responses to people in authority covers how people behave, including how they change their behaviours when an authority figure gives orders. An authority figure is someone seen as of higher status or with more perceived power. Milgram investigated whether a participant would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person even though it was unethical. They wanted to see how much the participants would administer before they stopped the experiment and how many prods they would need before they fully refused to continue. Results show that 65% of participants completed the full experiment which shows that they will obey to an authority figure. But, the participants showed signs of nervousness which showed they didn’t want to be doing the experiment.

Key Area

Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s behaviour. Milgram investigated whether a participant would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person even though it was unethical. They wanted to see how much the participant would administer before they stopped the experiment and how many prods they would need before they fully refused to continue. Results proved that the situation that the person is in will influence behaviour massively and that people would obey because of the presence of the authority figure and would trust that what they were doing was right because they were being instructed to do it.

Bocchiaro et al.

Background

Bocchiaro looked at Milgram’s study of responses to people in authority and he wanted to see how far people would disobey as well as to see if people would whistle-blow and if they would openly disobey, disobey in secret, obey and whistle-blow or just fully obey. It looked at famous cases of whistle-blowing for background information, such as the cases of Chelsea Manning.

Aim

The aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where no physical violence was involved but where it was quite clear that the instructions were ethically wrong. There were two additional aims: to investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in this situation; and to investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing.

Method

Controlled experiment (DV = whether participants obeyed, disobeyed or whistle-blowed)

Sample

Pilot study (92 students, 8 pilot studies), main experiment (149 Undergrads, 11 removed)

Results

76.5% obeyed, 14.1% disobeyed and 9.4% whistle-blowed (3.4% open whistle-blowers and 6% anonymous whistle-blowers)

Conclusion

Behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people even when this reaction appears to observers as the simplest path. This can be caused by an authority figure. Disobedience and whistle-blowing are psychologically, socially and economically demanding.

Key Theme

Responses to people in authority covers how people behave, including how they change their behaviour when an authority figure gives orders. An authority figure is someone seen as of higher status or with a perceived power. Bocchiaro’s aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where it was clearly ethically wrong but there was no physical violence. They had to read a cover story and they were told to accept it and post it as ethical but they could also report it or whistle-blow and do both. Results showed that 76.5% of participants were obedient and only 9.4% of participants were whistle-blowers when it was expected that 37.3% would. This shows that an authority figure present will mean that people are more likely to do what they have been told.

Key Area

Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s behaviour. Bocchiaro’s aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing in a situation where it was clearly ethically wrong but there was no physical violence. They had to read a cover story and they were told to accept it and post it as ethical, but they could also report it or whistle-blow and do both. Results show that in an actual event, most people are likely to be obedient because they want to be in the test and the authority figure may have been intimidating.

Piliavin et al.

Background

Piliavin based his study on the story of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed 3 times outside a block of flats. Although 38 people witnessed the attack, no-one called the police or offered any type of help to her. After 30 minutes, when she had fallen through someone’s front door, the police were called, but by the time the ambulance arrived, it was too late and she had died.

Aim

Piliavin’s aim was to investigate the effect of the following variables on helping behaviour: type of victim (drunk or white cane); race of victim (black or white); whether people were more likely to help in an emergency situation if they have seen someone else displaying helping behaviour (modelling); the relationship of group size (diffusion of responsibility).

Method

Field experiment (IV’s = type of victim, race of victim, effect of group size, model conditions, DV = time taken to help, total number of passengers, gender/race/location of helpers, comments made, movement of participants in/out of the critical area)

Sample

4,450 men and women, travelled on 8th Avenue in NYC, between 59th to 125th street, on weekdays from 11am to 3pm, from 15th April to 26th June 1968, travelled through Harlem and the Bronx, 45% black and 55% white.

Results

Cane victim (62/65 trials received help before model, 5 seconds = median time to help) drunk victim (19/38 trials received help before model, 109 seconds = median time to help), 90% of first helpers were male, black victims received help less quickly, slight ‘same race’ effect

Conclusion

The drunk is helped less often because the cost of helping is seen as greater because it is likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm. The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame someone for not helping a drunk because it is perceived that the victim is responsible for his own situation.

Key Theme

Peoples responses to others in need are said to be affected by the nature of the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost to the helper and the nature of the victim. It can also be affected by diffusion of responsibility where people assume others will help so it isn’t their job. Piliavin was investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted to see if the race or type of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help they would receive. They looked at the nature if the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost of helping and the nature of the victim. Results showed that the type of victim plays a big part in whether a person receives help or not. Race also slightly plays a part as well. It also depends on the cost of helping on the helper.

Key Area

Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s behaviour. Piliavin was investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted to see if the race or type of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help they would receive. Results showed that the drunk is less helped because the perceived cost of helping is greater and they are seen as being responsible for the situation they are in whereas someone with a cane is going to get quicker help because the cost is less to the helper.

Levine et al.

Background

There are many explanations for helping behaviour: economic, cultural and cognitive. Economic explanations say helping might correlate negatively with wealth as people living in wealthier countries are encouraged to be more individualistic. Cultural explanations look at simpatia, which is the concern with the social well-being of others. Simpatia countries are more helpful to others than individualistic or collectivist cultures. Cognitive explanation says that a rapid pace of life decreases the likelihood of finding time for social helping.

Aim

The aim of Levine’s study was to examine the tendency of people in the largest cities of each of the 23 chosen countries to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation and to see if helping was universal or dependent on the characteristic of the study.

Method

Quasi experiment (IV’s = dropped pen, hurt leg, helping a blind person, DV’s = Rate of helping for each country, this was established by averaging the rate of helping on all three measures)

Sample

The largest cities in 23 different countries were picked (Austria; Brazil; Bulgaria; China; Costa Rica; Czech Republic; Denmark; El Salvador; Hungary; India; Israel; Italy; Malawi; Malaysia; Mexico; Netherlands; Romania; Singapore; Spain; Sweden; Taiwan; Thailand; USA. 1198 participants, selected because they were the second person to cross a line on the pavement. Children, the elderly and people with a visual/physical disability not included.

Results

Altogether, the top 5 most helpful countries were Brazil, Costa Rica, Malawi, India and Austria and the bottom 5 were Malaysia, the USA, Holland, Bulgaria and Taiwan. The blind trial received 100% help in Brazil, Costa Rica and Malawi. The dropped pen received 100% help in Brazil. The hurt leg trial didn’t receive 100% help but the highest was 95% in Costa Rica. The lowest % of help for the blind trial was 42% in Thailand, the lowest for the dropped pen was 26% in Malaysia and the lowest for the hurt leg was 22% in Bulgaria.

Conclusion

Overall, cities with strong economic prosperity were more individualistic and had a faster pace of life. Countries that had wealthier economies tended to be less helpful overall. There is no relationship between helping and collectivism/individualism, however there was a slight difference between simpatia and non-simpatia countries. Poorer cities tend to have higher rates of helping but that was not related to city size or pace of life.

Key Theme

Peoples responses to others in need are said to be affected by the nature of the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost to the helper and the nature of the victim. It can also be affected by diffusion of responsibility where people assume others will help so it isn’t their job. Levine’s aim was to examine the tendency of people to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation but was clearly in need of help. It took place in biggest cities in 23 different countries. They wanted to see what type of country would help more. Results showed that the more helpful countries had lower economic prosperity and the most individualistic countries helped less overall. There was no link however between population size or collectivism and helping.

Key Area

Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s behaviour. Levine’s aim was to examine the tendency of people to help a stranger in a nonemergency situation but was clearly in need of help. It took place in biggest cities in 23 different countries. Results showed that simpatia countries were more helpful than non-simpatia countries and this proved that simpatia countries are more concerned with the well-being of others so are more likely to help whereas non-simpatia countries tend to have a quicker speed of life so are less likely to help.

Loftus and Palmer

Background

A key feature of memory is being able to recall information. Memory retrieval is used throughout our lives and in some cases, it is particularly important that we are able to recall an event clearly and accurately. Because of the way memories are encoded and stored, memory recall is effectively an on-the-fly reconstruction of elements scattered throughout various areas of the brain. Memory retrieval therefore requires re-visiting the nerve pathways the brain formed when encoding the memory, and the strength of those pathways determines how quickly the memory can be recalled.

Aim

The aim was to investigate how information supplied after an event influences a witness’s memory of the event.

This was designed to provide additional insight into the speed estimate differences found. Were they due to response bias or altered memory?

Method

Laboratory experiment (IV’s = what verb the participant has (contacted / hit / collided / smashed / bumped), DV = mean speed estimate for each condition)

Laboratory experiment (IV’s = the verb the participant has (smashed / hit / control), DV = if participants saw glass)

Sample

45 students, split into 5 groups, 5 different verbs

150 students, split into 3 groups, 3 conditions

Results

Smashed (40.5), collided (39.3), bumped (38.1), hit (34.0), contacted (31.8)

Smashed (10.46, yes 16, no 34), hit (8, yes 7, no 43), control (NA, yes 6, no 44)

Conclusion

Number of videos shown to each participant; phrasing of each question (apart from the verb); the same videos; same conditions/environments; same amount of people in each group; all from the same university; only saw each video once; same questionnaire.

Number of videos shown to each participant; same phrasing of each question (apart from the verb); the same video; same amount of people in each group; same amount of time between the two questionnaires; same questionnaires; only saw each video once.

Key Theme

Peoples responses to others in need are said to be affected by the nature of the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost to the helper and the nature of the victim. It can also be affected by diffusion of responsibility where people assume others will help so it isn’t their job. Levine’s aim was to examine the tendency of people to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation but was clearly in need of help. It took place in biggest cities in 23 different countries. They wanted to see what type of country would help more. Results showed that the more helpful countries had lower economic prosperity and the most individualistic countries helped less overall. There was no link however between population size or collectivism and helping.

Key Area

Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s behaviour. Levine’s aim was to examine the tendency of people to help a stranger in a nonemergency situation but was clearly in need of help. It took place in biggest cities in 23 different countries. They wanted to see what type of country would help more. Results showed that simpatia countries were more helpful than non-simpatia countries and this proved that simpatia countries are more concerned with the well-being of others so are more likely to help whereas non-simpatia countries tend to have a quicker speed of life so are less likely to help.

Grant et al.

Background

The background to this study involves cue-dependency memory. This means that we are more likely to remember something in the same environment that we learnt it in. Cue dependent memory happens because we also take in other things in the environment which are stored at the same time. These extra pieces of information are seen as triggers or cues that help us to remember the information stored in our memory.

Aim

The aim of the study was to test the effect of noise as a source of context on the studying and retrieval of meaningful material in an academic context. A focus on changing learning context was important as students can choose where to study but not where they are tested.

Method

Laboratory experiment (IV’s = if the participant read the two-page article in the silent or noisy condition, if the participant was tested under the matching or mismatching condition, DV = number of correct answers in the short answer recall test, number of correct answers in the multiple-choice recall test).

Sample

8 psychology students were experimenters, opportunity sampling, each recruited 5 family members for participants, 40 participants, ranging from 17 to 56, mean age was 23.4, 17 females and 23 males, only 39 participants’ data was recorded, used an independent measures design.

Results

Reading time: silent/silent = 15, silent/noisy = 11.8, noisy/noisy = 14, noisy/silent = 13.8. Short answer: silent/silent = 6.7, silent/noisy = 4.6, noisy/noisy = 6.2, noisy/silent = 5.4. Multi-choice: silent/silent = 14.3, silent/noisy = 12.7, noisy/noisy = 14.3, noisy/silent = 12.7.

Conclusion

Context cues appear to be important in the retrieval of newly learned information. An academic application is that students may perform better in exams by studying in silence. Although there was no overall effect of noise on they are better off studying without background noise as it will not be present during actual testing.

Key Theme

Memory develops from the day we are born, we develop schemas and strategies to process information overtime. A schema is a unit of information that helps us to...