As Psychology

I am curently studying A level Psychology on the OCR spec in one year so will post all my notes on here. var sc_project=8539059; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="9643b735"; var scJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://secure." : "http://www."); document.write("");

[aspsychologynotes]

BANDURA - AGGRESSION

72 children 

between 37 and 69 months old

all attended a nursery at Stanford university

there was an equal number of boys and girls

lab experiment 

were either exposed to:

same sex aggressive model

opposite sex aggressive model

same sex non aggressive model

opposite sex non aggressive model

not exposed to adult model at all

this gives 3 IVS:

sex of  the child

sex of the model

behavior of the model (aggressive or non aggressive)

children were matched on their preexisting levels of aggression which was rated on 5 point scales by the experimenter and a nursery school teacher before the experiment began

DV:

behaviour of the children measured at stage 3 of the experiment

the experiment took place in 3 stages:

taken into a room for ten minutes, in aggressive condition model acted our a series of preplanned actions to the bobo doll, in non aggressive condition model played quietly & control didn't take part in this stage

mild aggression arousal - were shown attractive toys but told they weren't allowed to play with them

3 the observation began through a 1 way mirror for 20 minutes in a room containing both aggressive and non agressive toys ie. bobo doll, mallet, tea set.... observers measured:

imitative aggression (pysical, verbal, and non agressive)

partially imitative aggression

non imitative physical aggression

non aggressive behavior

results:

 children in the aggressive condition showed significantly more aggressive imitation

behavior of male model exerted more influence than the female model

overall, boys produced more imitative behavior than girls

changes:

different locations - would make it more ethnocentric and generalisable

carry it out at a later interval i.e a week - see if there was any long term effect on participants

use a machine - more scientific measurements

change the environment - higher in ecological validity (change to field experiment)

change model to teenager or a child - child may be less influenced would be able to see if age group effects results

parental consent - more ethical

use a film to show aggressive acts - could see effect of media however would reduce ecological validity but increase realism of today

debrief - reduce aggressive behavior in the future

use intervention - reduce agression

[aspsychologynotes]

MILGRAM - OBEDIENCE

40 males

aged 20-50

from a range of occupations

recruited from direct mailing and advertising (volunteer sample)

were told the research was about the relationship between punishment and learning

were paid 4 dollars 50 for participating

lab observation - at yale university (situational?)

data collected through experimenter who was in the room, and other observers though a one way mirror

most sessions recorded

some photographs were take

participant was always the teacher through fixed lottery

learner was always in on the experiment

teacher was given a sample shock of 45v to stimulate genuineness 

learner strapped to chair with electrodes attached to wrists

teacher told shocks would be painful but cause no tissue damage

teacher then sat in front of shock generator which went from 15 to a deadly 450 volts - it was in an adjacent room so couldn't see learner

teacher had to test learner on word pairs

incorrect answers = a shock (starting at 15 and increasing 15 each time to 450)

incorrect answers were given on ratio of 3:1 

shocks weren't real the teacher just thought they were

the answers were given using a tape recording of a set of predetermined responses 

standard prods were given by experimenter who was a tall man in a lab coat- (situational?) i.e. "Please continue"

finished when teacher either refused to continue or went to 450v

there was a full debrief and friendly reconciliation with learner

results:

all subjects obeyed up to 300v level

5 refused after 300v

4 refused after 350v

26/40 continued to 450v level

many participants showed signs of extreme stress - tension was noted (i.e. clawing at skin, nervous laughter, wiping of the brow)

3 participants and full blown seizures 

75% (26 participants were defined as obedient as they reached the 450v level)

remaining 25% were disobedient 

prior to the study psychology students estimated the percentage of participants who would go up to highest shock level - they estimated between 1 and 3 (mean of 1.2)

explanations:

milgram said there were 13 possible explanations-

the fact it was carried out in yale university (worthiness of the study?)- situational explanation as the competence of the experimenter telling him to go on - a prestigious tall man - intelligence of yale

they were told shocks weren't deadly/harmful - they just hurt

the situation was completely new so they had no past experiences to guide their behaviour

usefulness:

offers an explanation to why people obey in certain situations

shows individuals are socialized to obey, adding to nature/nurture debate. in light of this knowledge, it should be possible to ensure that social systems like the nazis are never allowed to become dominant

changes that could be made:

changing learner to female? less likely to go through as it is more socially wrong to harm a female

no prompts? less likely to continue to 450v as prompts give the impression they can't withdraw - you're more likely to continue if someone is telling you to

field experiment? higher ecological validity, as it is in a real life setting and can see how far people are likely to go depending as what you're asked is likely to implicate if you will go to the limit of 450v

[aspsychologynotes]

PILIAVIN - SUBWAY STUDY

4450 participants - 45% black 55% white

on a train

11pm -8pm over 3 months

in 1968

it was a field experiment on new york subway

on a 7 and a half min journey

and 103 trials were carried out

there were 4 teams of 4 people - 2 observers (women) and a victim and a model (both male)

70 seconds into the journey - victim staggard forward and collapsed 

if he received no help by end of journey, model would help him to his feet

at end they all left train and waited separately for the train in opposite direction to repeat

IV -

white, black, ill (had black cane), drunk (smelt of liquor and carried a liquor bottle wrapped in a brown bag)

affect of a model (after 70 or 150 seconds, from critical or adjacent area or no model at all

size of the witnessing group which varied naturally on each journey

DVs (observers recorded these things):

time taken for first person to help (speed of help)

total numbers of passengers who helped (frequency of help)

gender race and location of helpers

sex of helper

movement out of critical area (aka, how many people moved out of train carriage) 

verbal comments by bystanders

standardized:

victim always collapsed in same place

victim in each team wore same clothes

observers recorded unobtrusively

each time got on oposite trains to avoid same passangers

results:

more help given to ill victim

men most often first to help 90%

some tenancy for same race helping in drunk condition

cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of time

drunk received help 50% of the time

help offered more quickly to cane - median of 5 seconds

help offered at median of 109 seconds

response happened faster with larger groups - no diffusion of responsibility was found

more comments made in drunk condition - most made after no help within the first 70 seconds

usefulness:

bystanders make a cost-reward analysis before offering help as it offered understanding on why people assist or don't assist those in need

situational effects - if someone witnesses an event and can't escape, they're more likely to offer assistance

changes that could me made:

more observers - to agree on behavior and have better inter-rater reliability

observers in critical section - make results more reliable

debrief passengers 1 week after by poster with a phone number if want further info - passengers may be distressed - increases ethics

use a lab experiment - controls can be increased to increase reliability however would be low in ecological validity and demand characteristics may be expressed